|
Letters to the Editor
The Idaho Statesman
Edition Date: February 18, 2006
Letters to the Editor
Nuclear payback
While I agree with most of Martin Orr's title "The time has come
to consider alternatives to fossil fuels" (Reader's View, Jan.
13), I completely disagree with his unsupported claims, exaggerations
and misstatements.
For example, his statement that nuclear-power production requires
more energy input than it produces is simply not supported by facts.
Comprehensive
life-cycle analyses, such as those conducted at the Fusion Energy
Institute, UW-Madison, show that a nominal nuclear plant produces a
16:1 energy payback.
The U.S. nuclear industry is increasing this positive balance by extending
the useful life of 100-plus existing plants while annually increasing generating
capacity, efficiency, productivity, and actual generation from plants that
were constructed decades ago.
Since 1996, when the last nuclear plant was completed in the United States,
they have increased annual generation by 17 percent (114 billion kW-hours,
U.S. DOE/EIA), while renewable electricity declined by 15 percent (64 billion
kW-hr). In addition, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has granted
20-year license extensions to more than one-third of those reactors.
Already filed applications will soon take that to more than half, while
the industry intends to relicense nearly the entire fleet. This additional
lifetime will greatly increase the positive nuclear energy balance through
2050.
Dr. Denis E. Beller*
Visiting Research Professor
Idaho Accelerator Center, Idaho State University
*professor Beller is the Director of the
Reactor-Accelerator Coupling Experiments (RACE) Project, an ISU-lead
international component of the DOE's
Advanced
Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI). The AFCI is a national research
program for reusing and recycling
used nuclear fuel and reducing the
volume and
radio-toxicity of its waste.
Also see:Back
to the Nuclear Future By Dr. Denis
Beller
The Idaho Statesman
Edition Date: November 23, 2007
Letters to the Editor
Critics try to deny Idaho clean power
Nuclear energy represents one of our best options for producing large amounts
of electricity while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and our dependence
on energy imports. Yet this truth is being rejected by anti-nuclear campaigners
who wish to deny Idaho the benefits of clean, affordable nuclear power.
Helen Caldicott's recent speech in Boise was the latest salvo in the anti-nuclear
attack. As a professor of nuclear engineering, I can tell you her recent
book on nuclear energy is riddled with errors. For example, she asserts that "few,
if any, estimates of the cost of nuclear energy take into account the health
costs to the human race." In fact, an extensive set of studies was conducted
by more than a dozen European Union countries. The studies showed that when
all life-cycle impacts are taken into account, nuclear energy is on par with
wind, solar and hydropower as the most environmentally friendly ways to make
electricity.
Ignoring the facts because they don't fit your argument may work in the
anti-nuclear community, but it leads to bad public policy.
Mary Lou Dunzik-Gougar, Ph.D
Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Idaho State University
Affiliate Staff Scientist,
Idaho National Laboratory
|
