Over the past weeks, we have watched as the Sendai earthquake and tsunami have thrown Japan's nuclear power plants into a deepening state of emergency. Even as the repairs are made and the reactors cool, neighboring towns will likely suffer the effects of radiation for decades to come.
These tragic events have sparked valid concerns among the American public and policymakers alike about the nation's existing nuclear power facilities and should serve as a much needed wake−up call for the state of our own nuclear regulations.
A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists found 14 "near miss" incidents in which a nuclear plant was in serious danger during 2010. The report also identified "serious safety problems" at three other U.S. plants, including the Indian Point nuclear power plant, located roughly 25 miles north of New York City, which has had a leaking reactor liner for years. Meanwhile, funding for inspectors is dangerously low, and Republicans have proposed deep cuts to the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy and radioactive emergency response training, among other programs.
President Obama has responded by ordering a complete review of the nation's 104 nuclear power plants, and budget hearings for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have begun in Congress to address an overhaul of the nation's nuclear safety programs.
Yet this new drive for strong regulatory safeguards need not prevent the construction of more modern nuclear power plants. As Secretary of Energy Steven Chu put it, the best response is to "use this opportunity to learn as best we can." In many ways, nuclear energy remains an appealing option. Statistics from the World Health Organization suggest that producing a terawatt hour of nuclear energy leads to 0.04 worker deaths on average, while the same amount leads to 36 deaths in the petroleum industry and 161 deaths from coal mining.
Developing our nuclear capacity also reduces our dependence on foreign oil. Dwindling supplies and volatility in the Middle East and North Africa have recently pushed oil prices to a two−year high, solidifying the need for alternative energy sources. Fossil fuels are leading sources of carbon dioxide emissions, while nuclear power plants are virtually carbon−free.
As a nation, we should take this opportunity to embrace newer, safer nuclear technology that has emerged from recent research. While the United States is currently the largest producer of nuclear power, no new plants have been begun construction since the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979. As a result, our plants are rapidly aging while other countries are building new ones. Over three−quarters of France's energy use, for example, is covered by nuclear production.
At the same time, the Chinese Academy of Sciences recently announced its decision to construct a "thorium−based molten salt reactor system," which they claim produces 1,000 times less hazardous waste than uranium−based reactors and uses a simple powerless failsafe in the event of a possible meltdown. While the United States was instrumental in the advent of nuclear power, it is other countries that are perfecting its less−dangerous iterations.
Now more than ever, U.S. nuclear energy policy must be approached in a way that holds the protection of its citizens as the highest priority. Yet setting a high standard of safety need not deter the ingenuity of American researchers and entrepreneurs. Obama should continue to honor his promise of a new century of safe, modern nuclear power.
