Renewable Energy

By U.S. Senator Jon Kyl At the end of 2007, Congress approved a comprehensive "energy bill" that was ostensibly dedicated to reducing the United States' dependence on foreign oil and promoting reliable and affordable energy sources for the future. The problem is, the bill actually did nothing to produce a single watt of new energy. I support the development of cost-effective alternatives to fossil fuels, but the alternatives shouldn't increase the already burdensome costs of energy on American families. Unfortunately, alternatives proposed in the 2007 energy bill like ethanol mandates would increase these costs. There is a source of clean and renewable energy already available nuclear energy. Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, stated in a 2006 Washington Post op-ed, "Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce¦emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power." Other nations have also realized nuclear energy's potential. Following the 1973 oil crisis, when the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (which consisted of the Arab members of OPEC in addition to Egypt and Syria) announced that it would no longer export oil to countries that supported Israel, France began increasing its production of nuclear power plants in an effort to reduce its dependence on foreign sources of energy. Today, France meets 80 percent of its total energy needs with nuclear power and is even able to export surplus energy to Britain and Italy, according to a 2006 National Public Radio report. And on top of the clear benefits for France, the country has also experienced a steady decline in per capita emissions of CO2 since the 1970s. The United States, on the other hand, satisfies its electricity needs from a combination of sources, more than half from approximately 600 coal-fired electric plants that ultimately produce, according to Dr. Moore, "36 percent of the U.S. emission or nearly 10 percent of global emissions of CO2¦" The idea of nuclear energy concerns many Americans, who, for example, recall the accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. But as Dr. Moore highlights in the same Post op-ed, though people were evacuated, the accident at Three Mile Island was "in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do prevent radiation from escaping into the environment¦there was no injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby residents¦[and] was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us away from further developing the technology: There hasn't been a nuclear plant ordered up since then." Another misplaced concern about nuclear power is how to deal with nuclear waste. In a speech at Hillsdale College, journalist William Tucker discussed how recycling nuclear energy byproducts could significantly reduce the amount of "waste" that must be stored. "[I]n 1977, President Carter decided to outlaw nuclear recycling¦as a result, more than 98 percent of what will go into Yucca Mountain is either natural uranium or useful material," said Tucker. France, conversely, is able to recycle its nuclear byproducts, which allows all of its "high-level nuclear waste" accumulated over the past quarter century to be stored in "a single room at Le Havre." Building new nuclear plants faces other challenges. It is capital-intensive and involves long lead times to begin building a nuclear power plant. This is primarily because of the amount of government regulation involved in commissioning a new nuclear power plant, including the costs of environmental reviews and permits. But, as the public becomes increasingly informed of the advantages of nuclear power, its misgivings about this renewable energy source should diminish. The benefits to Americans could be great a clean and renewable source of energy that is produced in the United States.