Global Warming Gives Nuclear Green Sheen

30 Years After Three Mile Island Disaster, Nuclear Power Gets Big Boost In Public Mind

(AP)  The nation's worst nuclear power plant accident was unfolding on Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island when an industry economist took the rostrum at a nearby business luncheon.

It did not go well.

Those in the standing-room-only crowd listened to economist Doug Biden's thoughts about cheap, reliable nuclear power, but Biden could not calm their nerves or answer their pointed questions: Should they join the tens of thousands of people fleeing south-central Pennsylvania? Should they let their children drink local milk?

Three decades later, fears of an atomic catastrophe have been largely supplanted by fears about global warming, easing nuclear energy into the same sentence as wind and solar power. Dogged by price spikes and an environmental assault on carbon dioxide emissions, fossil fuels are the new clean-energy pariah.

"There's a lot of support for nuclear now, and most of that support is borne out of a concern for the desire to have emissions-free energy sources," said Biden, who still advocates for power companies as the president of Electric Power Generation Association in Pennsylvania.

Policymakers in numerous states are warming to nuclear power, even in states where the facilities are banned. Nuclear reactors generate one-fifth of the nation's power. Some see nuclear as a stable, homegrown energy source in light of last year's oil price spikes. Others see it as a way to meet carbon-reduction goals.

Public interest is emerging, too: A Gallup Poll released in recent days shows 59 percent favor the use of nuclear power, the highest percentage since Gallup first asked the question in 1994.

If the U.S. nuclear industry is hitting a new high point, Saturday marks the anniversary of its low point. Thirty years ago, the partial meltdown of Three Mile Island's Unit 2 put the perils and shortcomings of nuclear power under the world's microscope.

No one was seriously injured in the accident, in which a small amount of radiation was released into the air above the Susquehanna River island 12 miles south of Harrisburg. Studies of area residents have not conclusively linked higher rates of cancer to radiation exposure.

Since then, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not granted one license for a nuclear power plant. The industry says it has made major safety advances, but huge obstacles remain.

It takes years to license and build a reactor. Construction costs billions of dollars. The nation has no long-term storage site for the 2,000 tons of radioactive waste being produced annually by the 104 reactors operating in 31 states.

While some environmental groups grudgingly accept nuclear power as part of the energy landscape, others continue to oppose it. Counting waste costs and government subsidies makes nuclear no more effective than a combination of efficiency measures, desert solar stations, wind power and geothermal energy, they say.

Last month, President Barack Obama called for a cap on greenhouse gas emissions that would almost certainly raise the cost to operate coal- and gas-fired plants. It was another arrow in the quiver of nuclear power advocates who argue that there is no other reliable source of power that is free of greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide.

In the last two years, 26 applications for new reactors have been submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which expects to issue licenses around 2011. No applications were filed in the 28 years following the Three Mile Island accident.

In red states and blue states, public officials are paving the way for new reactors to call their states home. Even lawmakers in fossil fuel-rich Oklahoma, are advancing a bill that would effectively lift a moratorium on nuclear power.

"It makes sense to at least have other options out there," Oklahoma House Speaker Chris Benge said.

Republican Charlie Crist of Florida and Democrats Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and Martin O'Malley of Maryland, governors who get high marks from environmental groups, all support proposals for new reactors in their states.

"By no means is (nuclear power) the sole answer to our energy problems, but I think it actually has a definitive place in the whole array of things we need to do to reach our goals of producing enough to meet demand," Rendell said.

In the past year, the Florida Public Service Commission has approved four new reactors, including two at a proposed Progress Energy Inc. plant along central Florida's Gulf Coast.

Bill Johnson, chief executive of the Raleigh, N.C.-based utility, said the proposal met two important criteria for public acceptance: It dovetailed with Crist's anti-global warming agenda and the desire for reasonably priced power.

Down the Susquehanna River from Rendell's office in the Pennsylvania Capitol, the destroyed Three Mile Island Unit 2 remains sealed.

Its core was shipped away years ago and what is left inside the containment building remains highly radioactive.

Next to it is Three Mile Island's Unit 1, now owned by Exelon Corp. and still churning out electricity. Three Mile Island would even make a fine place to build another reactor - were it not for the memory of the 1979 accident, perhaps.

"I think politically that would be difficult," Biden said.

[Aldymac]

If you want to check it out, wall street made more money than the oil companys on the last go around.

[tonyb-d-bing]

OIL COMPANIES ARE TO BLAME

The oil companies keep all of us dependent on oil, via legal and unlawful means.

There is also the manipulation of oil and commodities prices that has not only cheated us but...

And don't forget the oil industry's constant misleading campaign and lobbying against healthier, more efficient, cheaper and better energy fuels, systems, devices, etc.

[Aldymac]

All the money spent to study renewable energy has done more to enhance the lifestyles of the environmentalists than to bring about advanced technology. Since the libs gained power in '06' the price of solar has quadrupaled, the only difference is a better battery.
To drop oil and gas just to fastrack into renewables is so full of not having any common sense that we would be the laughing stock of the world. The cost would be in the trillions and there would be very little to show for it except the enviros would be sitting pretty.
The only cost effective way to make the change would be to use what we have and phase it out when the other is affordable for all, even if it takes ten years. The enviros have caused far more of the 'problems' themselves with the wrong policys and a general lack of real knowledge about what they took over in the early 70s. They have succeded in making the U S a consumer nation and destroying our ability to be an industrial nation ever again. Industry has moved out of our country because of the enviro policys, not, 'as the libs have told you', the Bush administration.
Ask yourselves, "who tends to gain the most financilly," you, or the enviros and their politition friends? It took a long time for the oil companys to make a trillion dollars, how long do you think it will take the enviros? Look around, it seems the only numbers the liberals seem to know anymore is trillion, and its you and me and our kids and grand kids and their grand kids, that will have to pay for it. Again, who will gain the most financially?
Fastrack is simply a money and power scam.

