Henry J. Waters, III, opines that without an increase in nuclear power generation, it will be impossible to reduce emissions to safe and acceptable levels. So says William Miller, professor emeritus of nuclear engineering with the MU Research Reactor. Miller is well known as a proponent of nuclear generation and according to Waters he always has made a persuasive case. He reminds us in a recent column on these pages that nuclear is the largest source of zero-carbon electricity in the U.S. At a time when the world is promising to reduce carbon emissions, ignoring such a source seems foolish and dangerous. But of course nuclear expansion has its challenges. It is costly(?), but how costly compared with the alleged implications of continued failure to reduce harmful emissions? And it is said to pose problems with storage of waste fuel, a largely political problem with known scientific solutions. Recently, in addition to concerns over lack of new production, Miller worries about unnecessary closure of nuclear plants. Not only is the carbon-free production lost, the capacity is made up with natural gas generation producing more tons of new carbon dioxide emissions. Waters is no nuclear engineer, but simple mathematics tells us we will not meet carbon reduction standards with current approaches. Plans to put a few solar panels on a few roofs are touted. Ditto with wind power fields here and here. There is nothing wrong with increasing generation from these sources, but we should also agree they are far from providing a solution and show no sign they ever will. It might make sense to pour new money into alternative fuel research and development, but it makes no sense to ignore the surest way to reduce carbon emissions by easing restrictions on funding nuclear construction. With generations of experience behind us, we know once the cost of original construction is absorbed, ongoing production is safe and cost-effective, and the atmosphere is better for it. Read on ..
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
