Nuclear power plant in Cattenom, France. Photo: Stefan Kühn/Wikimedia Commons
Though the coverage of Japan’s crisis rages on, the question of whether the United States should rethink nuclear energy has resurfaced. Just as the nuclear industry was “settling back into the public conscience” as a safe form of energy, one of my professors noted.
This made me wonder: Am I aware of nuclear plants surrounding me?
Mother Jones has a nifty article listing cities closest to nuclear power plants. I’m unsure of people’s familiarity with nearby power plants, but I’d dare to say many already know, especially if the construction of the plant was contested or highly publicized.
The closest plants to Madison are outside of Manitowac, Wis. — a city 130 miles northeast of here on Lake Michigan.
Kewaunee plant, one of two nuclear plants located outside of Manitowac. Photo: U.S. NRC/Wikimedia Commons
Manitowoc lies within 13 miles of two nuclear power facilities and is approximately 80 miles north of Milwaukee. These plants generate 20 percent of the state’s total power, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Other sources of energy include coal, natural gas, petroleum and hydroelectricity.
My home state of Georgia currently has four nuclear plants within 30 miles of two cities, according to Mother Jones’ nice graphic (which draws from NRC data).
But we’re not in the same position as other cities, where nuclear plants are viewed by some as being too close for comfort. For instance, New York’s governor has advocated shutting down the Indian Point nuclear plant roughly 40 miles from New York City, according to the Wall Street Journal. Currently, the plant provides the city with a quarter of its power.
But shutting down this plant would violate federal standards stating that power sources should not be minimized in such a way to make a grid vulnerable to a significant blackout once every 10 years. Experts say getting rid of the plant would increase the vulnerability of blackouts to once every three years.
In addition, people are concerned about the Governmental Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s decision to keep evacuation standards at 10 miles from nuclear incidents, even though Japan has evacuated everyone within 19 miles and the U.S. government has encouraged Americans within 50 miles of Fukushima to evacuate, according to the article.
If the United States were to adopt a 50-mile evacuation radius — as Kate Sheppard of Mother Jones smartly points out — NYC would have to come up with a plan to evacuate some 21 million people living in the city.
Below is a map of America’s nuclear presence (through 2008).
Photo: Energy Information Administration
But the question of whether America should reduce reliance on nuclear energy isn’t an easy one. After all, we’re the highest consumers of energy, using 11,040 kilowatt-hours per household per year, when compared to 3,500 kilowatt-hours in Europe, as suggested by Europe’s Energy Portal. We’re also one of the few countries that has smacked a partisan label on climate change, where collectively reducing emissions is viewed as a gimmick for some — sadly.
So what makes us think we — industry and domestic consumers — can settle for less energy? I don’t know enough about the intricacies of nuclear plants to weigh the pros and cons. But I suspect we’re still far away from getting everyone on the same page.
Do you think Americans would be ready to nip nuclear power? Do they know the effects it would have on their energy use, or would they even be willing to comply with energy restrictions if need be?
Opinions welcome.
More background: My colleagues Eric and Erin have blogged about the basics of power planthood and what went down in Fukushima. Also my geologist-turned-science-writer colleague, Tim, compares the quake in Japan with his experiences covering tectonic activity in Seattle. And for reference, Bloomberg has a quick rundown of how radiation works and travels for anyone interested.
Primate Prose 
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 27, 2011 at 8:54 pm
evolutionsofscience
Great article, Marianne. I knew little about the locations of power plants, and you bring up some very valid points. I think these issues will peak people’s interests as we start to see the results of the destruction in Japan. Do you know if there is a lot of opposition to the Wisconsin plants?
March 27, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Erin Podolak
Interesting that you mention blackouts as a reason for why reducing nuclear power may not be possible. It instantly reminded me of the 2003 blackout that left New York City and a huge chunk of the North East in the dark… http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/b/blackouts_and_brownouts_electrical/new_york_city_blackout_of_2003/index.html
The 2003 blackout wasn’t related to nuclear power but it just goes to show you that you really can’t plan for or depend on technology sometimes….
March 27, 2011 at 10:27 pm
Jenny S
Great post! I too feel greatly conflicted about nuclear energy. while my knowledge of it is still minimal, my assumption is that Americans don’t really know enough about nuclear energy to understand the impact the elimination of nuclear energy would be. More “renewable” energy sources aren’t capable of supplying our energy demands without a better grid and way to store energy. And we certainly can’t keep relying on (or increase our reliance on) dirty energy from coal and natural gas. But i don’t think the general mentality is there yet to adopt much more conservative energy efficiency practices, unfortunately. there needs to be a pretty large shift in our attitudes and behaviors, i think, for that to happen. but, i do hope that this nuclear crisis will help inspire more R&D for yet unexplored and safer energy alternatives.
March 28, 2011 at 1:02 am
Mike Flanigan
Nice synopsis and food for thought Marianne. In my current state (Virginia) we have the best/worst of the old and new energy worlds. Virginia is big coal country (not as big as W. VA any more but roughly the same geology) and has multiple nuclear stations – Surry VA and North Anna VA. Interestingly – the operator is Dominion Power – who also operates your Kewaunee station. Not only are the coal stations significant contributors to the energy ecosystem but it is also a significant contributor to the economy of certain regions of both VA and W. VA. A good friend of mine is a railroad engineer for CSX and shuttles coal from staging areas and mines to power plants and other consumers in northern W. VA and southern Ohio – his job and the downstream economic chain of those he (and his peers and families) work and spend with depend on the production and consumption of coal.
