INTRODUCTION
Policy analysis encompasses the identification of possible policy alternatives that may tackle a given challenge and then comparing the options to select the one that is most efficient and practicable. Performing a comprehensive policy assessment is instrumental in identifying the best policy. This paper conducts a policy analysis pertaining to the use of nuclear energy and recommends the most practical policy and its justification.
State Recommendation
The country should maintain its current nuclear production capacity levels for 20% of energy used across the United States and increase and have the capacity to do so if necessary in times of need.
We must understand that there are numerous benefits associated with maintaining the current level of nuclear production, as we argue in its favour. This is not only a way of ensuring economic stability and the creation of jobs in the nuclear industry but also another way of showing the environmental benefits of low-carbon energy sources. Moreover, this stand enhances national energy security since it is rooted deeply in nuclear reliability.
Likewise, it is important to focus on public education and develop a strong regulatory system to secure public faith and confidence. Consequently, technological advancements will be achieved through investment in research and development to enhance efficiency and safety while driving down costs. Thus, by keeping our nuclear capacity, we assert ourselves as global leaders of clean energy and climate change mitigations who have pledged allegiance towards a sustainable future.
Problem Definition
The United States (U.S.) relies on multiple energy sources. Nuclear energy is one of the country’s sources of power, though nuclear power has some concerns, including the management of radioactive wastes and how we handle it specifically. Nuclear fuel stays in nuclear reactors for several years, after which it is unable to support the nuclear chain reaction economically and is extremely radioactive and hot (Congressional Research Service, 2021). The nuclear fuel that has been used to such an extent must be replaced after some time from functioning plants and stored in water.
This helps prevent excessive heating and provides shielding from radiation. The cooling process takes several years, after which the spent fuel can be put in dry casks to be stored somewhere else within the planned site (Congressional Research Service, 2021). Initially, when building the existing reactors, it was anticipated that spent fuel would be taken away for recycling or permanent disposal. Nevertheless, reprocessing is yet to become commercialized in the U.S., and disposal facilities have proven challenging to site (Congressional Research Service, 2021). This causes most of the commercially used fuel to remain at the plant where it was initially produced.
The challenges associated with handling the waste resulting from nuclear energy present a considerable problem to the stakeholders. The primary issue is whether the country should sustain the status quo when it comes to its dependence on nuclear energy.
The Status Quo
Nuclear energy has been powering the country with clean energy and carbon-free electricity for the past six decades. Statistics show that nearly 20% of electricity used across the nation yearly comes from nuclear power, and it is perceived as the most dependable power source (U.S. Department of Energy, 2019). In 2017, the plants for nuclear energy production functioned at maximum capacity more than ninety-two per cent of the time (U.S. Department of Energy, 2019).
This makes power from nuclear sources almost twice as dependable as coal, 50%, and natural gas, 55%. In addition, nuclear power is two or three times more dependable than wind and solar (U.S. Department of Energy, 2019). Plants for nuclear power are meant to function twenty-four hours every day because they require less maintenance and can operate for a long before being refuelled. The ability of the plants to operate for longer periods daily indicates that the maintenance cost of the plants may be lower compared to other energy sources. The country continues to benefit from the use of nuclear energy despite the challenges associated with production.
The Methodology
The methodology used in this policy analysis is muti-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). According to Zlaugtone (2020), MCDA is widely utilized to address various problems through alternative assessment. Instead of MAA, I chose MCDA, which is a multi-step process that combines a set of approaches to structure and standardizes the processes for resolution-making in a transparent and consistent way (Zlaugtone, 2020).
When using the technique, it is essential to define the issue, options, and requirements, which may be various types of expenses, environmental effects, energy efficiency, social elements, and other specified requirements relevant to the issue being addressed (Zlaugtone, 2020). In cases where there are several alternatives to a single problem, it is essential to find the most appropriate alternative with the most favourable cost criteria, the least effect on the environment, and good energy efficiency. The methodology was considered most appropriate because the specific elements of the policy analysis match the criteria described in MCDA.
Policy Alternatives
Policies In Favor of the Production of Nuclear Power
Several policy alternatives need to be considered concerning the utilization of nuclear energy. The first bracket of policy alternatives is to invest more in advanced nuclear energy. This may include conducting more research on nuclear energy to identify the most advanced technology that would enable the state to maximize its nuclear power production levels. The techniques requimay include the next-generation reactors, which are likely to demonstrate a higher efficiency compared to the ones being used currently.
