~~~~~~~~~~"""""""""Is nuclear power the answer for a warming planet? Or is it too expensive and dangerous to satisfy future energy needs?
Interest
in nuclear power is heating up, as the hunt intensifies for "green"
alternatives to fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. Even some
environmentalists have come on board, citing the severity of the
global-warming threat to explain their embrace of the once-maligned
power source.
But the issue is far from
settled. Proponents insist that nuclear is a necessary alternative in an
energy-constrained world. They say that the economics make sense -- and
that the public has a warped image of the safety risks, thanks to Three
Mile Island, Chernobyl and "The China Syndrome." Opponents, meanwhile,
are convinced that the costs are way too high to justify the safety
hazards, as well as the increased risks of proliferation.
Has nuclear's time come?NUCLEAR'S THE ANSWER
The argument for nuclear power can be stated pretty simply: We have no choice.
If
the world intends to address the threat of global warming and still
satisfy its growing appetite for electricity, it needs an ambitious
expansion of nuclear power.
Scientists
agree that greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide, are building up in
the atmosphere and contributing to a gradual increase in global average
temperatures. At the same time, making electricity accounts for about a
third of U.S. greenhouse emissions, mostly from burning fossil fuels to
produce power.
Nuclear power plants, on
the other hand, emit virtually no carbon dioxide -- and no sulfur or
mercury either. Even when taking into account "full life-cycle
emissions" -- including mining of uranium, shipping fuel, constructing
plants and managing waste -- nuclear's carbon-dioxide discharges are
comparable to the full life-cycle emissions of wind and hydropower and
less than solar power.
Nuclear power, of
course, isn't the only answer. We need to get more energy from other
nonpolluting sources such as solar and wind. Conservation is crucial. So
is using technology to make more efficient use of fossil-fuel power.
But
we have to be realistic about the limits of these alternatives. As it
is, the 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S. generate about a fifth of
the nation's energy. Wind accounts for about 1%, and solar even less
than that. Any increase in the number of nuclear power plants can help
-- even if they won't solve the whole problem.
More
important from the standpoint of displacing fossil fuel, nuclear can
meet power demand 24 hours a day. Solar and wind can't do that. Nuclear
is the only current technology that fits the bill.
The Real Economics
So, what's the case against nuclear power? It boils down to two things: economics and safety.
Neither holds up to scrutiny.
First,
economics. Critics argue that the high cost of building and financing a
new plant makes nuclear power uneconomical when compared with other
sources of power.
But that's misleading
on a number of levels. One reason it's so expensive at this point is
that no new plant has been started in the U.S. since the last one to
begin construction in 1977. Lenders -- uncertain how long any new plant
would take because of political and regulatory delays -- are wary of
financing the first new ones. So financing costs are unusually high. As
we build more, the timing will be more predictable, and financing costs
will no doubt come down as lenders become more comfortable.
Loan
guarantees and other federal incentives are needed to get us over this
hump. They are not permanent subsidies for uneconomical ventures.
Instead, they're limited to the first half dozen of plants as a way to
reassure investors that regulatory delays won't needlessly hold up
construction. It's important to remember that although nuclear energy
has been around a while, it's hardly a "mature" industry, as some
critics say. Because of the lack of new plants in so many years, nuclear
in many ways is more like an emerging technology, and so subsidies make
sense to get it going.
It's also true
that a shortage of parts and skills is raising the cost of new plants.
But if we start building more plants, the number of companies supplying
parts will increase to meet the demand, lowering the price.
Most
important, nuclear power appears economically uncompetitive primarily
because the price of "cheaper" fossil fuels, mainly coal, don't reflect
the high cost that carbon emissions pose for the environment. Add those
costs, and suddenly, nuclear power will look like a bargain.
That's
likely to happen soon. Governments are expected to assign a cost to
greenhouse gases, through either a direct tax (based on the carbon
content of a fuel) or a so-called cap-and-trade system, which would set a
limit on emissions while allowing companies whose discharges are lower
than the cap to sell or trade credits to companies whose pollution
exceeds the cap.
Suddenly, big carbon
polluters like coal-produced electricity are going to look a lot more
expensive compared with low-carbon sources -- in particular, nuclear,
wind and hydropower.
It's estimated that
a carbon "price" of between $25 and $50 a ton makes nuclear power
economically competitive with coal. That should be enough to ease
investor concerns about utilities that build new nuclear plants.
