If climate change is the greatest threat facing mankind, what are the odds of the big environmental groups rethinking their longstanding opposition to nuclear power?
They appear to be slim. Here’s what Environmental Defense says on its website:
Serious questions of safety, security, waste and proliferation surround the issue of nuclear power. Until these questions are resolved satisfactorily, Environmental Defense cannot support an expansion of nuclear generating capacity.
And this comes from the Natural Resources Defense Council website:
New nuclear power plants are unlikely to provide a significant fraction of future U.S. needs for low-carbon energy. NRDC favors more practical, economical and environmentally sustainable approaches to reducing both U.S. and global carbon emissions, focusing on the widest possible implementation of end-use energy-efficiency improvements, and on policies to accelerate commercialization of clean, flexible, renewable energy technologies.
Supporters of nuclear energy—including those who strongly support climate regulation to curb emissions of global warming pollutans—say that doesn’t make sense.
“They (environmentalists) love to hate the biggest thing that can move the needle with respect to climate change,” says David Crane, the chief executive of NRG Energy. NRG is a member, with NRDC and EDF, of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, an alliance of big companies and environmental groups that back a cap-and-trade program to regulate greenhouse gases.
Crane spoke last week during a lively discussion of nukes led by my colleague David Whitford at FORTUNE’s Brainstorm Green conference about business and the environment. I wish we’d invited an EDF or NRDC representative onto the panel, but the focus was money, not safety, security or waste. David began the conversation by inviting everyone to “consider the evidence and think anew about something about which many of us had made up our minds.”
Good idea. Many years ago, I covered protests again the Seabrook nuclear power plant in New Hampshire for a left-wing publication. My sympathies were with the protestors. Now I’m firmly undecided, and determined to learn more. Given the threat of climate change and the safety record of nuclear plants in the U.S. since Three Mile Island—especially compared the alternative of mining and burning coal—it seems like the right time to rethink nukes.
Here’s what the directors of the national energy laboratories said last year in a report called A Sustainable Energy Future: The Essential Role of Nuclear Energy:
Today, nuclear energy provides 16 percent of the world’s electricity and offers unique benefits. It is the only existing technology with capability for major expansion that can simultaneously provide stability for base-load electricity, security through reliable fuel supply, and environmental stewardship by avoiding emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Furthermore, it has proven reliability (greater than 90 percent capacity factor), exemplary safety, and operational economy through improved performance.
One of the signatories to the report was Steven Chu, now the energy secretary.
Here are some things I heard during the panel:
As thing stand now, we are unlikely to see the so-called nuclear renaissance that was talked about just a couple of years ago. The global economic slump is the reason why. Lenders are more risk-averse than ever, and few businesses need more capital and pose more risk than new nukes. Demand for electricity is slowing because of the recession. And natural gas prices are down, making it easier to meet new demand for electricity by building natural gas plants.
The U.S. government has set aside about $18 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear plants. That will underwrite perhaps three plants, our experts said. “I’m convinced that there will be three nuclear power plants built in the U.S. in the next 10 says,” said Kevin Book, a partner at ClearView Energy Partners, a research and consulting firm.
Beyond that, it’s anybody’s guess. The utility industry wants to build more—there are 24 applications for new nukes pending at the NRC, all of two to be located near to existing sites, where local support for nuclear energy is strong. No new plant has been approved since the 1980s. By contrast, there are 45 plants now under construction outside of the U.S., most in China, India and Korea, according to Book.
Like beauty, “clean” energy is in the eye of the beholder. Notice how the NRDC statement above says the group would prefer clean and renewable energy to nuclear. Well, Alan Hanson, an executive with Areva, the big French nuclear power company, says that the nuclear waste issue is closer to being solved than, say, the solar waste issue.
France, where more than 80% of the electricity comes from nuclear power, uses a safe and sophisticated system to recycle spent nuclear fuel, Hanson says. (You wouldn’t expect him to say anything else, but still…) Nuclear waste can be stored on the sites of plants “for the next 500 years in we want,” he said—plenty to time to ease the transition to a renewable, low-carbon energy economy.
By contrast, he says, burning coal creates not on CO2 but mercury and other pollutants. And many solar photovoltaic panels are made of cadmium, among other things, for which there’s no recycling plant. “I don’t know of any part of the electricity generating world that treats its waste as well as the nuclear industry does,” Hanson said.
