Guest Column: Don't waste energy with nuclear power argument

Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2001

In his April 13 guest column, "Answer to energy crunch not blowing in the wind," nuclear engineer Raymond L. Ashley touted the advantages of nuclear power plants over wind power. I agree with his assertion that a wind generator's output is dependent on the vagaries of the wind. As a small-scale user of the wind and sun to produce my household electricity, I view the wind as "icing on my cake": a great adjunct to my system, but not a 24/7 energy source.

However, Mr. Ashley cited the only negatives regarding a nuclear power plant as being its high front-end capital cost and the complex and lengthy application process. He left out another downside: those pesky spent fuel rods.

It seems uranium-235 has a half-life of 24,000 years. That's just its half-life, mind you. That means it might be safe to be near the stuff after just a few hundred thousand years.

To put it in perspective, we homo sapiens have been around just 50,000 years. Is it wise to make a material that remains a poison many times longer than we've existed as a species?

The current method of disposing of nuclear wastes is to bury them in some economically depressed area where there aren't enough people to complain. The experts assure us these waste depositories are in geologically stable areas. Nobody predicted the earth tremors we experienced in Amarillo last summer. How can they guarantee the stability of an area over 400,000 years? Are there solutions to our pending energy crunch? Sort of:

Conserve. Don't use as much electricity. The federal government, belatedly, is implementing new standards for appliances over the next few years. You'll see higher sticker prices for refrigerators and washing machines, but they'll save you big-time over the life of the appliance.

You can start conserving right now by using energy-efficient light bulbs, using a water-conserving showerhead, blanketing your high water heater with insulation, and adjusting your thermostat a little warmer in the summer and a little cooler in the winter. Conservation tips could fill a book.

Photovoltaics. These solar panels convert light into electricity. They have no moving parts and no maintenance. There is nothing to wear out and nothing to bury. Their peak output occurs on sunny days - when air-conditioning loads are highest.

Current prices to generate this type of electricity are high, starting at about $3.50 per watt, but prices continue to drop. Several manufacturers offer units that produce 120 volts AC. At least one is UL-approved. Some folks have mounted these units on their roofs and in their back yards to supplement their use of grid-produced electricity. I'm surprised Southwestern Public Service hasn't told us more about this option.

Fuel cells. Essentially a continuously charged battery that uses hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity. Residential-sized units are the size of a refrigerator. They show great promise. Prices are still high - $3 per watt. Trials are being performed on large units at conventional power plants.

Wind energy. It works. It doesn't pollute. It produces energy when the wind blows. Every megawatt produced by the wind is one less megawatt that has to be produced by a coal/natural gas-fired generator or nuclear plant.

There are no easy answers to our pending energy crunch. But unless the nuclear industry can find better ways to deal with nuclear waste, or come up with viable isotopes with a really short half-life, nuclear energy is saddled with too many liabilities and hidden costs. Mr. Ashley states in his column that "(nuclear) plants are safe and emit no pollutants into the atmosphere."

There's no need to mention Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. I simply challenge Mr. Ashley to get a zoning variance to store a single ounce of uranium-235 in his back yard.

David Stebbins is an Amarillo X-ray technician. On Deck: Claudia Stravato discusses the RU-486 pill in the Thursday Daily News.