Even
without a carbon tax, rising natural-gas prices are beginning to make
nuclear power more competitive. That's true even in some deregulated
markets, such as Texas.
NRG Energy Inc.,
based in Princeton, N.J., has filed an application to build a reactor
adjacent to an existing plant in Texas. Though it's too early to know
how much the plant will eventually cost -- or even if it ultimately will
get built -- high natural-gas prices alone are enough to justify
construction, according to NRG.
One
other point on cost: Solar and wind advocates say these sources are
cheaper than nuclear -- and getting cheaper. But again, even if true,
the intermittent nature of these sources make them flawed replacements
for carbon-emitting sources. Nuclear is the only clean-energy way to
address that gap.
No 'China Syndrome'
Let's turn to
the critics' other argument: safety. We're still living in a world whose
viewpoints have been warped by the 1979 accident at the Three Mile
Island plant in Pennsylvania and the 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl
plant in the Ukraine, as well as by the anti-nuclear movie "The China
Syndrome."
The truth is that there's
little doubt that in the U.S., at least, plants are much safer now than
they were in the past. Those accidents led regulators and the industry
to bolster safety at U.S. nuclear plants. There are more safety features
at the plants, plant personnel are better trained, and reactors have
been redesigned so that accidents are far less likely to occur. For
instance, every U.S. plant has an on-site control-room simulator where
employees can hone their skills and handle simulated emergencies, and
plant workers spend one week out of every six in the simulator or in the
classroom.
The next generation of
plants is designed to be even safer, using fewer pumps and piping and
relying more on gravity to move water for cooling the hot nuclear core.
This means fewer possible places where equipment failure could cause a
serious accident.
And even if a serious
accident does occur, U.S. plants are designed to make sure that no
radiation is released into the environment. Reactors are contained
inside a huge structure of reinforced concrete with walls that are as
much as four feet thick; the Chernobyl reactor lacked such a structure.
What's
more, you can't look at safety in a vacuum. Consider the hazards of the
world's reliance on coal-fired plants: Coal mining world-wide results
in several thousand deaths every year, most of them in China, and
burning coal is a leading source of mercury in the atmosphere.
Furthermore,
look at safety more broadly -- from an environmental perspective. The
death and destruction stemming from global warming far exceed what is
likely to happen if there is a nuclear accident. And yet, when we talk
about safety, we seem to focus only on the risks of nuclear power.
Politics of Disposal
The long-term disposal of nuclear waste is also a problem -- but it's mainly a policy issue, not a technical one.
Most
experts agree that the best way to dispose of waste is deep
underground, where radioactive materials can be prevented from entering
the environment and where it can be guarded against theft or terrorist
attack. In the U.S., the Energy Department picked Yucca Mountain in
southwestern Nevada for a repository, but political wrangling has so far
blocked proceeding with the site, and final approval is considered a
long shot. Even if approved, it won't be able to begin accepting waste
for a decade or more.
In the meantime,
interim storage in deep pools next to nuclear plants is considered
sufficiently safe to meet the industry's needs until well into the
future. The amount of waste produced is relatively small; all the waste
produced so far in the U.S. would only cover a football field about five
yards deep. Older, cooler fuel can also be stored for decades in dry
casks.
Longer term, advanced fuel
recycling and reprocessing can reduce the amount of waste that needs to
be stored. While reprocessing wouldn't eliminate the need for a
long-term repository, it can reduce the amount, heat and radioactivity
of the remaining waste.
Stopping the Spread
Finally,
critics say that an expansion of nuclear power will increase the danger
that potentially hostile nations will use nuclear material from a power
program to develop atomic weapons, or that rogue states or terrorists
will steal nuclear material to make bombs.
While
nonproliferation is an important consideration, the proliferation
problem won't be solved by turning away from nuclear power.
To
curtail these risks, governments need to strengthen current
international anti-proliferation efforts to, among other things, give
the International Atomic Energy Agency more information about a
country's nuclear-related activities and IAEA inspectors greater access
to suspect locations. Further, current fuel-reprocessing techniques are
limited and new processing technologies are being developed to limit the
amount and accessibility of weapons-grade materials (by, for instance,
producing a form of plutonium that needs further reprocessing before it
could be used in bombs).
One final point
about security: One of the biggest dangers to our security is from oil
nations providing support to anti-U.S. terrorist groups. The faster we
can move away from carbon-based energy, the faster we take away that
funding source. Nuclear energy offers the fastest and most direct path
to that safer future.
