This is number three in a series of posts summing up what the Lights On Oregon Blog has covered in the last two months. On Sunday we examined geothermal energy, and last week we noted the power of wind. Today we are going to explore nuclear energy. As was shown in our first post regarding nuclear energy, the U.S. must start generating more nuclear energy. Moreover, according to the U.S. Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy there is no country more addicted to the use of fossil fuels than the U.S. We concluded this article by declaring:

Diversity in energy is critical. When we rely on one source for energy (fossil fuels), we are forging a dangerous path for our future.

Next, Brazil announced that they are going to build 60 new nuclear power plants.  When these plants are built, Brazil will look much like France where nuclear power has been a huge success—it now generates 76% of all of their electricity. We concluded the article by stating that

This is the fact of the matter: nuclear works. It’s clean. It’s safe. It’s financially competitive.

Next, we demonstrated that clean secure energy requires nuclear power. For According to Robert J. McTaggart, assistant professor of physics at South Dakota State University in Brookings:

Because we stopped building large “base-load” power plants more than a decade ago, some regions of the U.S. face potentially damaging power shortages. Excess capacity in the grid system is falling, and some experts now foresee possible cascading blackouts or brownouts.

Finally, we noted that the environmental activist Mark Lynas even agrees nuclear is part of the equation for clean, reliable, and affordable energy.

The climate change expert Mark Lynas has been scorned by eco-colleagues for daring to speak up for atomic power

As reported by the Times Online:

The Green case against nuclear power is based largely on myth and dogma. My tipping point came when I discovered just how much nuclear power has changed since I first set my mind against it.

Curiosity whetted, I searched the scientific literature for evidence to support the other great green charge levelled at nuclear power: it kills its neighbours. I sifted through piles of rigorous epidemiological studies from all over the world, searching for proof that people who live near nuclear sites are more prone to cancer and leukaemia. None of the reputable journals turned up a link.

When I e-mailed a senior ecological scientist with my conclusions, he agreed, but only privately. “Do not cite me as promoting nuclear,” he begged. I am still shocked that people of his stature are too intimidated to speak out. The result of this fear is that the public is dangerously misinformed about nuclear power.

To see more information regarding nuclear energy, check out these three stories.

Diversity in energy is critical. When we rely on one source for energy (fossil fuels), we are forging a dangerous path for our future. Nuclear energy is a step in the right direction. It’s affordable, clean, safe, and by-golly, needed.

Mark Lynas realized this and he stood up for truth—even when it wasn’t popular. “The public is dangerously misinformed about nuclear power.” There is a disinformation campaign against nuclear energy. Intimidation is one of its main tactics. However, truth has an uncanny way of coming to the surface…even when it’s not popular.

Tell your friends about this website; help us get the word out.

“Because we stopped building large “base-load” [nuclear, etc] power plants more than a decade ago, some regions of the U.S. face potentially damaging power shortages. Excess capacity in the grid system is falling, and some experts now foresee possible cascading blackouts or brownouts. Our own energy bills are not immune from these effects.”

Nuclear power is “Clean, Safe, and Affordable.” By combining the use of nuclear and renewable energies (wind, wave, hydro, etc) we can achieve energy independence. Americans, we can win this battle. We can stop our addiction to fossil fuels. We can clean up our environment. And—we can do it in an affordable manor.

Will we?

Radical Environmental groups not only oppose all forms of renewable energy (see the information on our homepage), but the also oppose nuclear and LNG. Someone needs to explain to me what energy form we can use, if we cannot use the above mentioned? Nuclear energy is needed. Show your support for affordable, renewable, and clean energy: sign our petition.

According to Robert J. McTaggart, assistant professor of physics at South Dakota State University in Brookings:

Recently, several environmental leaders have contended that a combination of renewable energy sources and conservation alone can meet all future energy needs while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to pre-1990 levels. Certainly, conservation is worthwhile: Efforts to eliminate the waste in energy use and develop more energy-efficient technologies can reduce the need for more electricity-generating capacity. Recent experience in California is proof of that.

Since 1990, California’s economy has shown steady growth, but energy use has been flat. Much of the credit for this achievement goes to the state’s electric utilities, which conducted energy audits of thousands of homes and office buildings and offered energy-savings through time-of-day pricing and other incentives to use less electricity through demand-side management. The utilities also installed solar, geothermal and wind energy systems. But they found out they would not be able to get by with conservation and renewable energy sources alone. San Francisco-based Pacific Gas and Electric Co. said it would need more nuclear power to meet projected growth in electricity demand.

Because we stopped building large “base-load” power plants more than a decade ago, some regions of the U.S. face potentially damaging power shortages. Excess capacity in the grid system is falling, and some experts now foresee possible cascading blackouts or brownouts. Our own energy bills are not immune from these effects.

Addressing the growing demand for electricity - more than 25 percent by 2030 given average economic conditions, according to a June 2008 Energy Information Administration report - only with fossil fuels will result in additional fuel price increases and unwanted foreign entanglements. On top of this, a diverse mix of clean-energy sources will be required to satisfy potential caps on carbon dioxide emissions by Congress. Of the energy sources currently available, nuclear power is best suited to simultaneously address our national security needs, reduce our carbon emissions and meet the future energy demands of the nation.

