As US states grapple with finding alternative sources of energy, I couldn’t help but wonder about the ramifications of Japan’s nuclear power plant problems this past weekend. First some quick stats, the US is currently the world’s largest producer of nuclear power, with 104 nuclear reactors in 31 states, operated by 30 different power companies.
Government policy changes since the late 1990s have helped pave the way for significant growth in nuclear capacity. In fact, president Barack Obama has pushed for the expansion of nuclear power to help meet the country’s energy demands, lower its dependence on imported fossil fuels and reduce its climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, a number of states have been considering upping their nuclear power allocations as part of their master energy plans.
And following a 30-year period in which few new reactors were built, the World Nuclear Association estimates that four to six new units may come on line by 2018, the first of those resulting from 16 license applications to build 24 new nuclear reactors made since mid-2007.
But this number could change as many people’s worst fears regarding nuclear energy were realized this past weekend when one of Japan’s nuclear reactors had an explosion and another leaked radiation. On Sunday, protesters gathered in Germany to denounce the use of nuclear power, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more protests in the coming weeks.
But I think it’s important to put the event in Japan in context. While the numbers vary, there have been close to 100 worldwide accidents since the inception of nuclear facilities in the 1950s. Most of these did not result in fatalities and only two were major--Chernobyl, which was due largely to negligence and occurred while Russia was controlled by a Communist government, and Three Mile Island, which actually leaked a comparatively small amount of radiation thanks to the safety precautions in place. I would argue that this isn’t a bad track record and it’s certainly better than relying on foreign sources for our fuel.
Also, the US is not Japan. We have a large landmass to work with and we can pick locations to house nuclear reactors that are relatively free of natural disasters, such as the Northeast, Northwest and even parts of the Southwest. Still, the concerns people have are certainly valid. So what do you think? Should we continue pursuing an energy policy that is more heavily weighted toward nuclear sources or is there an alternative solution?
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.
Once you are an ALM Digital Member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking commercial real estate news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical coverage of the property casualty insurance and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, PropertyCasualty360 and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
*May exclude premium content© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
