U.S. Energy Policy after Japan: If Not Nuclear, Then What?

As the crisis at Japan's crippled Fukushima Daiichi plant continues to unfold, every bit of news that trickles out deepens the debate about nuclear energy. Anti-nuclear activists point to smoldering reactors and radioactive drinking water as reason enough to abandon nuclear power permanently. Others say the fact that the aging plant survived a 9.0-magnitude earthquake and 46-foot tsunami without greater damage signals its ability to withstand major disruptions.

The crisis has raised questions in the United States about the role that nuclear power should play in the country's energy future. The U.S. produces 20% of its energy with nuclear power but has not built a new facility since the accident at Three Mile Island soured public opinion on nuclear energy in 1979. In his State of the Union Address in January, President Obama called for "building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants" as a way for the United States to reach the goal of drawing 80% of its power from "clean energy" sources by 2035. 

Yet while the Administration continues to voice its support, Fukushima may have stalled the expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. for the near future, say Wharton professors and nuclear experts. Despite calls for a "nuclear renaissance," the industry was already struggling to move forward in the midst of an economic downturn and competition from cheap natural gas. Now events in Japan have reignited fears about nuclear's safety, which could cause further delays. The lingering question for U.S. energy policy: If not nuclear, then what? 

Nuclear as part of U.S. energy policy "depends on what leadership we have," says Erwann Michel-Kerjan, managing director of the Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center. "Where do we want our country to be? We have been talking about energy independence for a long time. The question is, what do we do about that?"

Before the earthquake in Japan, a growing number of people were saying nuclear. Not only would it allow the United States to become more energy independent, but it would also lower greenhouse gas emissions, the industry argued. When measured by carbon footprint, nuclear is on par with solar, hydro, wind, biomass and geothermal, and in terms of the land use required, nuclear comes out ahead of other green energy sources, they say. For a 1,000 megawatt power plant, nuclear requires about one square mile of space, compared with 50 square miles for solar, 250 for wind and 2,600 for biomass.

rest at http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2743