NO~~~~~~TO~~~~~~~~NUCLEAR
Nuclear power isn't a
solution to global warming. Rather, global warming is just a convenient
rationale for an obsolete energy source that makes no sense when
compared to the alternatives.
Sure,
nuclear power generates lots of electricity while producing virtually no
carbon dioxide. But it still faces the same problems that have stymied
the development of new nuclear plants for the past 20 years --
exorbitant costs, the risks of an accident or terrorist attack, the
threat of proliferation and the challenge of disposing of nuclear waste.
The
cost issue alone will mean that few if any new nuclear power stations
will get built in the next few years, at least in the U.S., and any that
do will require expensive taxpayer subsidies. Instead of subsidizing
the development of new plants that have all these other problems, the
U.S. would be better off investing in other ways to meet growing energy
demands and reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.
In
fact, the sheer number of nuclear plants needed to make a major dent in
greenhouse emissions means the industry hasn't a prayer of turning
nuclear power into the solution to global warming. One study from last
year determined that to make a significant contribution toward
stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide, about 21 new 1,000-megawatt
plants would have to be built each year for the next 50 years, including
those needed to replace existing reactors, all of which are expected to
be retired by 2050. That's considerably more than the most ambitious
industry growth projections.
Too Expensive
But let's start with the biggest problem with nuclear power: the cost.
While
no one knows what a new reactor will cost until one gets built,
estimates for new construction continue to rise. Building a new plant
could cost as much as $6,000 a kilowatt of generating capacity, up from
estimates of about $4,000 a kilowatt just a year ago. FPL Group, of Juno
Beach, Fla., estimates that two new reactors planned for southeast
Florida would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion each.
Part
of the reason for the rising cost estimates is the small number of
vendors able to supply critical reactor components, as well as a
shortage of engineering and construction skills in the nuclear industry.
Perhaps the biggest bottleneck is in the huge reactor vessels that
contain a plant's radioactive core. Only one plant in the world is
capable of forging the huge vessels in a single piece, and it can
produce only a handful of the forgings a year. Though the plant intends
to expand capacity in the next couple of years, and China has said it
plans to begin making the forgings, this key component is expected to
limit development for many years.
The
only way to make nuclear power economically competitive would be the
imposition of steep "prices" on carbon-emitting power sources. Nobody
knows precisely how high those prices would have to go -- there are too
many variables to consider. But estimates range as high as $60 a ton of
carbon dioxide. This imposes an unacceptably high price on consumers.
More
important, though, there are less-costly ways of weaning ourselves off
these carbon-emitting energy sources. Even if a high price of carbon
makes nuclear economic, the costs of renewable energy such as wind and
solar power are cheaper, and getting cheaper all the time. By contrast,
nuclear is more expensive, and getting more expensive all the time.
Solving a Problem
And
yes, it's true that wind and solar suffer from the problem of not being
available 24 hours a day. But new technology is already beginning to
solve that problem. And we'd be better off -- from both an economic and
safety standpoint -- if we used natural gas to fill in the gaps, rather
than nuclear.
Subsidies to the industry
distort the financial picture further. In the U.S., Washington assumes
liability for any catastrophic damages above $10.5 billion for an
accident, and has taken on responsibility for the disposal of nuclear
waste. The 1995 federal Energy Policy Act also provides loan guarantees
for as much as 80% of the cost of new reactors and additional financial
guarantees of up to $2 billion for costs arising from regulatory delays.
The
1995 act saw subsidies as a way to prime the pump of a nuclear-energy
revival in the U.S.; increased demand and a stable regulatory
environment would ultimately reduce the cost of building new plants.
However, the industry for 50 years has shown only a trend toward higher
costs, and there's no evidence that subsidies will spur any reduction in
those costs.
And besides, if nuclear
power is such a great deal, it should be able to stand on its own, and
not require such subsidies from the taxpayer. Government subsidies
should sponsor research and development into new or emerging energy
technologies where prices are already falling and the subsidies can
jump-start demand to help further bring down costs. They're
inappropriate for mature industries, like nuclear power, where market
forces should be allowed to do their work.
The Safety Issue
Cost isn't the only reason an expansion of nuclear power is a bad idea.
The
safety of nuclear plants has certainly improved, thanks to changes
adopted in the wake of the Three Mile Island accident. But safety
problems persist, because the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission isn't
adequately enforcing existing safety standards. What's more, countries
where nuclear power is likely to expand don't have a strong system for
regulating nuclear safety.
