Every election cycle, many republicans and moderate democrats use their elevated soapbox standing to push a nuclear power agenda. With our "addiction to oil" growing ever less tolerable, rhetoric espousing the need for nuclear power to wean ourselves off of oil is growing faster than China's female gymnasts.The problem is, and always has been, that U.S. dependence on foreign oil has little-to-nothing to do with our use or non-use of nuclear energy.
Consider the fact that nuclear energy, unlike oil, cannot power an automobile, and save for submarines and other large marine vessels, is only useful for generating electricity. Currently, 19 percent of electric energy comes from 104 nuclear power plants, while only 7 percent of electric energy is derived from petroleum.
The numbers, and the chart above, suggest that even a large increase in nuclear power generation could only offset our oil dependence marginally.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that thirty more nuclear power plants opened tomorrow, replacing the 3,744 petroleum-based power plants. In doing so, the country would save 115 million barrels of oil per year. For some perspective, the U.S. imports 10 million barrels of oil per day. So ramping up production of nuclear power would save the country about twelve days worth of oil imports per year.
Given the uncertain techniques, high costs, risk of having nuclear secrets fall into the hands of extremists, and NIMBY (not in my back yard) issues for storing and securing nuclear waste, it is mind-numbing that anyone even suggests this strategy as a serious means for reducing foreign oil dependence. Yet every election cycle, the policy reemerges from the dusty shelves of history like a stalker in a cheesy 1970's horror flick.
Last week, John McCain was that stalker, offering up nuclear power as part of his plan for eliminating foreign oil dependence.
"Look, we are sending $700 billion a year overseas
to countries that don't like us very much. Some of that money ends up
in the hands of terrorist organizations. We have to have wind, tide,
solar, natural gas, flex fuel cars and all that but we also have to
have offshore drilling and we also have to have nuclear power.
Senator Obama opposes both storing and reprocessing
of spent nuclear fuel. You can't get there from here and the fact is
that we can create 700,000 jobs by constructing 45 new nuclear
power plants by the year 2030. Nuclear power is not only important as
far as eliminating our dependence on foreign oil but it's also
responsible as far as climate change is concerned..." --Sen. John McCain, first Presidential Debate, Sept. 26, 2008
Ignoring the obvious issue that nuclear power is hardly the most eco-friendly power solution available, given the issue of disposing nuclear waste and potential for a nuclear meltdown, McCain's premise that nuclear power will somehow free the nation from the bonds of foreign oil servitude is illogical and misguided. As shown, replacing petroleum plants with nuclear plants will only reduce oil consumption marginally, unless those nuclear plants are used to power electric vehicles.
A smarter strategy than using nuclear energy to power electricity lays in increasing the use of renewable energy technologies like wind, solar, wave energy, and geothermal energy - by far the most underrated potential energy source. If that seven percent market share of the electric power grid can't be completely replaced by these clean fuels, clean coal and natural gas could easily fill in the supply gaps.
There is no need for nuclear power; like the steam engine, it's time has passed.
Also Interesting: