power is gaining momentum in the United States as the nation seeks
environmentally friendly and affordable sources of energy that can meet
growing demand. As the U.S. deliberates the possibility of building new
nuclear power plants, other nations have already begun the process.
A Domestic Source of Energy
is an example of a country that developed nuclear energy to reduce
foreign energy dependence after the oil shock of the 1970s. It now
receives nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and is
a net exporter of electricity. Germany, alternatively, decided to phase out nuclear energy for political reasons and now imports some of this energy.
is another country that has looked to nuclear power as a clean, safe
and reliable form of energy. Nuclear power already provides 30 percent
of the country's electricity; however, Japan is working to increase
this to 37 percent by 2009 and 41 percent by 2017.
ranking fifth in the world for per capita electricity consumption, has
a significant incentive to secure long-term energy solutions. Embracing
nuclear energy as part of an effort to decrease the nation's dependency
on foreign energy sources, Finland has begun constructing a modern
1,600-megawatt reactor, which will likely be a model used throughout
the United States. Finland already gets 28 percent of its electricity
from nuclear power, and a possible sixth reactor would increase that
Presently, the U.K. has 19 reactors that
provide about 18 percent of the nation's electricity. Because the U.K.
is already a net importer of energy and all but one of its coal-fired
and nuclear plants are scheduled to be decommissioned by 2023, building
new reactors is a must for the U.K. if it is to avoid creating
increased energy dependencies. The British government, while providing
long-term politically stable support for nuclear power, has made it
clear that it would not subsidize the industry. The U.S., on the other
hand, continues to squabble politically about nuclear power but has
offered some subsidies to the industry. As a result, the British model
should provide a sustainable environment for nuclear power moving
forward, while the U.S. model could create a politically tenuous
dependency relationship between government and industry.
energy is attractive to many countries because of its impeccable
environmental record. Burning fossil fuels releases an abundance of
elements into the atmosphere. Nuclear energy, to the contrary, fully
contains all of its byproduct in the form of used nuclear fuel. Such
waste is safely managed throughout the world in countries like France,
Finland, and Japan.
Nations across the world that are struggling
to reconcile mandates to reduce carbon dioxide emissions with the need
to maintain economic competitiveness are looking to nuclear technology.
Under the new European Union energy plan, by 2020 Finland will be
forced to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent, increase
renewable energy by 20 percent, and increase efficiency by 20 percent
by 2020. It has turned to nuclear energy to meet these goals.
energy is critical to sustaining economic competitiveness in economies
with high labor costs, expensive environmental mandates, and other
regulatory expenditures. This is especially true in economies that
depend on energy-intensive activities like manufacturing, such as the
Finnish and U.S. economies. Finland concluded that access to vast
quantities of affordable energy should be a top national priority, and
nuclear was an obvious choice.
These countries and others
searching to expand their nuclear capacity have an opportunity to fuel
their respective economies through the thousands of jobs, both
temporary and permanent, that nuclear energy creates. A global nuclear
renaissance will attract construction jobs as well as high-skill
engineering jobs to operate the plants.
Thus, two of the
greatest benefits of building more nuclear reactors, if done correctly,
will be more jobs and cleaner, cheaper energy. Countries that do not
choose to produce clean energy in a carbon constrained world will
inevitably pay more to produce energy, resulting in higher input costs
and higher prices for consumers on the open market.
economic consequences of higher fossil-fuel costs spread to countries
that do not produce nuclear power, many countries will likely increase
imports of nuclear electricity from foreign suppliers. While less
expensive and more reliable than other non-nuclear, non-emitting
sources, this energy will surely cost more to import than it would have
had to produce it domestically. In the end, the countries that have
barred nuclear power from being produced in their respective countries
will ultimately rely on nuclear power, albeit at a more expensive
Meeting Higher Demands for Energy
U.S. electricity demand is projected to increase up to 40 percent by 2030, and other countries are projecting similar increases.
The rapid industrial development of both China and India is already
placing great pressure on global energy supplies. And because energy
sources, especially fossil fuels, are global commodities, growing
demand in one part of the world affects the global economy. As a
result, higher prices and tightened supply have some nations, such as
China, experiencing power shortages.
While the U.S. has, for the most part, been able to keep the lights on,
with the price of gas breaking the $4 barrier and natural gas prices
increasing, every American knows full well the pain of increasing
global energy demand.
Nuclear energy can help meet this growing
demand. Most directly, nuclear energy can be used to generate
electricity. If that demand were not met by nuclear power, then it
would likely be met with natural gas. This would put additional
pressure on natural gas reserves, driving up the price for electricity
as well as all the other goods that use natural gas in their production.
natural uranium is a finite resource like gas, oil, or coal, it can be
recycled and reused. The French, Japanese, and British all recycle
their used nuclear fuel. The French, for example, remove the uranium
and plutonium and fabricate new fuel. Using that method, America can
recycle its 58,000 tons of used fuel stored across the nation to power
every U.S. household for 12 years.
China, India, and Russia are
already building new nuclear plants. Even smaller countries, like
Vietnam and countries in the Middle East, have begun exploring nuclear
power as they too are facing demand shortages and feeling pressure from
the industrialized world to reduce CO2 emissions.
What the U.S. Could Learn
the U.S. entertaining the idea of building new nuclear plants, the
country can learn a great deal from other nations further along in the
process. Electricity demand is skyrocketing in many parts of the world;
purported human-induced climate change has the entire globe in a panic.
Nuclear energy has become a focal point for countries trying to meet
these needs, and some believe that it can provide an economic boost at
the same time. It creates opportunities to electrify portions of the
economy that today rely almost entirely on fossil-fuels, like
Other countries seem to understand the potential
benefits of nuclear power and have either commenced constructing, or
have developed projections for, new nuclear plants. The time has come
for the U.S. to stop squabbling, remove regulatory impediments, and
allow nuclear energy to continue helping this country to meet its
growing energy demands.
 "Annual Energy Outlook 2008," Energy Information Agency, June 25, 2008, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity.html
(July 1, 2008); "Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for
the Period up to 2030," International Atomic Energy Agency, July 2005,
at http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/RDS1-25_web.pdf (July 1, 2008).