Nuclear Power Part of Dr. Chu’s Green Energy Prescription

The Obama administration, particularly Energy Secretary Steven Chu, has identified nuclear power as part of its vision of a green energy future in the US. (image: cmpcomms.files.wordpress.com)

Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu was one of four ranking Obama Administration officials who recently told the Senate that the United States needs more nuclear power.  Together with the secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, plus the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Dr. Chu told the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works that “I think nuclear power is going to be a very important factor in getting us to a low carbon future …[q]uite frankly, we want to recapture the lead on industrial nuclear power.”

This is not a surprising position for the Nobel Prize-winning physicist to adopt. During his confirmation hearings, Chu told the Senate that “I’m supportive of the fact that the nuclear industry should have to be part of the energy mix in this century.” He’s been a staunch believer that nuclear power is a “necessary part” of our nation’s energy portfolio and that it’s far less dangerous than commonly believed. For example, as Dr. Chu has noted, the use of coal for energy releases more radioactivity than nuclear plants. That’s because coal contains small amounts of uranium or thorium. In coal’s natural state, the amounts are barely detectable; however, when it’s burned for power, the radioactive materials become concentrated in the waste ash.

How much more radioactive? Scientists at Oakridge National Laboratory performed a study in 1978 which compared radiation exposure near coal-fired power plants to radiation exposure near nuclear plants. The results showed that people living near coal plants had 3 to 6 times as much radiation exposure as those living near nuclear reactors.  And that was with the older-style reactors; as The HEAT Zone has reported, new reactor types in development are smaller, more efficient, and even safer than those currently in commercial operation.

Of course, nobody has turned green from living near coal plants, so the comparison highlights the relative safety and small ecological footprint of nuclear energy, rather than vilifying coal. However, it’s also true that unlike coal, nuclear power does not emit carbon or contribute to global warming. In keeping with this, Secretary Chu has in the past expressed concerns about coal, at one point (early in his career) calling coal his “worst nightmare.”

Energy Secretary Steven Chu with President Obama. (image: msn.com)

While he’s mellowed his position considerably since then, he is still something of a skeptic about coal, voicing doubts about how quickly carbon capture and other “clean coal” technology can be practically implemented.  Since Dr. Chu, regardless of his personal beliefs, works for President Obama, his support for nuclear energy must come with the President’s blessing. What then, is causing President Obama to throw his Administration’s weight behind nuclear power?

Politics, of course—both domestic and international. The Administration needs Senate support for a climate change bill. However, many Senators, including conservative Democrats and Democrats from manufacturing states, as well as Republicans, believe that focusing on wind and solar power while limiting carbon emissions may help the environment but hurt the economy. They worry about rising energy costs and its impact on industry, manufacturing, and the American consumer—especially now, during a deep recession. Many senators also want to see faster progress towards energy or oil independence. And they want to generate more jobs, especially high-paying construction jobs, to help pull the nation out of the recession—and bring dollars to their home states, of course.

Nuclear power, a proven energy source, using domestically mined fuel and involving big construction projects, can address all of those concerns. By supporting nuclear power and making it part of its overall energy policy, the Administration hopes to solidify the support of wavering Democrats and convince some Republicans to cross the aisle and back climate-change legislation.

The Administration also wants to demonstrate international leadership on environmental issues, to motivate other nations to sign up for the fight against climate change. Many actions necessary to reduce carbon emissions and rein in global warming are painful, especially for developing nations (like China or India, both of which have been rapidly industrializing) or nations with older infrastructures (like Russia). Unless the U.S. can get its domestic house in order and show real commitment to reducing carbon emissions, there’s little chance it can convince other countries to swallow their own medicine.

A crucial international conference on climate change is scheduled to take place in Copenhagen this December, which puts a time limit on how long the Administration has to shepherd a climate bill through Congress and sign it into law. Congress moves slowly at the best of times—six months, to pass a law on an issue that strikes to both the wallets and hearts of many Congressional constituents, is not long at all.

Hence, the Administration has chosen to go for the nuclear option.