Atomic energy missing from source talks

With all the discussions about alternative energy sources — wind, tides, sun — nuclear energy has been largely left out of the conversation in Alaska.

Perhaps it’s understandable given that nuclear energy can be used as a weapon. Then there’s the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 that some Alaskans remember. The worst, of course, was the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 when Soviet scientists tried an experiment that went bad, causing radiation contamination over much of Europe.

However, nuclear power plants have been safely operating for decades in many countries. In fact, the Three Mile Island plant is still in operation.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s website says there are more than 100 nuclear generating plants in the U.S. alone. They generate about 19 percent of the nation’s electricity. Nuclear plants provide about 16 percent of the world’s electricity. But no new ones have been built in the United States since 1996.

With the new technology, nuclear power is safe, reliable and clean. So why haven’t elected officials, energy experts and others brought this to the table?

We would rather dam the Susitna River and flood miles of canyon land than build one nuclear plant that could probably power dozens of villages or the entire Mat-Su Borough.

Alaska has uranium and mines have produced a goodly amount in the past and exported it. There are companies prospecting in Southeast and other places here. There’s no question the mineral is available, so we should at least discuss the possibility of mining uranium to fuel Alaska.

We’re all in favor of exploring solar energy, windmills and even turbines to capture tidal movements. Those also have their drawbacks. December isn’t a great time to catch sun rays, the wind doesn’t always blow and underwater turbines kill fish.

Nuclear energy should be on the list when government officials talk about reducing our dependence on oil.

There are more than 100 plants operating in the nation, as the EPA reports, and who knows how many around the world, and yet we rarely here of one failing.

If Alaskans can consider billions of dollars for a dam project near Talkeetna, it then makes sense that we should also discuss nuclear power. Just over a year ago, a Japanese company had plans to install a small plant to generate power in Galena, pending permit approval.

A study by the University of Chicago compared costs of various energy sources by megawatt hours.

The study showed nuclear power, with the latest technology, would cost $57 to $64 per mwh. Coal would be $37 to $49, natural gas $56 to $68, wind $55 to $77, solar cells, $202 to $308 and solar collectors $158 to $235.

That makes nuclear energy competitive or superior in cost to other energy sources.