Inside NIRMA Fall 2019 FINAL

Setting the Record Straight on the Three Most Common
Misconceptions Around Nuclear Energy
If you are following the news, you
have probably seen more climate
issues in the headlines, on social
media and even on television shows.
Most recently, the Democratic
presidential debates and CNN
Climate Town Hall provided a
platform for candidates to share
their energy policies. One topic of
contention is the role of nuclear
carbon-free energy in helping to
solve climate change.
While there is a growing consensus
by scientists and voices within the
environmental community that
nuclear energy is essential for
decarbonization, it’s clear that the
Democratic candidates are not on
the same page when it comes to
nuclear energy. And the media has
picked up on the divide:
• New York Magazine: On Climate,
Sanders and Warren Must Go
Nuclear
• The Washington Post: Don’t trust
candidates who ignore nuclear
power
• The Verge: Democrats are divided
on using nuclear power to stop
climate change
Thankfully, these disagreements
have left room for more
comprehensive and honest
conversations around nuclear, which
are long-overdue.
As the field of Democratic
candidates begins to narrow, it’s
important to set the record straight
on nuclear. Here are three of the
most common misconceptions that
you should be on the watch for as
debates continue:
1. Until we can solve the waste
issue, nuclear energy isn’t a
good option. The waste issue
dates back decades ago when the
federal government agreed to
take ownership of nuclear waste
and find a solution to
permanently store it.
Unfortunately, the politics on
how best to manage it led to a
stalemate, leaving nuclear plant
owners responsible for managing
it at the expense of tax payers.
What’s frustrating is this issue
has already been solved.
Scientific research says the most
viable solution is to store used
fuel at a geological repository like
Yucca Mountain. But to move
forward with Yucca Mountain,
Congress must grant funding to
complete the process.
In the meantime, the nuclear
industry knows exactly where its
waste is, and it’s safely contained
(which can’t be said for all
energy sources). Nuclear plant
owners store their used fuel onsite
based on stringent
requirements set by the
government. Plus, there isn’t
really much used fuel out there.
Nearly seven decades of waste
from using nuclear power would
only cover a football field to a
depth of less than 10 yards.
Ultimately, losing nuclear
power—the largest source of
carbon-free electricity in the
United States—because of a
political issue would set us back
in reaching our climate goals.
2. Nuclear energy isn’t safe. Bill
Gates, an advocate of nuclear
energy, has said that the safety
record of the nuclear industry is
unmatched by any other energy
source. And he’s right. Safety is
engrained in the culture of every
nuclear plant.
America’s nuclear power plants
have an excellent track record
and are among the safest and
most secure industrial facilities in
the country. And the nuclear
industry has a tough,
independent regulator that
ensures they stay that way.
Some opponents point to
Chernobyl or other events like
Three Mile Island (TMI) or
Fukushima as reasons to phase
out nuclear. But what happened
at Chernobyl simply could not
happen here. That event was the
product of a faulty reactor design
not used in the U.S.
Article reprinted with permission
of NEI. Read full article here.
Inside NIRMA NIRMA.org Fall 2019 29