[hamiltongrad]

Just one power plant in Conn provides 50 % of all electrical energy for Conn !! One plant. No polution. no waste. Look it up. Google Connecticut and Nuclear Energy.

[hamiltongrad]

Less than a shoebox of Nuclear Material can power Los Angeles for 10 years ! There is no waste afterwards, as the little amount left is used for Medical Imaging, "Nuclear Medicine" tests.

50 % of all the energy in Conn has been Nuclear for over 35 years. Look it up. No problems. All of France has been Nuclear for 50 years.

If we are serious about energy. we need to 1. Build 20 New Nuclear facilities during the next 10 years.
2. Mandate that all cars by HyBRIDs so as to use this CHEAP energy.

I/// if We do that, there would be no need for so much ARAB OIL... What is holding us back ???

[ubrew12]

Nuclear power plant = gods gift to terrorists.

We've spent a trillion dollars on nuclear energy research (exclusive of bomb research) over the last 30 years, so I suppose we might as well get something out of it. But imagine if the same research commitment went into solar, wind, wave, geothermal, salinity, or OTEC?

The powers that be plug nuclear because it has a fuel. And oil has shown how profitable that can be for those with the resources to monopolize that fuel. For the same reason, these powers prevent research spending on solar, wind, wave, geothermal, salinity, and OTEC. Free fuel means freedom for the little guys, and they can't have that.

[J_G_H]

I live half way between nuclear plants, one Three Mile Island, the other Peach Bottom. The first site is notorious, but the second plant had a different problem. A guard at Peach Bottom notified his superiors that other guards were sleeping on shift. When he was ignored, it notified the regulators. The corporation fired the company supplying the guards and set up its own guard force. Guess who they did not hire. The guard who demonstrated commitment to the job. The only way I could support building new nuclear plants is if the corporate CEO and Chairman of the Board, and I mean the very top men, not the CEO of a subsidiary, is required to live within five miles of the plant. If tthe corporation operates more than one plant, additional executives and directors, in order of authority, would have to take up permanent residence close to each of the additional plants. As the financial crisis shows, if the lives of the executives and directors are not directly affected, they tend not to take their responsibilities to the public seriously.

[whitemale08]

Nuclear energy = Sovereignty as Nation-State
Solar and Windmills = Re-colonization by the British Empire Under Neo-Fuedalism

[displeased]

The Global Warming lobby does not want you to switch from fossil fuels to nuclear energy. They want you to switch from fossil fuels to the Stone Age.

I view cleaning our air and water, improving fuel efficiency, and making America energy independent...all as a step forward, not backwards.

[hankvreeland]

The largest problem facing nuclear development happens to be lawyers. The single biggest factor in past nuclear plant cost overruns was the endless string of lawsuits in which the only winners were those collecting legal fees. With the millions that the lobbyists pour into both parties, don't expect anything to change. All of the rest of us will continue to be losers.

[gold_standard]

The Global Warming lobby does not want you to switch from fossil fuels to nuclear energy. They want you to switch from fossil fuels to the Stone Age.

The problem in their minds is that you are still alive and cluttering their dreams.

[rf35]

France has shown that nuclear waste is no longer as big of a concern as it once was. Their nuclear fuel recycling technology has proven that thousands of tons of waste per year need not go into long-term storage, but can be safely recycled. I've never been a big fan of the French, but if an idea works, I don't really care who thought it up.
I hear a lot of people whine that even if we start tomorrow, it will still be ten years or more before new plants would come online. Well then, I guess we'd better get going! The same is true of new oil drilling in places like ANWR, but most of these same folks are all for that. If we are ever to become energy independent and stop being slaves to Islamic oil terrorists, we need to move to an energy source that we can produce here. Wind, solar, fuel cell, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear all need to come together. The technology is here...the only things holding it up are politics and a public kept ignorant and misinformed.
P.S. This has nothing to do with global warming. Gore wants us to continue using fossil fuel. Think about it...if America converted to clean energy, who would buy his carbon credits???

[jsilver2th]

If there are new reactors they should be situated next to existing plants to avoid a proliferation of vulnerable and dangerous infrastructure weaknesses.

[budmag06]

There are two words that are becoming synonymous with deceit, brain-washing, and government control. Those words are "global warming". Stories that flaunt "global warming" that treat an unproven theory as fact, are used as a tool for mind control and endless taxation. Wise up. America! Ask for solid proof! Ask for more proof than Al Gore or his paid "consensus" of paid (and threatened) scientists. Don't let the "big government" charge you with home "carbon" taxes or higher gasoline taxes.

[bobdruwing]

Two word, words completely un-mentioned in this article by the way, although they are the REAL danger in nuclear power: nuclear waste.

[draginlady]

My thought is why we are not more focused on a faster approach? Solar? If the price of instalation was dropped and made more appealing to the public, I believe we could give a huge boost to the power issue. Look a every Roof you pass. Houses, garages, business, any roof! What a boost all over the country, and NO Nuclar waste. Then, start thinking Nuclar. If the purpose is to 'Go Green' , then think of the waste to the earth, not just the air. Not to mention, as to global warming, it is shown that the large cities are huge heat sources, well, at least get some use, go solar! Make it afordable and show the benifites.

[fo_sho_yo]

The reaction to the Three Mile Island incident was the exact opposite of what it should have been. Three Mile Island showed us that EVEN in the event of a catastrophe at a nuclear power plant, the dozens of fail-safes and protective measures built into the plants still worked. What happened at Three Mile was EXACTLY what was supposed to happen in the event of a meltdown. Unlike Chernobyl, the incident proved that American nuclear power is a safe energy source.