Policy for Research and Development in Advanced Nuclear Technologies
A sixth sense policy should push for the progress of advanced nuclear technologies that spur innovation towards safer and more efficient nuclear reactors. The best way to a cleaner, more flexible energy future is to focus funding on research for next-gen reactors like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Public-private partnerships involving governments, industry and academia are essential to overcoming financial barriers because they combine public interest with private sector efficiency. This will not only ease the way for scientific innovations but also place the country in the vanguard of global nuclear energy. By investing in cutting-edge safety measures and waste reduction techniques, this policy would guarantee the continuity and sustainability of nuclear energy, thus reiterating the nation’s commitment to a stable and environmentally conscious energy mix.
Policy for the Investment of Nuclear Energy Infrastructure
A strategic pathway to long-term economic and environmental prosperity exists through investment in nuclear energy infrastructure. This is because an enhanced nuclear facility offers a high yield of energy per unit of fuel, making it a financially sensible option compared to fossil fuels, whose costs and availability swing. In terms of climate change, nuclear power has one of the lowest carbon footprints that are essential towards its mitigation. As such, this policy should include support for upgrading older plants, developing a skilled workforce, and fostering related industries like mining or modern engineering to help sustain the role of nuclear power in future.
Policy for Nuclear Waste Management and Disposal
To guarantee safety and sustainability, a comprehensive policy on nuclear waste management and disposal should employ technological innovations. It should support the development of recycling processes that diminish the long duration and toxicity of radioactive waste while strengthening secure, geologically stable final repositories. Moreover, there is a need to invest in research for advanced containment materials as well as waste reprocessing so as to reduce environmental impacts. This policy would also mandate rigorous oversight and continuous improvement of waste handling protocols, ensuring that nuclear energy remains a responsible and viable component of the nation’s energy portfolio.
Policy for Public Education and Support for Nuclear Energy
Public education policy on nuclear energy should concentrate on disproving the myths and stating the truth about nuclear safety and its indispensability in the present-day energy picture. Educational campaigns should target different communities, including schools, public workshops and media, to emphasize the important role of nuclear power in our sustainable future. Through appealing infographics, interactive web platforms, and community dialogues, people would know that nuclear science is not so incomprehensible while realizing that this form of energy is reliable because it has minimal effect on the environment, like traditional fuels.
Policy for Diversifying Energy Portfolio with Nuclear Power
The policy itself should motivate the inclusion of nuclear power in the country’s energy needs with an emphasis on its role in boosting energy security as well as environmental protection. It should give priority to the reliability and capability of nuclear power to generate massive electricity, supplementing green technologies like those that make use of solar and wind. This mixed approach guarantees an uninterrupted supply of energy, curtails dependence upon nonrenewable fossil fuels, and facilitates a transition towards low-carbon economies, thus reconciling energy demand and environmental sustainability.
Policies in Favor of Maintaining the Current Nuclear Energy
The second bracket of policy alternatives is to maintain the country’s current nuclear energy production capacity. Nuclear power accounts for twenty per cent of the energy used in the country (U.S. Department of Energy, 2019). Maintaining the production capacity would mean that the current nuclear plants would be maintained to ensure the energy produced neither increases nor reduces. As a result, the country will have to continue relying on other sources of energy to ensure the remaining 80% of energy is available.
Policy for Maintaining Current Nuclear Energy Production Capacity
To ensure that nuclear power continues to contribute towards a secure and stable energy supply, a tough policy must explicitly mention the value of its role in this. Moreover, renewable sources use natural elements, unlike nuclear plants that operate independently in terms of unmatched baseload generation capacity, as should be highlighted by this policy. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that nuclear energy is among the most important low-carbon components for reaching climate targets. The economic benefits realized from sustaining nuclear power are well defined by this policy, including employment creation and energy cost stability, besides securing national energy self-sufficiency. By adopting such a policy, the nation can solidify its steadfastness towards sustainability and security of an energy future.
