(Katherine Birdsong) USofA - The Future of Nuclear Energyin the United States

The Future of Nuclear Energy in the United States

By Katherine Birdsong B.Sc. Biology and Environmental Science Staff Member, allaboutenergy.net March 15, 2020 The use of commercial nuclear energy in the United States and in many countries around the world is currently at a crossroads. What industrial leaders and politicians act upon in the next four to ten years will lay the groundwork either for a nuclear energy revival, or usher us towards future harms with continued indifferent to negative attitudes toward nuclear energy combined with a utopian hopes for loweroutput, expensive, or partially-viable forms of renewable energy.

The political climate of the United States remains closely divided, although the pro and anti- nuclear power shift shows a slight edge towards boldness in pursuit of nuclear. The recent pro-America groundswell provides a drafting effect for pro-nuclear energy momentum. This, ironically, will serve a globalist interest as well. Carbon emissions are zero for nuclear energy, a rate left-leaning, global-minded citizens can embrace. While far from ideal or smoothly calibrated, pro-nuclear and pro-environment change agents have risen to positions of prominence. Nuclear energy needs leaders who will not back away from controversial energy positions and who can clearly communicate the role of nuclear in the near and long-term U.S. energy policy. Today, nuclear energy as an inexpensive, clean, and viable source remains a vital component of the U.S. energy infrastructure. However, both new nuclear concepts and visions, as well as old nuclear stalwart producers appear to be hidden in plain sight, their endeavors and plans rarely discussed in the mainstream public square of debates. The focus of the public is elsewhere, so nuclear would need to fight for a turn to speak and be heard.

Today (mid-March, 2020) U.S. energy production as a whole, as a public debate concern, rests quietly on the back burner. Thankfully, the current nuclear production for the nation is averaging about 20% of the total energy generated. This is, on the world’s grading system, a “C” or “C-.” It should be a “B” or “B+” but the U.S. has failed to move the ball enough. Nuclear energy, as a practical issue, is a moderate success. However, nuclear is not succeeding in its enormous potential to grow and alleviate critical needs energy - environment - medical - for today and, more importantly, the future of this country. The once-vogue conversations, public commentary, and passions and vision

1

for clean energy, and especially the nuclear varieties, has waned. I do not have hard data to back up this statement - it is an unscientific observation.

In recent years, I noticed Liquid Natural Gas and fracking stories soaked up most of the publishers’ ink, along with stories about solar energy and electric cars. “Alternative energy” is a vogue topic on university campuses, and nuclear remains the ugly stepchild, at least conversationally. China and other countries’ quiet pursuit of new nuclear builds creep up, increasing steadily, not in hiding, but with little fanfare or eyebrows raised abroad. The U.S. new builds, in stark comparison, are either non-existent, or limping to the finish, with the Plant Vogtle, Georgia build moaning a doom and gloom funeral dirge toward any would-be investors in new nuclear plants. Bankruptcy and price overruns have a way of discouraging new investors. Awash in inexpensive oil, the U.S., in about a New York minute, grows sadly complacent about energy. Our wallets are energy fat; the supplies of oil under a Republican administration, beginning in 2016, grew robustly. As long as the average consumer is content to burn oil as a major source of energy, even to fuel their “green” electric cars, there will be little ground support to overcome the challenges of new nuclear energy projects.

The United States’ rise to prominence as a net positive energy producer and exporter has, quite simply, taken some of the urgency required to push corporate boards and companies towards the risks of new nuclear. This does not have to be this way, but until courageous leaders are willing to invest political capital on nuclear energy, the passions will run along lines of least resistance, driven by other issues and obstacles. In a factdriven world, nuclear energy will prevail in any legitimate debate, discussion, or comparison of energy alternatives. But facts, in a political age where science is politicized, are dodgy creatures of the underworld. They cannot be summoned without practical weapons of bright light, logic and an adult to aim the light. These tools are rarely welcome in mainstream media and common dialogue.

While not a main voting issue, nuclear energy still inserts itself into political campaigns.

Bernie Sanders, Vermont Senator (D) claimed, if elected, he would eradicate all nuclear energy plants in the US. This type of balderdash rhetoric appeals in a knee-jerk way to anti-progress, anti-math, Death to Capitalists!- type followers. I think nuclear energy is safe from Feeling the Bern, however. More important than worrying about a Sanders impact on nuclear energy, nuclear advocates should target this same constituency and attempt to convert those who have been lied to about the environmental impacts of nuclear energy. Bernie Sanders star will set, soon, and unless advocates go on the offensive with an accurate, succinct, and well-packaged message, a new start will emerge to build and solidify the damaging and unscientifically based scare tactics begun.

2

Because nuclear is no longer in the public spotlight, its future success is diminishing.

Success begets success, and nuclear is in a slight retreat in the U.S. This situation must be reversed in order to shift the momentum. Current power plants in operation need or will soon need updates, which cost millions of dollars. In order to move forward with building the most cost effective and “green” power plant, energy policies must change.

The political squabble over how to dispose of “nuclear waste” has made it practically impossible to make any progress in promoting nuclear energy. Now is not the time to surrender, to slow down efforts, or to question “will this ever succeed.” The question is not “will it” but “how will it” and more importantly, perhaps, “who?” Nuclear energy advocacy will require strong leadership and a more booming, unified voice that demands to be heard both in the public square and in the necessary government offices.

Nuclear can recover and progress in the future, after recent setbacks, only if it undergoes an image makeover. Sadly, the word nuclear still draws negative images of explosions and radioactive deer. People remember events such as Fukushima and Chernobyl yet recall little or nothing of the causes or casualties of these disasters. The consumption of Bullet Point News, “fake news,” and Instagram attention spans must be met head on by those who can capture the attention of both young adults and old.

Nuclear advocates need to rebrand nuclear, soon, and regardless of political winds of change. Pro-nuclear environmentalists should not let the trendy aesthetic of ‘green’ energy paint the narrative, practically unchecked, as it currently does.

There are many good examples of commercial nuclear power. Here are some: Argentina – Embalse Nuclear Station.

3

French nuclear power stations showing number of units. France has many outstanding features for their nuclear power program. This includes: standardization of plants at the same site – optimization of spare parts and staff – planning for long term continued operation of nuclear power at each site – planning for recycling of use fuel.

Many of these details are missing in most countries.

France, Penly Nuclear Power Station showing two existing operating plants and site for two replacement plants at end of life of existing plants.

Brilliant, simple planning lacking in many other countries.

4

Canada -Bruce Power Station.

The Canadians, like the French do an outstanding job of managing, operating and maintaining their nuclear power plants.

China – Hongyanhe Nuclear Power Station

5

Czech Republic – Temelin Nuclear Power Station

Germany – Gundremmingen Power Station

6

Jordan – Research and Test Reactor

Russia – Kursk Nuclear Power Station

7

South Africa – Koeberg Nuclear Power Station with free-roaming wildlife right up to the perimeter fence.

USA, California – Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station.

Heather Matteson, nuclear power plant operator, co-founder with Kristin Zaitz, Mothers for Nuclear.

8

USA, California – Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station

The Netherlands – A country reclaimed from the sea and made beautiful and prosperous by hard work.

The rest of the world could follow its example.

Don’t let false prophet alarmists destroy everything.

9