The important
thing to remember about safety is this: The entire nuclear power
industry is vulnerable to the safety standards of its worst performers,
because an accident anywhere in the world would stoke another
antinuclear backlash among the public and investors.
There's
also the question of waste disposal. Proponents of nuclear power say
disposal of the industry's waste products is a political problem. That's
true. But it doesn't make the problem any less real. California, for
instance, won't allow construction of more plants until the waste issue
is resolved.
Opposition to a long-term
waste repository at Yucca Mountain shows how difficult it will be to
come up with a politically acceptable solution. Yucca Mountain has been
plagued by questions about the selection process and its suitability as a
repository, and even if it is ultimately approved, it won't be
available for at least another decade -- and it will be filled to
capacity almost immediately. If it isn't approved, any replacement site
will face the same opposition from neighbors and local political
leaders.
Proliferation Threat
By
far the greatest risk is the possibility that an expansion of nuclear
power will contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Plants
that enrich uranium for power plants can also be used to enrich for
bombs; this is the path Iran is suspected of taking in developing a
weapons program. An ambitious expansion of nuclear power would require a
lot more facilities for enriching uranium, broadening this risk.
Facilities for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel for reuse pose the danger
that the material can be diverted for weapons.
Expansion
of nuclear power in the U.S. doesn't pose a great proliferation risk,
but a nuclear renaissance will put a strain on the current
anti-proliferation system. Most of the growth world-wide is expected to
be in countries -- such as those in the Middle East and Africa -- where a
nuclear-energy program could give cover to surreptitious weapons
development and create the local expertise in handling and processing
nuclear materials.
The dangers of
nuclear proliferation would be heightened if a nuclear revival turned to
reprocessing of spent fuel to reduce the amount of high-level waste
that builds up and to maintain adequate fuel supplies. Reprocessing is a
problem because it can produce separated plutonium -- which is easier
to steal or divert for weapons production, as North Korea has done, than
plutonium contained in highly radioactive fuel. And commercial
reprocessing plants produce so much plutonium that keeping track of it
all is difficult, making it easier to divert enough for weapons without
the loss being detected.
If nuclear
power really were able to make a big dent in greenhouse emissions, then
it would be worth the time and resources necessary to address all these
problems. Instead, though, the magnitude of these difficulties will keep
any nuclear renaissance too small to make a difference, and will
require expensive government support just to achieve modest gains. Those
resources are better spent elsewhere.
—Mr. Totty is a news editor for The Journal Report in San Francisco."""""""~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Write to Michael Totty at michael.totty@wsj.com
Being at the TIPPING-POINT of the many many factors that are clearly demonstrating to have an impact on this orb that we call Earth, it is becoming increasingly apparent decisions and necessary actions must be taken to reverse the detrimental trends that are increasingly self-evident.
Certainly
one of the considerations to curb the dependency on fossil-fuels --- is
Nuclear Power. Some will venture so far as to suggest that it is a
VIABLE alternative consideration to curb this dependency. The argument for nuclear power can be stated pretty simply: We have no choice. If
the world intends to address the threat of global warming and still
satisfy its growing appetite for electricity, it needs an ambitious
expansion of nuclear power.
Scientists
agree that greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide, are building up in
the atmosphere and contributing to a gradual increase in global average
temperatures. At the same time, making electricity accounts for about a
third of U.S. greenhouse emissions, mostly from burning fossil fuels to
produce power. """One of the biggest dangers to our security is from oil nations providing support to anti-U.S. terrorist groups. The faster we can move away from carbon-based energy, the faster we take away that funding source. Nuclear energy offers the fastest and most direct path to that safer future."""
Once we have assessed their impacts, and once we have recognized the negative affects
on the environment, on the land that we are farming, on our commercial and industrial endeavors, on the atmosphere that
we are breathing, it is critical to recognize that WE MUST REVERSE THESE
TRENDS. Then, given the time
and place to implement actions and practices to have a cause-and-effect
impact in a positive
way, will influence implementation, and at least retard further
deterioration of our environment and our climate. On a larger scale,
reversing the trends of deterioration should always be----the ultimate
objective.
Its impact on the economy, pollution, and the focus on Climate; The Conversation---makes this worthy of continued enthusiasm and consideration
Lou Marconi (SuiteLou0819)
Its impact on the economy, pollution, and the focus on Climate; The Conversation---makes this worthy of continued enthusiasm and consideration
Lou Marconi (SuiteLou0819)
