Nuclear energy has always been a controversial issue. With the meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant this spring, increased concerns about climate change, and a global debate over the future of energy, this year is no exception.
Nuclear advocates argue that it is a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels that can provide more baseload power than renewables. Opponents respond that even if you resolve daunting radioactive waste, environmental risk and security issues, exorbitant construction costs remain. Studies by the California Energy Commission (PDF) and Mark Cooper (PDF), Senior Fellow at Yale University's Institute for Energy and the Environment, have shown that the costs of building future nuclear capacity are even higher.
Despite buzz about a "nuclear renaissance," the industry has had trouble attracting private investment, and relies almost exclusively on government subsidies and support. By contrast, the private renewables market has soared over the last several years, with the UN Environment Programme reporting that global investments in green energy topped $211 billion in 2010, up 32 percent from 2009, and a staggering 540 percent since 2004.
Meanwhile in the first quarter of 2011, renewable energy production in the U.S. surpassed nuclear for the first time. All signals point to significant growth in the solar and renewables markets over the next decade, while nuclear production has remained flat for years.
If new nuclear plants cannot compete on either cost or scale in today's private market, enormous government support will be required simply to maintain, let alone expand, nuclear capacity in the future. However, both the Japanese and German governments are responding to the Fukushima disaster by increasing their emphasis on renewables instead of nuclear. The Japanese just established a Feed-In Tariff to expand renewables, with a recent poll showing 77 percent supporting a nuclear phase out. The Germans are actively considering phasing out their nuclear program entirely.
Not all countries are halting their nuclear plans, however. In the fast-developing BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China) the IAEA reports as of early August 2011, 45 new nuclear plants are under construction in BRIC nations. 27 are in China, followed by Russia (11), India (6), and Brazil (1).
But the nuclear industry needs to do more than build a few plants a year to be a true low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels. A hard look at the science of reducing atmospheric carbon to 350ppm shows why.
To get the world off coal, which produces roughly half of the world's power, would require 7-8 terawatts of energy. One nuclear power plant yields a gigawatt of power, meaning 8000 nuclear power plants would be needed to produce 8 terawatts. To do this by 2050, 200 plants would need to be built a year, which is roughly one every 1.5 days. Since nuclear plants only have a lifespan of 50 years, by the time the required amount is built, early plants would have to start being decommissioned. After that, new plants would need to keep being built at the same pace just to replace retiring ones.
So if the world goes nuclear, supplying half the power we need would require building a new plant every other day forever.
Even if this rate of growth were feasible, it is clearly unsustainable. Of course, no single strategy is going to wean us off coal in several decades. We will need a combination of carbon reduction strategies -- what Princeton researchers Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala call "stabilization wedges" that each reduce a billion tons a year for the next 50 years. The "wedges" include efficiency, renewables, carbon sequestration, reforestation, and replacing coal plants with natural gas. But even for nuclear to generate a single wedge would require tripling our current nuclear capacity.
The reality is global CO2 emissions are rising, not falling. And we can't build enough nuclear alone to stop them. As such, nuclear's benefits as a low-carbon alternative would only materialize in the context of a global war on carbon. Absent that, nuclear becomes just another low-carbon energy source competing on the open market with cleaner renewables and cheaper natural gas. Ironically, the current slow growth of nuclear and the possibility of an actual nuclear retreat after Fukushima could mean an acceleration in our rising CO2 emissions, cautions the International Energy Agency.
So we cannot build enough nuclear to solve our CO2 problem in the long term, but if we don't build more, it may get worse in the near term. Powerful industry lobbies in the U.S. and elsewhere will continue to support nuclear as a fuel source, of course, but even the industry recognizes that a major expansion is unlikely.
Speaking at an American Nuclear Society conference in August 2011, John Rowe, CEO of Exelon, the country's largest nuclear utility said 3 of the 4 conditions necessary for expanding nuclear cannot be met. While newer designs offer the right technology, Rowe argues that the government has not resolved waste disposal issues. Additionally, there is currently excess generation capacity because the economic recession has slowed energy consumption. While this will likely change as we retire more coal plants and the economy grows, the influx of cheap natural gas from shale has undercut nuclear's higher prices.
Today, nuclear cannot compete on cost with fossil fuels, and cannot compete on quality with renewables. Going forward, renewables offer rapid growth and innovation combined with falling costs, which will make it harder for nuclear to compete in the future. And as fossil fuel prices rise, they will also likely drive up nuclear's construction costs, offsetting any price advantage there.
