More Nuclear Energy?
A reader asked me to comment on this:
“As the US moves toward a more sustainable energy future, simply maintaining nuclear energy at 20 percent of US electricity supply will require the construction of 20 to 25 new nuclear power plants by 2030. Additionally, modeling of climate change policy scenarios consistently shows that a failure to deploy sufficient nuclear power generation capacity will lead to an over-reliance on natural gas, the result of which will likely be reduced competitiveness for US manufacturers and higher energy costs for all Americans.”
I think it’s not going to happen. Nuclear is too expensive, the level of public rancor re: nuclear safety and the disposal of waste is too great, and the public understanding of and concern about climate change is too low.
Note also that this quote is confusing and self-contradictory. Read the second sentence carefully. Concerns re: climate change cause over-reliance on gas, and that causes reduced competitiveness and higher energy costs? So you want to build nuclear plants? That doesn’t make sense.
Craig,
That argument (the one you correctly point out makes no sense) was a very common and established argument for the 90’s and 00’s. It was also quite valid for much of that time. It started becoming invalid in the mid-2000’s, when the second nuclear renaissance began to show signs that the cost estimates for nuclear power were off by several-fold… Then it became more popular again when gas prices hyperinflated… But now, with the glut of NG resulting from fracking, the argument is ludicrous again. Likely the advocate in question had been using that argument for years without review or consideration, and as the market shifted he just continued making the claim without consideration.
The more interesting question now is: “Which is worse for the environment, natural gas or nuclear power?”
If nuclear power is better for the environment, then it’s worth paying a little more for rather than paying less for natural gas. We all grow so accustomed to fighting for natural gas, because coal is such an unconscionable crime that NG seems like a gift to the world by comparison… but remember that NG has a GWP of 72 over a short time frame (relevant in today’s consideration of tipping points), so the small leaks throughout the pipeline distribution can often lead to a net global warming impact that is quite similar to coal (though lacking the SO2, NOX, Hg, Cd, Pb, PAH’s, halides, mercaptins, soot, and radioactive isotopes all associated with coal, as well as the mountaintop removal and permanent surface scarring).
Nuclear power more or less renders an area of about one mile radius to be forever useless, but otherwise does no damage. Is that better or worse than NG? I know it’s better than coal… but I have no way of comparing which is better or worse between significant GHG emissions or rendering small portions of land useless. I suppose it boils down to a question of the assumption of the potential 1000-year value of the very small plot of land, vs a very small fraction of the projected accommodation costs for dealing with global warming.
Tough.