LUSBY, Md. – President Bush delivered a pitch for commercial nuclear power Wednesday, telling a group of nuclear-industry workers that “it’s time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again.”
Bush traveled to the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant in Maryland, about 55 miles from Washington, to push for Senate approval of an energy bill that includes help for the nuclear industry. Bush said nuclear power could play a big role in easing the nation’s dependence on foreign fuels.
The Senate is expected to approve the measure by Friday.
Nuclear power fell out of favor more than 20 years ago because of cost and safety concerns, but it’s getting a second look as an alternative to fossil fuels that have been linked to global warming. Nuclear plants generate electricity without emitting pollutants, although they create radioactive waste.
Bush’s visit was the first presidential trip to a nuclear generator since President Jimmy Carter toured Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania after its partial meltdown in 1979.
in 1979. The Pennsylvania incident and a far more serious accident in Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986, fed public fears of a nuclear catastrophe.
At least 30 people died in the immediate aftermath of the Chernobyl accident, and survivors have had to deal with abnormally high rates of thyroid cancer.
Bush and other advocates of nuclear power say improved technology has significantly reduced the risk of a radioactive problem.
“Some Americans remember the problems that the nuclear plants had back in the 1970s,” Bush said. “That frightened a lot of folks. People have got to understand that advances in science and engineering and plant design have made nuclear plants far safer.”
Skeptics point to other issues, including the high cost of building nuclear plants. Regulatory hurdles make investors leery of pouring money into expensive nuclear facilities. Security concerns in the age of terrorism and dealing with used fuel rods that remain radioactive for centuries present other obstacles.
Nuclear power provides about 20 percent of the nation’s electric energy, but no new plants have been ordered since the 1970s. Bush noted that France has built 58 nuclear plants in the same time frame, while China has eight new plants under construction.
Bush already has taken steps to help the domestic nuclear industry. A $1.1 billion government-industry partnership launched three years ago is working toward the construction of a state-of-the-art nuclear generator. The Calvert Cliffs plant, which operates two generators, is competing for the chance to operate the new one.
The energy legislation under debate in the Senate this week would offer more financial incentives for new nuclear plants. The bill includes tax breaks, loan guarantees and federal liability protection for new reactors. It also would authorize $1.3 billion for cutting-edge nuclear-hydrogen projects.
The Senate version differs from a House-passed package that’s more in line with Bush’s overall energy strategy. A bitter disagreement over Bush’s plan to permit energy production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – omitted from the Senate bill, but included in the House’s – and other disputes could scuttle the package.
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
In addition to promoting nuclear power, Bush sought to increase pressure on Congress to accept his energy policy. Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., an advocate of nuclear power, welcomed Bush’s visit to the Maryland plant but said Bush’s energy plan doesn’t do enough to promote alternatives to fossil fuels.
The president acknowledged that his proposal would have no short-term impact on gasoline prices.
“I recognize, and I hope you recognize, that when I sign that bill, your gasoline prices aren’t going to drop,” Bush told about 1,000 plant workers and invited guests. “But by addressing it now, we’re going to be able to say life’s going to be better for our children and grandchildren.”
(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE)
—
NUCLEAR POWER: PROS AND CONS
PROS
-Nuclear plants generate lots of electricity for many years.
-They produce no emissions that might worsen global warming.
-Nuclear plants are highly efficient economically compared with those powered by other fuels.
-Fuel costs are stable.
CONS
-Disasters at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986 underscore the safety risks if nuclear plants malfunction.
-Nuclear plants are very costly to build.
-Nuclear-plant waste remains lethally radioactive for centuries.
—
(c) 2005, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
—–
ARCHIVE GRAPHICS on KRT Direct (from KRT Graphics, 202-383-6064): 20050427 ENERGY nuclear, 20040409 Nuclear reactors
NEWSCOM PHOTOS can be viewed at http://www.newscom.com/nc/visuals.html (Username: fpnews and Password: viewnc05 allow editors to view photos.) To purchase photos or to get your own NewsCom username and password, U.S. and Canadian newspapers, please call Tribune Media (800) 637-4082 or (312) 222-2448 or email to tmssalestribune.com. Others contact NewsCom at (202) 383-6070 or email supportnewscom.com. Use search terms: “bush and nuclear”
AP-NY-06-22-05 1723EDT
Comments are no longer available on this story