Today, nuclear power accounts for 19 percent of the nation’s electricity and 74 percent of the carbon-free power generation. Nuclear power is clean, safe and affordable. Last year, the cost of producing nuclear-generated electricity, on average, was 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour. By comparison, it cost 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour to provide electricity from coal, 6.8 cents from natural gas and 10.2 cents from oil. The performance of nuclear plants today is vastly improved over what it had been 25 years ago. In 2007, the 104 U.S. nuclear plants, on average, were producing electricity 92 percent of the time compared to 56 percent of the time in 1979. Annual production of electrical power has increased from 255 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity to more than 800 billion kilowatt-hours - with the same number of plants.

One argument many have made against nuclear power is the production of spent fuel - aka nuclear waste. Spent fuel today is stored safely and securely at nuclear plant sites until it can be transported to a central repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The volume of waste produced by nuclear power is tiny compared with what is produced by fossil fuels, and heavy metals and dust from fossil fuel wastes are more likely to get into our air and water than anything produced by nuclear power.

“Nuclear waste” is somewhat of a misnomer: Approximately 90 percent of today’s spent nuclear fuel can be (and probably should be) reprocessed, reused and converted into electricity.

…Without nuclear power…it will be difficult to achieve energy security and reduce our emissions of carbon and heavy metals without seriously affecting our standard of living.

Following this, according to the New York Times:

The United States could have 40 or 50 new reactors by 2030, said Richard J. Myers, vice president of policy development at the Energy Institute. But “this assumes the first four or eight just go very nicely and very smoothly,” he said.

Renewable energy is coming. The fossil fuel addiction will be broken.

Yes, it’s true. Brazil is on the road to energy independence:

Mines and Energy Minister Edison Lobao announced Friday Brazil plans to build 50 to 60 nuclear power plants in half a century, with each having capacity of 1,000 megawatts.

“The general idea is to build one plant per year,” he said during a visit to the construction site of Brazil’s third nuclear power plant, Angra 3.

The US needs to take the hint: nuclear is the future. Consider this article from the New York Times:

In France, however, it [nuclear energy] is a national cause. The political left and right are united. Extraneous matters do not intrude. In a recent newspaper interview, the head of the French nuclear monopoly, Rene Carle, said that ”any three people can get together to stop a nuclear plant” in the United States. France is different. ”There is a unique national consensus here,” Mr. Delaney reports. ”The French believe their survival depends on nuclear power. That’s why in France it works.”

Presumably, this is true. Coal mines in France are exhausted. The country is dependent on OPEC for oil. ”Only in France,” Mr. Delaney reports, ”did Chernobyl fail to ignite public outrage. There is no anti-nuclear party here and the issue no longer sparks political debate.”

The results are impressive; 76 percent of French electricity is now generated by nuclear power - the United States’s figure is 16 percent - and France exports its technology to the world. There are reasons for this, and ”Nuclear Power: In France It Works” explains them. It is a solid piece of work.

Speaking to nuclear energy Rene de Preneuf proclaims:

Looking at nuclear statistics in the world, one can only wonder why France occupies such an exceptional place. While nuclear electricity production barely attains 10 to 60 per-cent, at the most, in neighbouring countries, and 17 percent worldwide, it reaches 80 percent in France. While Germany and Sweden are phasing out nuclear and the US, the UK, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, etc. are implementing a de factomoratorium, the French are discussing launching a first-of-its-kind EPR reactor to prepare for the renewal of the aging first generation nuclear plants.

This is the fact of the matter: nuclear works. It’s clean. It’s safe. It’s financially competitive.

According to Reuters,

The United States needs to start generating more of its power from nuclear energy…the U.S. Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy said on Thursday.

Dennis Spurgeon told a nuclear energy industry conference in London that the era of cheap oil was over and action was needed to tackle an “energy crisis” facing the United States.

Spurgeon said there was no country more addicted to the use of fossil fuels than the U.S., and Washington had been “somewhat slow” to react to the need for change.

Spurgeon said the U.S. need to generate energy from low carbon sources was rising in the face of increases in fossil fuel costs, global warming and the need to avoid becoming dependent on single energy sources.

Spurgeon is right on target. Diversity in energy is critical. When we rely on one source for energy (fossil fuels), we are forging a dangerous path for our future. Nuclear energy is a step in the right direction. A step in the direction of diversity. A step in the direction of energy dependence. A step in the direction of clean energy. A step in the right direction for Oregon. The Lights on Oregon Nuclear section is still in development. Nevertheless, continue thinking about the different energy options we have. Lights on Oregon’s Nuclear section is now live. Make sure to check it out.

In Conclusion

Oregon should not be 86% (round number) relient on fossil fuels. Our state motto proclaims, “She flies with her own wings.” So then, let’s fly with our own wings. Let’s work towards energy indipendence. Let’s break the addiction.