The nuclear drive underway caps nearly three decades of a freeze on reactor construction following the 1979 accident at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island (TMI) plant, which sparked panic over the risk of radiation, spills and contamination and inspired a generation of anti-nuclear activists.

In the scramble to grab billions of dollars in government perks, 19 companies have applied for regulatory approval of their proposals for new nuclear reactor sites since 2007, and more are expected to follow.

No new nuclear reactors have been built in the United States since the 1970s, though 104 nuclear reactors continue to operate, providing about 19-20 percent of the country's electricity.

The growing desire for power that does not pollute the atmosphere, as well as the rising costs of energy, have tempered America's adverse reaction, said Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Scott Peterson.

"We see generations coming up that don't have the scars of nuclear power, whether it is TMI or Chernobyl," said Peterson.

Focus groups have shown that "for people 30 and under, 'TMI' means 'too much information,'" Peterson said, not a reminder of a nuclear disaster.

A Pew Research poll released in March showed 44 percent of Americans favor promoting increased use of nuclear power, up five percentage points from 2005. The same survey noted a five point drop among those opposed -- 48 percent compared to 53 percent three years ago.

"Any time we see gasoline prices rise, you see an uptick in support for nuclear power," said Peterson, citing fuel costs among the "pocketbook issues" like home heating fuel prices and major blackouts that influence public opinion.

He also pointed to a major advertising and lobby effort to brand "nuclear energy as clean air energy" that began in the late 1990s, around the time that the Kyoto Protocol was agreed.

The drive then kicked into high gear in 2005 with the passage of the Energy Policy Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush, who has hailed nuclear power as "limitless."

The government's offer of 18.5 billion dollars in loan backing and four billion dollars in tax breaks make the prospect of reactor-building more lucrative, though experts warn of the multi-billion-dollar price tag.

"It is exciting to think that for the first time in 30 years we stand to launch a nuclear revival," said Mike Wallace, chair of Unistar LLC, a joint venture of Baltimore-based Constellation Energy and the French electricity company EDF.

Unistar hopes to build a US EPR -- industry lingo for an evolutionary power reactor designed by the French company Areva -- at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland by 2015.

Things in the industry have changed after the long lull, however.

"Back then we had an enormous skilled workforce but ... that craftforce has declined in size and the most critical skill sets are going to be in shorter supply," Wallace said.

Other causes for concern were highlighted this month in a report by the Congressional Budget Office, including: "recent volatility in natural gas prices and construction costs, nuclear power's history of construction cost overruns, and uncertainty about future policy on carbon dioxide emissions."

Estimates of the costs to build a single reactor range from six to 12 billion dollars.

Author and nuclear engineer James Mahaffey said that a nuclear renaissance is "inevitable" because "the world is becoming more industrialized, not less," but said Americans may not be ready for the sticker shock.

"Lately the cheap power is turning out to have secondary effects. The pollution aspects of coal are beginning to have an impact and we are looking back at nuclear power," Mahaffey said.

"Nuclear power in the foreseeable future is going to be a more expensive option," he said.

Anti-nuclear activists point to lingering concerns about disposal -- there are no approved nuclear waste dumps in the United States so the plants store their waste on site -- as well as a shortage of skilled personnel and infrastructure.

"At this point the belief that there is a nuclear renaissance underway is premature," said Michael Mariotte, director of the Nuclear Information and Research Service.

"From our perspective it is pure folly to consider new reactors when we don't know what we are going to do with the waste from the current reactors."

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Share This Article With Planet Earth

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit
YahooMyWeb	Google	Facebook

Related Links
Civil Nuclear Energy Science, Technology and News
Powering The World in the 21st Century at Energy-Daily.com

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News