Without a major breakthrough, it seems safe to say nuclear will never be cheaper than coal or natural gas; nor will it be as safe, clean, and attractive to consumers and investors as renewables. In the end, the most likely option for nuclear energy is neither renaissance nor retreat, but continued slow growth, with heated arguments on all sides.
This article originally appeared in the October issue of World Energy Monitor, a newsletter published by the United Nations' World Energy Forum. The newsletter includes a competing perspective from the World Nuclear Association, and international highlights on nuclear issues. It is currently being hosted at the Energy & Water Institute of NY.
Follow Andy Mannle on Twitter: www.twitter.com/andymannle
Juliet Davenport: Smart Meters Need to be Intelligent as Well as Smart
Brian Keane: For Clean Energy, Politics Is Bad Business
Pros and cons of nuclear power | Time for change
Again, your premise appears to be incorrect. A 2008 energy cost comparison that uses all costs (construction + production + decommissioning for nuclear) contradicts your premise:
2008 US ELECTRICITY GENERATION BY SOURCE COST PER KWH
Nuclear $0.04 per kWh
Hydro $0.03 per kWh
Coal $0.04 per kWh
Natural Gas $0.10 per kWh
Petroleum $0.10 per kWh
Solar $0.22 per kWh
Other Renewables $0.15 per kWh
"Hydroelectric is the most cost effective at $0.03 per kWh. Hydroelectric production is naturally limited by the number of feasible geographic locations and the huge environmental infringement caused by the construction of a dam. Nuclear and coal are tied at $0.04 per kWh. This comes as a bit of a surprise because coal is typically regarded as the cheapest form of energy production. Another surprise is that wind power ($0.08 per kWh) came in slightly cheaper than natural gas ($0.10 per kWh). Solar power was by far the most expensive at $0.22 per kWh—and that only represents construction costs because I could not find reliable data on production costs. Also, there is a higher degree of uncertainty in cost with wind and solar energy due to poor and varying data regarding the useful life of the facilities and their capacity factors."
http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/
In fact, the results of studies in your link do show that nuclear compares favorable with fossil fuels and can compete with fossil fuels. Nuclear is even more favorable when compared against fossil fuel costs that include carbon control and sequestration. It's unlikely that new fossil plants will be built going forward without carbon control and sequestration because of the new EPA regulations in the US and international agreements for carbon control in developed countries. Some examples of leveled costs from your link:
Study 1
Advanced Nuclear: 113.9
Advanced Coal CCS: 136.2
Advanced Gas CCS: 103.5
Study 2
Advanced Nuclear: 80–105
Advanced Coal CCS: 100–155
Advanced Gas CCS: 60–130
Study 3
Advanced Nuclear: 67
Advanced Coal CCS: 74–88
Advanced Gas CCS: 87–346
Study 4
Advanced Nuclear: 40–70
Advanced Coal CCS: 64–106
Advanced Gas CCS: 53–93
So thanks for the link. You proved my point!
1. The biggest impact of nuclear discontinuation would be in the OECD countries–that is, the “developed” countries, since these countries disproportionately are the users of nuclear energy.
2. Within the OECD, vulnerability to a loss of nuclear power varies significantly.
3. Without nuclear electric power, electric cars seem very unlikely.
4. Rolling blackouts would likely result in many areas, because of the difficulty of making up the shortfall in electricity from renewable or fossil fuel sources.
5. Countries losing nuclear electric power would likely experience much higher unemployment, reduced tax revenue, and other financial problems.
6. To the extent that fossil fuels are able to scale up to replace nuclear, CO2 levels are likely to be higher.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-would-be-the-impact-if-we-discontinued-nuclear-energy-2011-3#ixzz1cavrahiN
www.bit.ly/nfEh2y
The dangers of any energy source pales in comparison to the dangers of not having enough energy.
John Rowe of course makes fortune selling his 2 cent a kwh nuke power on the grid in competition with expensive and getting more expensive gas plant.
http://atomicinsights.com/2011/11/john-rowe-wants-everyone-else-to-buy-natural-gas.html
Executive summary
Even before the world understood the global implications of unrelenting carbon emissions, President Kennedy asked for and got a report from the Seaborg Commission (October 1962, http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa) on how to stop burning valuable/polluting coal, gas and oil, and how to build sustainable nuclear power so that by 2000 the US would have low cost, abundant electricity (700GWe est.) generated by safe, emissions-free reactors that bred their own fuel internally; that created little waste; and that solved the world's fresh-water needs — all effectively as cleanly as 'renewable' solar power. The Seaborg Commission's report described research on and subsequent operation of a safe form of nuclear power using thorium-fed, molten-salt reactors (LFTRs).
