View page 08 or full spread

As the discussion intensifies, from both sides of the political spectrum, and from polar opinion leaders like U.S Sen. John McCain (R) or Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore, more and more nuclear energy is growing on more Americans. A June 2008 Zogby poll revealed: “Respondents were more likely to say they would support a nuclear power plant (43%), over an electric power plant which had its fuel source from natural gas (26%), coal (8%) or oil (1%).”

Nuclear energy is produced by either boiling or pressurizing water reactors; pipes carry the steam directly to a turbine, which drives an electric generator to produce electricity. Nuclear plants do not burn any materials, thus producing no greenhouse gases or combustion byproducts.

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, from the 104 plants operating in the U.S., nuclear generation prevented 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year – equivalent to taking nearly every single gas-powered passenger car off the road.

But the central point of contention is the handling of nuclear waste. High-level radioactive waste consists of irradiated nuclear reactor fuel and certain liquid and solid wastes. But when measured up to other non-renewable energy generation processes, nuclear plants produce very little waste. Moore recalled: “A problem solved by France 30 years ago, nearly all of their waste can be recycled to run through nuclear power stations over again.” However, the French model serves only as a sample for advancing American nuclear plants.

Since the 1970s America has not constructed any new nuclear plants, even though nuclear may indeed be one logical answer to America’s energy woes. The estimated costs of building a safe nuclear plant run from $15-$25 billion. Many utilities currently operating on gas and coal are hesitant to invest in nuclear when supply of cheaper fossil fuels remain available. Others fear potential backlash for diverting water from, say, agriculture or drinking to produce nuclear energy. But the thicker skull to crack is insurmountable public prejudice and not-in-my-back-yard sentiments that seem to prevent the rapid adoption of nuclear coast-to-coast.