With the announcement by Governor Ted Strickland that a nuclear power plant will be built in Piketon, Ohio, controversy is growing as to the environmental aspects of nuclear energy. Residents already know the problems of nuclear power plants, as shown by their comments in various news articles such as "Piketon residents cautiously optimistic about nuclear plant proposal" from the Columbus Dispatch, due to the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant which was located in the town for 50 years and shortened the lives of many residents, especially those who worked in the plant.  This has caused current residents to wonder if this will be safe for their community. On the other hand, there are those who do support this developement as they believe that nuclear power is a clean source of energy.

Is nuclear power environmentally friendly?

While nuclear energy is safer than coal, it is much worse than solar, wind, and water power due to the nuclear waste created and the time and money it takes to see the environmental benefits. While most nuclear plants have safe waste storage areas in their facilities, the waste only stays in those facilities for a short period of time. When enough waste has accumulated, it is transported to an underground storage area where the waste is buried with hopes that it will not leak. There are continuing problems with long-term waste storage facilites which have not been fixed. Futhermore, more waste is created from the contaminated soil and water used in nuclear power generation and nuclear related mining generates tailing and water pollution.

Nuclear power can be considered a clean source of energy despite the waste it produces. It does not contribute to global warming as it gives off no carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Reduction of air pollution is furthered as, unlike other sources of energy, nuclear power has no mercury or smog, acid rain, and soot causing emissions. Also, without nuclear power nitrogen oxide emissions of electric utilities would be two million tons higher per year. The Exelon Corporation runs 17 nuclear power plants throughout the country and shows how these plants help reduce climate change. There are other elements that can be used for nulcear energy generation, other than uranium, that produce less waste. However, they do still produce waste and they cost more. Safer storage methods are being developed, including a recycling program which would create usable fuel from the useless waste produced which means that nuclear power may become one of our cleanest sources of energy some time in the future. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is a non-profit group, which works to reduce climate change through methods of energy production. They are one of the groups working to create new technologies that will make nuclear power a safer and more enviornmentally friendly source of energy because they believe it is a necessary source for the reduction of climate change.

Cost is another issue associated with nuclear power.  Nuclear plants stopped being built in the 1970's because they cost 15-30% more than other conventional means of power generation.  The last plant to be built before 2007 was the Watts Bar 1 generator which took over 20 years and, according to estimates for the second reactor as given by the Chattanooga Times Free Press and other news sources, approximately $2.5 billion to build. These prices, along with the Three Mile Island and the Chernobyl disaster, caused many countries, including the US, to stop production of new plants.  Now, however, the nulcear industry argues that nuclear power is "the only energy option available today that can provide large scale electricity 24/7 at a competitive cost without emitting greehouse gases." The Nuclear Illusion, a report in the library of the Rocky Mountain Institute, shows that none of these claims are accurate. According to this report, which does not take into account he cost of waste storage, nuclear energy is more expensive to produce than energy from coal, natural gas, and renewable resources. Furthermore, energy production does not have to be large-scale or continuous. It is actually cheaper to produce energy on a smaller-scale with a network of generators. Renewable resources also create more jobs and more energy per dollar than nuclear power.

Many organizations, such as American Energy Independence, argue that nuclear energy is one of the most environmentally friendly ways to reduce independence on foreign resources. However, the Union of Concerned Scientists has done research on the reliability of nuclear power and its effect on imported energy resources and does not agree. Nuclear energy is not as reliable as some may think. Because of the large amount of water used as coolant, nuclear power plants have to reduce or completely stop production during a drought. They also disprove the misconception that nuclear power reduces the United States' dependence on imported resources. Uranium is only found and parts for nuclear plants are only produced in very few places on Earth and so must be imported to meet the energy demands of the US. Furthermore, nuclear energy would not reduce our use of imported oil because oil is not used for electricity production, unlike nuclear energy.

On the other hand, the Union of Concerned Scientists does agree that, because of the need for the reversal of climate change, nuclear power should be used but first it should be revised to make it safer, more cost effective, and more environmentally friendly.

There are many issures to be resolved if the US is going to continue to use nuclear energy. Because of the continuing debate over its environmental friendliness, cost, and effect on our use of foreign resources, new research and information will because available, allowing the US to make more informed decisions as to their use of nuclear energy and its effects on climate change and the economy. For more information on either side of the nuclear debate, visit any of the resources above.