Is Nuclear Energy Really Low-Carbon?

Upon review of the article "Nuclear energy: assessing the emissions," I still find myself reluctant to support nuclear energy as an effective carbon-reducing solution for the next 50 years. Although there is evidence that a plant produces very little carbon in its emissions, the article provides some point and counterpoint arguments regarding the efficiency in steps leading up to and following the actual plant operation.

Personally, my biggest concern has always been the handling of waste and the decommissioning of plants. Therefore, I never really took into consideration the steps that it takes to produce nuclear power in the first place. I did not put thought into the construction of the plant or the mining and transportaiton of the uranium. While I agree with Paul Genoa's stance that we need a protfolio with multiple solutions, I am not convinced that nuclear energy should be one of the components of that portfolio.

Because wind and solar energy emit up to six times less carbon dioxide, and since these solutions take less time and money to implement, it seems clear that these options should be implemented before nuclear energy. We're talking about a much shorter payback period for wind and solar energy. The Energy Policy Act seems to have spurred many license applications, since the Act offers tax breaks and loan guarantees.

However, it seems like nuclear energy will continue to experience an uphill battle with President Obama as well as in the court of public opinion. For example, Obama refused additional funding to the Yucca Mountain Project for waste disposal. Closer to home, the Piketon request for funding for uranium enrichment did not get approved by Obama. This site was formerly used to enrich uranium during the Cold War, and last year, Duke Energy announced plans to open a plant there. Also, the Ohio Action Committee constantly rallies against nuclear energy (hint: correlation of health problems). In 2003 the Davis-Besse plant was shut down for repairs when the NRC found extensive corrosive damage to the reactor vessel head; and the Perry plant was shutdown in 2003 when there was the massive northeast power outage.

Regarding natural disasters, we truly have some risks associated with the impact of natural disasters. For example, the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio was hit by a tornado in 1998. Transmission towers were damaged, which affected the supply of power to the customer base. The very possiblity that a tornado could have damaged a more unstable and dangerous part of the plant just blows my mind (better than blowing up a community or two). This risk exists with any plant located in an area that exeriences earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes; so we have pretty much ruled out all states as plant site candidates.

Finally, if the goal is to level off the carbon emissions over the next 50 years, then Genoa is way off base when he attempts to promote the future capabilities of plants running on lower-grade uranium, as well as future improvements in mining uranium. These are all longer-term possibilities, and decisions need to be made as to where to invest money - in research for solutions to some of the issues of this political hot potato - or in wind and solar energy to start reaping the benefits of lower emissions now!