the low down on green living
October 17th, 2008
Nuclear Power is NOT the Solution to Our Global Warming Woes
As our presidential campaign season draws towards a close and the attacks / counter-attacks reach a fever pitch, it’s almost impossible to separate fact from fiction. So many contradictory proposals, so many disparate numbers — I wouldn’t be surprised if someone says the sky is bright pink before we’re through.
The debate about energy policy is a case in point: the proposals so far have ranged from sound (invest in multiple forms of renewable energy) to questionable (clean coal, 45 new nuclear power plants) to the insultingly cynical and foolish (Drill Baby Drill!).
With most of these energy proposals, we’re being asked to take a leap of faith. Can coal ever be clean, or will carbon dioxide just leak back to the surface from the underground reservoirs where it is stored? Will battery technology advance enough to have one million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2015? Can we make the technology changes and corn-subsidy reductions required to develop ethanol sources that are at least carbon neutral if not negative?
There’s one area, however, where we seem to have a long enough track record to know: nuclear power. If you listen to the McCain campaign, nuclear power (second only to drilling) is a key solution to our energy dependence and global warming woes. Remove a few regulations here, provide some tax credits there, and poof! – energy independence, clean power and new jobs flow forth like oil through a pipeline.
There are a number of assumptions that underly this proposal. One is that nuclear reactors can be operated in a safe manner, which in turn assumes that our government has a strong enough regulatory system to avoid even one small failure (since there really isn’t such thing as a small failure with a nuclear reactor). There are plenty of reasons NOT to believe this, most recently the meltdown of another sort that has crippled our financial system.
You also have to believe that we’ll figure out a way to store and process our nuclear wastes. We’ve been working on that for several decades, and political hot air is the only measurable result.
And, you have to believe that investing in nuclear power makes economic sense as compared to other options available. Fortunately, the Rocky Mountain Institute, one of the leading voices worldwide on energy efficiency and our energy economy, has published a study that addresses this very issue. Some of the key findings:
- Long term, nuclear offers the most expensive way to generate power. When you factor in all of the costs associated with electricity generating options (construction, maintenance, transmission, etc.), even industry-sponsored research suggests that nuclear power is likely to be the most expensive source of electricity we have over the long run. It is 50% more expensive than large coal or natural gas plants and twice as costly as large wind farms or energy efficiency projects. If you don’t see that extra cost in your electricity bill, it’s only because it’s hidden away in your tax bill via government subsidies.
- Per unit of carbon dioxide avoided, nuclear power is also the most expensive option. Nuclear power doesn’t emit much if any carbon dioxide, but when you compare the cost of each pound of carbon dioxide avoided from nuclear power to wind power, energy efficiency or cogeneration plants you once again end up with a loser.
- Even with existing favorable subsidies, nuclear power is not attracting the private investment that renewables are. This means that the costs of developing nuclear power (as mentioned above) will be borne by tax- and rate-payers alone, rather than shared with private investors.
There are many reasons not to like nuclear power. It increases the flow of very dangerous nuclear materials across the planet. Nuclear accidents can be catastrophic, whereas accidents with other energy sources merely reduce the electricity available. We still haven’t found a good way to deal with the waste generated.
In the end, though, they just don’t seem to pay off. Renewable prices will only fall as economies of scale develop and new technologies flood the market, whereas projections for nuclear prices rise with each new report. In these hard economic times, we can all agree regardless of our political or environmental leanings that saving money makes the most sense of all!

Stumble it!
Comments
Nuclear Power is NOT the Solution to Our Global Warming Woes « Nuclear and Indigenous Items of Interest
October 17th, 2008 at 11:55 am
[…] Nuclear Power is NOT the Solution to Our Global Warming Woes Posted on October 17, 2008 by gregornot Nuclear Power is NOT the Solution to Our Global Warming Woes […]
miggs
October 17th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Glad you mentioned cogeneration. I’ve posted here before, I think, so you may know I’m associated with Recycled Energy Development, a company that does cogeneration. (In other words, putting a small power plant on site at a manufacturing facility or other large institution, and then recycling the plant’s waste heat into more electricity and to heat the building.) You’re right: it’s a lot cheaper than nuclear. In fact, it’s a lot cheaper than coal or just about anything. Now, theoretically, we’re agnostic about the fuel; anywhere there’s waste heat, whether it’s from coal or something else, we want to capture it. But that’s just not how nuclear tends to be done. And putting up a big hulking nuke plant when we could sprinkle our major institutions with cogen plants would be very expensive and uncertain for the the environment.
Rick Waechter
October 21st, 2008 at 8:27 am
I guess the real question is, is there any reliable, unbiased study out there that suggests a real plan that solves all of our energy needs and deals with not only the green issues, but also the issue of cost, time required for the transition and takes into account the harm on the economy of being dependent on other nations?
David Tannen
October 21st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
The problem is that for the near term we have to look at Nuclear Energy. We need to ask ourselves how can the French generate so much electricity with Nuclear Power(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France).
That doesn’t mean we should not look at other sources (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal). And local generation is also a great idea, especially for systems such as solar (heat & electricity).
As for the risks with Nuclear power, every energy generation method (including solar, wind, hydro, & geothermal) have risks. It just isn’t polite to talk about those risks.
Steven Rondeau
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:08 am
David,
I agree with you. I also believe that no industry should be subsidized. You are skewing the results. If it actually costs more to produce electricy with a technology the private sector will move away from it, plain and simple.
There is no panacea for all our engery woes. We need a good healthy diverse energy system. Wind and solar are great but only if you live in an area where the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.
Most of the electricy in the US comes from coak. Why is it that a coal plant is not made to burn as efficiently as a waster-to-energy plant? Also, on the CO release, there is an algae that uses this CO and water to reproduce, thereby sequestering the carbon, so it is possible.
I have kids, I love the outdoors, I want them to enjoy the world, but if we go blindly towards one end of the spectrum we are repeating history. Lets be smart and wake up. The more diverse we are the more likely we will be able to handle every issue in the future.
Jenn
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:10 am
Thanks for this article. Even though I am strictly opposed to nuclear energy due to its toxic waste byproducts, the economic aspects were totally news to me.
Earth Ling
November 5th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
The miracle of the French nuclear industry is a mirage.
Whenever you hear Dick Cheney tell you something is good, as he had with the French Nuclear Industry, be sure to get extremely suspicious.
Here are some links to educate yourself on the very real, very large problems with nuclear power in France.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/17/122157/497
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/FranceNuclearMyths.html
Post a Comment