Seems to me that in my region, a decrease in the use of nuclear energy means an increase the negative environmental effects of coal use – while an increase in the number of nuclear facilities required to offset a decrease in coal use means increasing the associated nuclear risks – especially given the age of the nuclear stations here in the U.S. And this is without even considering cost of production and retail consumer price. Call me crazy but I suspect decreasing use of either one while increasing use of the other is most likely going to drive pricing up – all of which leads me to believe that adjustment of either method up or down without introducing additional cost-effective options (solar, wind, natural gas, bio-fuels, etc.) into the mix is not going to get much traction from those operators in the business charged by their shareholders and consumers with responding to market forces. Mix in a healthy does of self-sufficiency for the U.S. as matter of national security and we’ve got the issue of a lifetime to deal with.
…didn’t mean to go quite this far but your article really got me thinking – thx!
March 28, 2011 at 4:29 am
Stephanie
Very interesting post, Marianne. I think the tragedy in Japan may also factor into the current legislative session and whether or not legislation to lift the nuclear moratorium in Wisconsin will be introduced as it has in past sessions…
March 28, 2011 at 4:31 am
Eric V
I’m glad you brought this issue up. I frequently wonder if opponents to nuclear energy as a whole realize what sort of presence it already has. Supplanting all of those nuclear plants with coal is just overbearing for me to comprehend.
The arithmetic of alternative energies is hard to add up to compete with nuclear or coal. This all will be very interesting to see where it leads us.
I actually visited the plant in Manitowac a few years back. Interesting to know that it’s in YOUR backyard, yet we’ve enjoyed peacefully its power supply for many years unnoticed.
March 29, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Tom S.
Why can’t we just fast-forward to a time when we’ll have the infrastructure that can sufficiently support wind-power? Then we could focus our energy (come on it was there, and I went with it) on other pressing matter that need serious attention. And wouldn’t the world just feel cleaner?
March 29, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Marianne English
@Caroline: I haven’t found any high profile anti-nuclear groups in Wisconsin (excluding those in favor of arms control). It surprises me. If the plants were closer to Madison, things might be different, I think.
@Erin: I remember reading about that blackout. I also remember seeing something about power grids in the South and Northeast being the most vulnerable, while the Midwest is more stable. In Georgia, we have at least 2-3 blackouts per spring/summer from storms, but it’s nothing more than a few minutes or hours — definitely not days unless the power lines get slammed with snow (six inches of snow last year caused a four-day blackout in Athens for some people).
@Jenny: Completely agree. A good Science Friday podcast tackles the grid inefficiency problem (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/14/132934014/adding-smarts-to-the-electrical-grid). I agree, it will take a lot for people to change….
@Mike: First off, congrats on VCU’s trip to the Final Four — do you have tickets? Thanks for sharing your opinion, too. It’s appropriate to think a reduction in nuclear energy would result in an increase of these tried-and-true forms of energy, regardless of how dirty they might be. I’ve never visited W. Virginia, but I’ve heard the environmental effects of coal mining are absolutely devastating there with the amount of mountaintop removal. You also bring up one of the most important factors in all of this — the economy. With the way things are at present, it’s hard to get politicians on board with new projects when they can stick with older ones. Many groups in Wisconsin are disappointed by Walker dropping the highly anticipated high-speed rail project because of budget concerns, apparently (http://www.connectthemidwest.com/tag/minneapolis/).
@Stephanie: Is there current legislation in the works on this? I missed it!
@Eric: I’d be interested in visiting, too. Do they offer tours? (My inner nerd has arrived).
@Tom: I wish wind were a more viable option to people. Many have problems with the “look” of wind turbines, thinking they make the landscape ugly (which is true to a certain extent). In large numbers, they also pose a threat to birds and bats, critically important members of the ecosystem (http://windeis.anl.gov/guide/concern/index.cfm). I’ve seen quite a few wind turbines while driving between Madison and Normal, Ill., so perhaps they are being used more often now. I’m in favor of the solar route, but am unsure of how it all works on a larger scale. Jenny and Joe’s environmental knowledge might be more useful here…
March 29, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Marianne English
*wind WAS a more…
March 30, 2011 at 2:09 am
Amy Karon
Great post. It’s hard to imagine Americans being willing to cut back on energy use. You bring up solar — I’ve looked into the costs of converting our home to solar and the up-front costs of installing panels are steep — out of most people’s reach (certainly out of ours). The technology has however come a long way and people I know who’ve been able to install panels are selling energy back to the grid. Much more could be done with solar in this country, but as long as the energy lobby holds such sway in Washington I don’t see the necessary financial incentives being enacted.
April 3, 2011 at 2:52 am
Deborah Blum
Excellent post, Marianne, and I especially liked learning about the geography of nuclear power in this country. I like the great discussion that followed as well – very nice work.
April 6, 2011 at 3:51 am
Joe Doolen
There’s a lot of campaigns and political pressure going on now in the U.S. from both sides of the political aisle to defund any future nuclear plans and halt operations in some cases. Personally, I think every passing week in Japan has been a death knell for the future of nuclear power expansion and may mark the beginning of the end for the industry. Too bad Japan is the one who depends on it so desperately at this moment in history.