         |
|
|
|
Q: Isn't nuclear energy, as a source of electricity in the U.S., decreasing? A: No. Nuclear plants supply one fifth of our nation's electricity. Although some nuclear plants have shut down, those that continue to operate have increased productivity. In fact, nuclear power plants set new records in productivity in 1999. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the increase in electricity produced by nuclear plants last year "was roughly equivalent to adding six to seven large nuclear reactors to the grid." Q: Why should Utahns care about nuclear power since we don't have any nuclear power plants in Utah? A: Electricity flows through a nationwide grid from which local utility companies - even in Utah - can draw power as needed. Furthermore, many of the products, clothes and food we buy were made using nuclear generated electricity. Q: Aren't nuclear plants all in the eastern U.S.? A: Nuclear plants are not all in the eastern U.S. In fact, the largest single producer of electricity from nuclear power (or any other fuel, for that matter) is the Palo Verde plant, with three reactors, owned by Arizona Public Service. Q: Isn't nuclear energy bad for the environment? A: According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, "Nuclear energy is the most eco-efficient of all energy sources because it produces the most electricity in relation to its minimal environmental impact." Nuclear plants produce no harmful emissions that deplete the ozone layer and contribute to greenhouse gases and acid rain. In fact, by taking the place of fossil-fueled plants, the operation of our nation's 103 commercial nuclear plants reduces carbon dioxide emissions by some 165 million tons of carbon each year. Furthermore, nuclear plants require less land than renewable energy sites, such as a wind farm. Two nuclear reactors require on average about 200 acres; a wind farm that would equal the output of a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant would require 1,050 times as much land. Q: Isn't nuclear power unsafe? We often hear of accidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. A: Nuclear power plants exceeded safety goals in 1999. The World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) sets challenging benchmarks against which the safety of nuclear plants around the world is measured. Commercial plants in the U.S. exceed their safety goals consistently. Studies have shown that there was no harmful radiation exposure for the public during the Three Mile Island accident. In fact, the safety equipment and shielding that is designed to protect the public in the event of an abnormal event behaved exactly as it was designed. And, as a result of the Three Mile Island accident, U.S. nuclear plants made major improvements to further protect public safety. The Chernobyl plant was designed and built to different standards than plants in the U.S. It lacks many of the safety features that are required in U.S. plants. The Chernobyl plant could not have received a license in this country. Q: Are any more nuclear power plants being built today? A: No new nuclear plants are being planned now, since it is quicker and less expensive to build gas-fired turbine plants. As long as gas is cheap, and air quality regulations do not restrict use of fossil fuels, utilities have little incentive to invest in more nuclear plants. However, existing nuclear plants have increased productivity and efficiency, making license extension of plants an attractive prospect. The first such license extension was recently granted. The purchase of efficient nuclear plants is also an attractive prospect as utilities begin to restructure to thrive in a deregulated environment. Future expansion of nuclear power is not out of the question; the industry is ready with several advanced nuclear power plant designs that will be more economical to build and even safer than existing plants. Continued and expanded operation of nuclear power plants is the most cost-effective way for the U.S. to meet the stringent requirements of the Clean Air Act. Q: If Yucca Mountain, Nevada is approved as the permanent federal repository for high level nuclear waste and spent fuel, will the Skull Valley temporary storage site be needed? A: If the Yucca Mountain facility had been approved and opened by Jan. 31, 1998, as required by law, then there would be no need for a temporary facility. However, Yucca Mountain is behind schedule and could not open until 2010 at the earliest; opening probably will be closer to 2015. Meanwhile, there are nuclear plants that will run out of on-site storage before Yucca Mountain could open. Those plants are faced with the difficult decision to shut down their reactors prematurely, severely limiting their ability to meet the electricity needs of their customers and the nation as a whole. Therefore, even if Yucca Mountain is approved later this year, the need for a stop-gap storage option will continue until it is actually open and accepting shipments of spent fuel. The sooner Yucca Mountain is approved, licensed, and opened, the less time a facility in Skull Valley will be needed.
[ About The Project ] [ Who Will Benefit ] [ Voices For PFS ] [ What's New ] [ Helpful Resources ] [ Contact Us ] [ Site Index ] [ Home ] © 2000-2005 Private Fuel Storage, LLC / All rights reserved
|
 |
