Our country is perched to begin a new generation of building nuclear reactors. This comes in conjunction with President Bush’s State of the Union remarks about the United States needing to reduce our consumption of petroleum products, thereby reducing our dependence on foreign petroleum.According to the Jan. 29 issue of The Wall Street Journal, the race is on among developers to lock in sites for at least 30 new nuclear reactors. The application alone costs a few million for a developer, so it’s kind of a done deal for these companies. If constructed, these plants will boost our nation’s power output by 3 percent, according to Wall Street. Nearly every one of the possible sites is located in the South. One being in Mississippi, near the Grand Gulf Nuclear Facility in Port Gibson.
We’re at somewhat of a crossroads. We can really take heed to the president’s call, or we can pay lip service and talk about what a good idea it is and leave it at that. Slowly but surely, ethanol and biodiesel are becoming more viable alternatives. The outcry of the public for cheaper fuel has subsided by the recent decline in gas prices, but we’re still paying about $2.20 per gallon.
I can remember people expressing sheer outrage at $2 per gallon. What are we going to do about this? We whine in the summer when gas is $3 per gallon, then OPEC sees fit to throw us a bone in the fall and winter and let prices drop and we shut up, praying prices don’t rise again.
We have developed our own Pavlovian reflex: Gas prices going up equals public outcry. If gas prices fall, we express a communal sigh of relief.
The thing to remember in all this is the petroleum industry never takes a big hit on this. Sure, stocks were shaky in the petroleum market the day after the State of the Union, but they’re recovering. Remember, 10 years ago these companies were still making a helluva profit off of gas at a buck a gallon.
Corn-based fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, can give us some relief. Experts say that biofuels can never replace regular petroleum fuels, and in my opinion, they can’t, but biofuel can at least cut our petroleum intake a good bit. A gas tank full of E85 ethanol is a lot better than one full of normal gas.
Why am I rambling on about nuclear reactors, gas and biofuels? Well, they’re all connected by the President’s State of the Union address. The President’s call for “20 in 10” (dropping petroleum intake by 20 percent in 10 years) makes biofuel and expanding our nuclear reactors a reality.
We have an opportunity to invest in America. We developed nuclear power and had a large part in creating biofuels, so let’s invest in ourselves instead of lining the pockets of a sheik in Saudi Arabia. Use government resources to fund and develop biofuel into a viable alternative to standard petroleum, and let’s make nuclear energy more feasible as a source of electricity.
I’m not saying all of this to promote a green agenda. It’s just common sense. We already spend many millions of dollars to pay our farmers not to grow things, and then crops we don’t need get shipped overseas on our dime to poorer nations, where crops are sold at a loss or given away. Not to be mean-spirited, but I think we need to take care of our own first, then worry about everyone else. Use our grain at home for us, if not for fuel then to feed our destitute.
It’s a crying shame for people to go hungry in one of the richest nations in the world. If biofuel was a standard fuel, U.S. farmers could actually make a living instead of going into debt season after season. Also, biofuel sounds a lot like agriculture and biological engineering, something we deal with here at MSU. Researching in this field could benefit ours and other universities. With expanded nuclear facilities, constructing these things employs a few thousand people over a few years and employs hundreds permanently with high paying, quality jobs.
Now, I’m not saying this idea is not without its flaws. Do I think we should run out and build 30 nuclear reactors with current technology? No, but with continued research and an actual drive to make nuclear energy more efficient and cleaner, we should. There is the downside of having to dispose of radioactive waste. Our nuclear waste facility in Yucca Mountain, Nev., is not finished, and – at current capacity – cannot hold waste from our current reactors.
Bottom line, we’ve put ourselves in this position. We’ve allowed these oil-producing countries to get the upper hand, but the hand these countries are holding can be trumped.
We put a man on the moon 60-some-odd years after the first powered airplane flight, made the largest amphibious landing in history, developed the Internet (thank you very much, Al Gore) and Daisy Duke shorts, and you mean to tell me that we can’t find a better way to get our energy? I’m throwing the B.S. flag on this one. It’s not that we can’t. Our attitudes won’t let us.
Remember, we vote with our wallets, and if we allow ourselves to be led around by the nose over oil, then that’s exactly what’s going to happen.