More info use link above
There isn't enough waste bio fuel to supply even a fraction of the backup needed for wind and solar. Average rooftop solar isn't even close to being able to supply "average" electrical need even if storage were available.
NOTE: I am not against solar. I am for an energy source that sustains our society without destroying the environment. This includes rooftop solar PV, some wind, and nuclear (fission and fusion, eventually).
Waste bio fuels for backup.
How many nuke disasters does it take to wean you off nukes?
'Latest nuke price 2007 3 cents a kwh,
latest solar price 50 cents a kwh, + 20 cents a kwh for gas backup and transmission+ 100 cent a kwh for storage.
With $300 billion in worldwide subsidy no further economies of scale are possible
What Gender calls waste biofuels really is compost necessary to maintain soil and recyclables. What's left can supply only a tiny amount of energy.No major Green organization has them as even a tiny part of a future energy mix.
The WHO estimates 1 million deaths worldwide a year from coal.
In the end though, the worst accident possible in a current western nuclear plant, assuming an old plant with under-designed safety systems (Fukishima being the poster-child), caused 0 deaths and made a few square miles of land uninhabitable at least until it can be cleaned up. This accident was caused by a natural disaster that killed almost 20,000 people, including dozens from oil refinery explosions. The reality is, while people fear a nuclear plant far more than pretty much any other form of energy, it is by far the safest form of energy we have to date, be it public fatalities, public injuries, worker fatalities or worker injuries.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/china-210-mwe-pebble-bed-reactor-starts.html
Now, you might be able to argue that if you don't make mistakes, you don't make anything. There would be a truly impressive fire were anyone to get one wet.
The problem with that is that the subsidy comes from a deeply indebted government still unable to resolve its deficit. The question of whether renewable energy should be subsidized might be better asked of your grandchildren.
Otherwise I am in total agreement. In order to be credible, any article on the future of nuclear must include a discussion of Thorium.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/10/18/tcase4/
The Chinese are working on LFTR and will almost certainly succeed. (the technical problem aren't that difficult). And it won't take them 14 years to build a power plant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
As for material usage, nuclear material are unusable for 100's to 100's of thousands of years, solar and wind materials can immediately be reused.
big difference.
The way to judge the costs of different methodologies for creating energy is the total cost of that energy in comparable units - perhaps MwHrs. That's total costs. Not the purposely obfuscated cost structure we currently have.
We currently spend half the world's budget on defense, and half the American budget. Mainly to serve as unpaid mercenaries to Arab States to ensure the supply of oil. The cost of oil does not include the cost of polluted air and water and the resulting healthcare costs.
The cost of coal is, similarly, purposely obscured by splitting up the costs. Extraction, pollution and healthcare costs of the energy are shifted to other groups.
When we get an actual view of the total cost of producing energy to society - then we can have a national conversation based on some truths.
Basing that conversation upon purposefully obscured costs is likely to continue the irrational policies we currently have.
If your purpose is to support oil, gas and coal - then I understand your purposeful obfuscation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
Among other things, LFTR has the following advantages over uranium fueled PRW reactors.
It produces only 1% if the waste.
Its waste needs to be stored for only 300 years, not thousands.
It is self regulating, as the salt heats up it expands and the reaction slows-it can't run away.
It runs at atmospheric pressure so no expensive containment building is needed.
It can be shut down and restarted on short notice.
If ancillary power fails, a 'freeze plug' melts molten salt drains into a storage tank.
The fissile material produced in LFTR is too radioactive to make bombs from.
It is not demonstrated to be a reliable, safe or
It concentrates fission products in a perfect form for terrorists to steal or attack.
It is a pronoun with 100% ambiguity
100% no references
Terrorists? LFTR produces fissile U233 but it is contaminated with a small percentage of U232 which has a short half-life and is consequently highly radioactive. In the process of stealing it your terrorist will receive a lethal radiation dose in only minutes. That isn't quite a perfect form for stealing.
As to safety, there are no absolutes, not even with green energy. Perhaps you have seen the video of a wind turbine self destructing in a storm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL-cRuYAxg0
In theory, because LFTR isn't pressurized, because it can't run-away, and since it can be shut down in case of problems or will shut down if the freeze plug melts, LFTR should be much safer than PWR. To avoid terrorist threat, there is some consensus that LFTR should be located underground so as to resist attacks by air and to make access more difficult. You do your best to cover the risks, but there are never any guarantees.
As to reliability. Yes there is much research and development to be done before any LFTR design could be approved. Presumably, the regulators would require both safety reliability standards be met.
This video starts with a 5 minute summary followed by 2 hours of detail.
http://youtu.be/P9M__yYbsZ4