Without significant gains in storage technology, electric generation from solar and wind will not meet the world’s energy needs. Nuclear power, however, can deliver electric power in a sufficiently safe, economical and secure manner to supplement supply from other carbon-free sources. Despite this, there remain major objections to the safety, cost, waste management and proliferation risk of nuclear power, which I’ll seek to address here.
Safety
There have been three serious accidents that challenged the safety record of nuclear power: the Three Mile Island (TMI), Chernobyl, and the tsunami-induced Fukushima accident. In all these accidents there were no immediate public fatalities and only at Chernobyl were there workforce fatalities (28) arising from radiation exposure. Since the TMI accident, the operating and safety record of US operating plants has improved steadily and now includes standards to handle terrorist attacks and extreme natural disasters.
Cost
The anticipated capital cost of new advanced nuclear plants is about $7 Billion. Four such plants under construction in Georgia and South Carolina are due to start up by 2020. Despite this high capital cost, the long-term cost of power is estimated to be 8.4 cents/kWhr, which is competitive with natural gas prices of $9.5/MMBtu. Although this break-even cost may be higher than the current price of natural gas, the stability in the cost of nuclear electricity provides an important hedge against future price increases in natural gas (especially if the US becomes a major gas exporter), as well as protection from supply interruptions. And, of course, the cost of electricity from natural gas plants does not include any recognition of the carbon emissions that they produce.
Waste Management
At present used nuclear fuel is safely and effectively managed; it’s temporarily stored at reactor sites in used fuel storage pools or in dry casks in shielded concrete canisters. The abandonment of the US Yucca Mountain Repository Project led to the formation of the “Blue Ribbon Commission,” which recommends proceeding with centralized interim storage of spent fuel and a “consensus” process to site a new repository(s), an approach included in current bipartisan waste legislation in the Senate.
Proliferation Risk
The threat of nuclear proliferation is currently managed through international treaties and the conduct of inspection programs. The risk may be amenable to future reduction by technological developments. Additionally, weapons development by all countries has been done independently of, and usually prior to, a commercial nuclear power program, and therefore proliferation risk is not a compelling basis upon which to oppose the deployment of civil nuclear power plants.
The energy needs of the world are large and growing and nuclear energy provides a scalable, clean source of safe power, which, with other clean energy sources, can meet the world’s needs in a sustainable manner.
What role should nuclear power have in America’s energy future?
Safety: Those “immediate” fatalities that did occur at Chernobyl were limited to people who went on site or were in a helicopter that flew through the highly intense plume. There… Read more »
Thoughtful and well-stated! Unless we want to return to living outdoors, with nothing but a windmill, a battery and our precious iPads, we will need large-scale power generation. Nuclear should… Read more »
While I believe that a nuclear plant is about 1000 times safer than a coal plant from an “expected deaths” or just about any other measure, nuclear power has two… Read more »
Well said and on-target. Problem #2 is perhaps the most challenging.
Kadak claims that Chenobyl caused only 28 workforce fatalities. I have three energy-related websites: http://www.padrak.com/vesperman, http://www.commutefaster.com/vesperman.html, and http://the-door.net/the-colorado-center/radioactivity-neutralization-methods-and-more/. They include my two-volume 350-page compilation of “Radioactivity Neutralization Methods”. I searched for… Read more »
I would simply suggest reading the World Health Organization Report on the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents to get an unbiased assessment of health effects. They support my statement which is… Read more »
Let’s begin with a caveat. New nuclear fuel cycles — thorium or whatever — may change the landscape dramatically. So the question I think is really answerable is what role… Read more »
Clearly large light water reactors are not appropriate for all nations particularly nations with small grids. For those nations that can accept 1000 plus Mwe plants, they do provide a stable… Read more »
Nuclear power is not a viable option for many reasons. In regard to greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency is the lowest cost and fastest solution, A new study by the… Read more »
Even though the EPA has stated that the recently proposed carbon standards for existing power plants will favor nuclear, I just don’t see that happening because of economics. Nuclear remains… Read more »
Good points. But note that other kinds of power generation projects may be subject to cost overruns too. For instance, see this story from the Dallas News: “The construction of… Read more »
A new report (http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/energy-and-water-use/) lays out the case for adding water use to the criteria we use to redefine our electric power system. When we plan to limit the effects… Read more »
Jane, The commercially proven technology that uses the least water is the gas turbine (needs no water) and the much more efficient gas turbine combined cycle plant which needs about… Read more »
“The water use criteria makes both nuclear and CCS solutions not advisable.” Note that Inventys Thermal Technologies (one of my portfolio companies) has developed a very low cost system for… Read more »
Thanks for the information … I will keep watching. Dr. Chu did a wonderful job with NREL and setting the direction of the Department of Energy. He seems to understand… Read more »
A few summary comments based on some premises that are, or at least should be generally acceptable. I believe we are considering the role of nuclear power, i.e. the current commercially… Read more »
Relevant to this discussion is an article that appeared over the weekend: What Would It Take To Decarbonize The Energy System with an interesting perspective on the rate of building… Read more »
Jack and Dawn, All the 80% renewables have some measure of nuclear or fossil in their 2050 projections. This UCS paper looks like they are looking for about 20% gas-fired… Read more »
Jane, I had a lengthy response, but somehow it failed to post. I will repeat a couple of points. When we think of renewable wind and solar capacity; they should… Read more »
The is a middle ground on nuclear fission. The arguments against recycling (reprocessing) have never made much sense, as the alternative, 100 lightly guarded pools of water, is a greater… Read more »
Elliot, Sorry, I don’t think so. The problem for nuclear is economic, and to a lesser extent the uncertainty about future requirements and litigation. The risk is much too high… Read more »
Jack, I agree it is economic as well as a political issue. However, Wall Street includes in economic cost the uncertainty of any option. Since the decommissioning and waste disposal… Read more »
Elliot, Didn’t know that we had any pools of water at the Connecticut Yankee site. It is near my home, so I’ll drive down there and take a look. I’ll… Read more »
Elliot, Regarding the alleged “pools” at CT Yankee. I cannot find the source of your information, but there are no spent fuel pools at the plant site. In fact the… Read more »
Elliot – I understand that our nuclear plants have been run – 30% – by reprocessed Russian weapons and that we still need to use the reprocessed uranium from our own… Read more »
Jane, The issue is that wind and solar do not always operate when the grid demand needs them (Even in California, the sun does set!). They cannot always be relied… Read more »
It’s time to get away from “top down” energy planning, where questions are asked like “what is the role of nuclear power.” This presumes an omniscient planner who has perfect… Read more »
To: Steve Isser: I have been arguing since this listserv started that ALL costs must be included in evaluating energy alternatives and in calculating all options. I understand this is… Read more »
Whatever metrics one is going to use to evaluate the costs and benefits of power generation must be normalized by units of energy delivered. Acute and immediate costs… Read more »
Ike, Thanks again for your knowledgeable comments on the issues…and for the many hours of research you must be undertaking. I am too damned old to match your effort, but… Read more »
Jack and Ike FYI You should take a look at the NREL report about potential of renewable resources … Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-51946 – July 2012. it does do the measurements in potential… Read more »
Jane, The “renewable” issues are cost and reliability. The subsidies will cover the cost issue as long as we can print money. Reliability must be covered by gas turbines (predominately). To… Read more »
Elliot, It took me a month to find the time, but I can now confirm that there is no water being used at the decommissioned CT Yankee site. Note that… Read more »