According to the Times Online (London), “Britain is to build the first new generation of nuclear power stations for 20 years to avoid becoming dependent on foreign gas imports.” Right now, nuclear power accounts for 22% of Britain’s electricity, similar to the United States where nuclear power provides about 20% of our nation’s electricity. No nuclear power plants have come online in the U.K. since 1988 or in the U.S. since 1996, according to the Times and the U.S. Energy Information Administration, respectively. In contrast, France relies on nuclear power for 80% of their electricity.

With natural gas prices high and local electricity prices forecasted to go up 20-35% in 2007, is the U.S. planning to exploit nuclear energy as an alternative? The President wants to explore it, apparently. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has published a nice summary of U.S. nuclear policy which includes this information on the administration’s stand:

The Bush Administration has called for an expansion of nuclear power. For Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear energy research and development, the Administration is seeking $632.7 million for FY2007, an 18.1% increase from the FY2006 appropriation.

Believe it or not, Illinois leads the nation in nuclear capacity (source: EIA). In fact, our state has almost as much nuclear capacity all by itself as the United Kingdom. There are 11 reactors among the six plants located in the Land of Lincoln. Those plants are located in Braidwood, Byron, Clinton, Dresden, LaSalle, and Quad Cities. All the plants/reactors are owned by Exelon Corporation, the parent company of AmerGen, Commonwealth Edison, and other power companies in Illinois.

The plant in Clinton, however, cost over $4 billion to build, “leading the plant to produce some of the most expensive power in the Midwest.” And there are also concerns over safety and radioactive waste. CRS reports that “each nuclear reactor produces an annual average of about 20 tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel and 50-200 cubic meters of low-level radioactive waste.” Where does it all go?

Spent fuel and other highly radioactive waste is to be isolated in a deep underground repository, consisting of a large network of tunnels carved from rock that has remained geologically undisturbed for hundreds of thousands of years. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.), Yucca Mountain in Nevada is the only candidate site for the national repository.

So there are trade-offs. Do the pros outweigh the cons for using more nuclear power in the U.S. to reduce our dependence on gas and oil? Or would we just be trading one problem (scarcity, emissions) for another (safety, radioactive waste), at a negligible economic advantage?