Policies Supporting Nuclear Energy Being a Primary Source of Energy
The last policy alternative would be to initiate a pathway to pursue nuclear energy as a primary source fully. This would imply that the country set in motion plans that would gradually ensure it reduces its reliance on nuclear energy. The country should be able to stop producing nuclear energy over some time. However, the state must invest in other energy sources to ensure that the electricity that is being produced from nuclear energy is generated from these other sources to prevent electricity shortage incidents.
The Cost-Benefit Analysis
Performing a cost-benefit assessment of the policy options would help determine the most efficient policy option. Overall, the advantages of using nuclear energy significantly outweigh its limitations. Investing more in nuclear power would cause the country to incur high development costs. The policy has the potential for long-term advantages despite the huge costs involved. Nuclear energy has the potential to reduce emissions, which is a serious global problem. More investment would also translate to more energy. The radioactive waste from the plants would still remain a huge concern, considering most nuclear plants would be built.
Maintaining the current nuclear energy production capacity would imply a stable power supply and minimal maintenance cost. Furthermore, nuclear energy would continue providing 56% of the country’s carbon-free energy (U.S. Department of Energy, 2019). This suggests that maintaining the present capacity still enables nuclear power to remain the nation’s source of clean energy. According to Ritchie (2020), nuclear plants do not emit greenhouse gases when producing power. The primary disadvantage of this policy alternative is that radioactive wa is stneeds to be solvedenge.
Abandoning the production of nuclear energy would mean that the country would incur the expense of destroying the plants. The country will also have to transition to other energy sources to ensure enough energy is being produced. The power that is currently being generated from nuclear plants is substantial. The country may be forced to rely more on fossil fuels, which are considered harmful to the environment. The safety concerns associated with nuclear energy production would be reduced.
Recommendation and Justification
The recommendation would be to implement the second policy alternative, which requires the state to maintain its present nuclear production rate. The private sector is heavily involved and has a huge influence on the production of civilian nuclear energy in the country. At the same time, the government is deeply engaged through safety and environmental standards, funding, and developing energy objectives (World Nuclear Association [WNA], 2023). This shows that the two sectors are sufficiently involved in nuclear power production. It is worth pointing out that the dedication to nuclear energy as part of the country’s long-term investment is still being pursued by both sides of the aisle. Nuclear power plants provide reliable and stable energy to the grid, while solar and wind energy require backup during their output gaps (Mathew, 2022). The long-term commitment to nuclear energy shows the need to solve the challenges associated with it before increasing production levels.
Public opinion regarding nuclear energy has positively grown over the last three decades (WNA, 2023). The primary reason for recommending the second policy alternative is that disposal and storage of high-level nuclear waste remains a primary challenge (WNA, 2023). It is fundamental to find a solution on how to dispose of the high-level nuclear waste currently produced from the plants. Increasing the production of this type of energy would mean increasing the level of waste. Consequently, the management of wastes from the plants would remain a serious concern. The state has yet to develop alternative sources that would replace nuclear energy, showing the need to maintain its production. The country can leverage its well-developed regulatory framework to tackle safety concerns and use any resources necessary to progress.
Evaluation Metrics & Definition of Success
The main evaluation metric would be the management of wastes from nuclear plants. The success would be evidenced by improved management of nuclear wastes, leading to minimal or no impacts on the environment and humans. The second metric would be the stability of the electricity produced by the nuclear plants. The success of this metric would be evidenced by a stable and reliable electricity supply from nuclear energy. The areas supplied by nuclear energy should have a highly stable power supply at all times.
Sources
Congressional Research Service. (2021). Nuclear energy: Overview of Congressional issue. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42853
Mathew, M. D. (2022). Nuclear energy: A pathway towards mitigation of global warming. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 143, 104080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2021.104080
Ritchie, H. (2020, February 10). What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy? Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
United States Department of Energy. (2019). The ultimate fast facts guide to nuclear energy. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/01/f58/Ultimate%20Fast%20Facts%20Guide-PRINT.pdf
World Nuclear Association. (2023, February). U.S. nuclear power policy. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/usa-nuclear-power-policy.aspx
Zlaugotne, B., Zihare, L., Balode, L., Kalnbalkite, A., Khabdullin, A., & Blumberg, D. (2020). Multi-criteria decision analysis methods comparison. Rigas Tehniskas Universitates Zinatniskie Raksti, 24(1), 454-471. doi:10.2478/rtuect-2020-0028
write