THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO Next Hit Forward Next Document New Search Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help Doc Contents [Part] Contents CR Issues by Date
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am going to be speaking this afternoon at some length on Senate bill 104 . This is a bill that provides a comprehensive plan for the Federal Government to meet its obligations to provide a safe place to store spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.
Mr. President, I think it is important to reflect on some of the background associated with nuclear waste and the status of our continued dependence on nuclear energy.
First of all, let me refer to an article by Bertram Wolfe. Mr. Wolfe is a consultant at Monte Sereno, CA, and a former president of the American Nuclear Society. He suggests that by midcentury, the Third World population on this Earth will double from 4 billion to 8 billion people while the population of the industrial world will grow by about 20 percent, to 1.2 billion. He further suggests that unless we expect to see the majority of the world's people living indefinitely in dire poverty, we should be prepared for per capita energy use to rise rapidly with economic progress. Even if the Third World per capita energy use rises to only one-third of the United States level, that increase, in combination with the expected population growth, will result in a threefold increase in world energy use by the year 2050.
He further suggests that if fossil fuels are used to supply these increased energy needs, we can expect serious deterioration of air quality and possibly environmental disaster from global climate change due to the greenhouse effect. In addition, increased demand for fossil fuels, combined with the dwindling supply, undoubtedly will lead to higher prices, slower economic growth, and the likelihood of energy-related global conflicts.
I wonder if anyone in this Chamber would doubt that Kuwait's oil resources were a major factor in the United States willingness to take military action against Iraq. Unfortunately, alternatives to this scenario are few. Perhaps the future world energy use can be stabilized at a level much less than a third of present U.S . per capita use. Of course, that demand could be much higher. Perhaps solar or wind power will become practical on a larger scale. Perhaps fusion, or even cold fusion, will be developed. But as we enter the world's energy needs in the 21st century, we have to focus on one area that currently provides us with nearly 21 percent of our electricity in the United States, and that is nuclear power. Even conventional nuclear powerplants will face fuel supply problems in the next century if their use expands significantly, which is why we ought to consider the use of the advanced liquid metal reactor which can produce more than 100 times as much energy per pound of uranium as conventional reactors.
The United States, as we know, has been a leader in the development of nuclear power technology and in the adoption of stringent safety standards. It is important to note that not a single member of the public has been harmed by the operation of any of the world's nuclear plants that meet U.S . standards. The Chernobyl reactor, which lacked a containment structure, did not meet U.S . standards.
But the future of nuclear energy in the United States is now very much in question. Since 1973, all nuclear energy plant orders have
subsequently been canceled. In 1993, U.S . utilities shut down three nuclear energy plants rather than invest in needed repairs. Of the 110 presently operating U.S . nuclear energy plants, 45 will reach the end of their planned 40-year lifetime in the next two decades.
Mr. President, this is the wrong time for the Nation, and for the world, for that matter, to ignore nuclear power. Demand for energy will grow. Our options are limited. Ironically, environmentalists who have opposed nuclear power since the 1970's should have the strongest rationale for promoting nuclear energy. Like all large endeavors, nuclear power has its problems and it has its risks. But the problems of nuclear power do not look so bad when compared with air pollution, global warming, and the supply limitations associated with fossil fuels. Besides, the major drawbacks of nuclear power from cost to waste disposal are due more to institutional impediments than to technological difficulties. Considering the growth in energy demand and the risks associated with other energy sources, the benefit-risk ratio for nuclear power is very attractive.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO Next Hit Forward Next Document New Search Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help Doc Contents [Part] Contents CR Issues by Date