The politics of nuclear are complicated. Chu, who’s probably the smartest guy in the Obama cabinet, supports nuclear energy but Carol Browner, who’s an experienced Washington power player (no pun intended) is said to be a strong opponent. Liberal Democrats on Capital Hill—Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid—also oppose nuclear power. Given a choice between nuclear and coal as a source of baseload power, they’re likely to favor coal.
Crane said: “Right now the dominant wing of the Democratic Party knows they need to accommodate the coal wing of the Democratic Party in order to get energy and environmental policy passed.” That leaves nuclear out of the deal-making.
resident Obama hasn’t said much about nuclear. It may well be that technology breakthroughs in solar, geothermal, wind or battery storage will mean that we don’t need nuclear energy as a source of low-carbon power. But until those breakthroughs come along, shouldn’t we keep the nuclear option open?
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Marc,
Some of us HAVE rethought our stance on nuclear energy… and still come down against. Besides the commonly considered problems with nuclear, there is one more big problem: base-load power, is NOT a good thing… it interferes with integrating renewables into the grid. What we want is dispatchable power.
http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2009/04/why_csp_should_not_try_to_be_coal.html
Marc, many of us spend a great deal of time rethinking our stance on nuclear energy. There are still four incontrovertible reasons that I do not support it:
1. Nuclear waste. Your comment about AREVA’s waste policy is hilarious – “Nuclear waste can be stored on the sites of plants “for the next 500 years in we want,” he said—plenty to time to ease the transition to a renewable, low-carbon energy economy”. I.e. let’s just palm off respomsibility for dealing with it to our unborn grandchildren – surely it is not only morally reprehensible but stupid to commit future generations to have to deal with problems that we have not only created, but cannot ourselves solve.
2. Security. Dependence on any kind of centralised power generation introduces unnecessary risk at one of the most important and basic of human endeavours, threatening everything built thereupon. Then add the environmental, military and human risks of nuclear waste!
3. Lack of graceful degradation. You can’t run half a nuclear power station, or without the very cream of human knowledge and technology.
4. The need for carbon reductions NOW. It will take at least 10 years to get event the first nuke online, during which time carbon emissions will be INCREASED during the fabrication and construction phases. Let’s spend those ten years reducing emissions year on year through efficiency improvements, behavioural change and rolling out the low carbon solutions we already have.
If the views of NRDC and EDF prevail the U.S. will be alone among nations in not pursuing the nuclear energy path in response to global warming. Countries as diverse in their economic thinking as India, China, U.K., France, Canada, Turkey,and Italy have all launched nuclear energy initiatives.
If big coal can kill carbon taxes or carbon cap and trade, then nuclear will have yet one more barrier in this country. Democrats who should be in the forefront of saving the planet will instead be joining the wrong side.
Good article. Thanks for bringing us up to date on energy politics. Anti-nukes can’t get their heads around the fact that the world will never depend on part-time energy sources and reliance on them forces the world to use more fossil fuels. Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, says we’re going to burn natural gas to generate electricity until it’s all gone.
Mr. Konrad, nuclear energy is not limited to baseload. It’s used that way in the US because the existing plants generate the cheapest electricity except for hydro so they are the first generators turned on and the last turned off. In France nuclear energy is used for load following as well as baseload.
Marc, please see our recent testimony to the Senate Energy Committee on the future of nuclear power and how to approach it. I think our conclusion is similar to yours – we prioritize accelerated deployment of end-use EE and renewables backed by natural gas — the portfolio average is cheaper than new-build nuclear or coal with CCS, but if and when the marginal cost of deploying these sources exceeds new nuclear, or the scientists tell us we need to decarbonize faster, then build some more nuclear as one-for-one gigawatt replacements for existing coal-fired capacity. This strategy ensures that subsidized high-cost nukes will not displace lower cost EE/RE/cogen opportunities.
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/09031801.asp
Marc,
This was our take just about a year ago: http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/06/nuclear-energy-needs-a-major-re-branding/
At some point, we’ll have to choose between more coal or more nuclear. It’s unavoidable given the future energy demand and a realistic view of available technology and capacity for renewables. We choose more nuclear.
It’s far too idealistic (even ignorant) to assume that we can double the amount of energy we currently produce/consume over the next 40 years and that ALL of that will come from clean, renewable sources…not to mention replacing our existing dirty sources. Nuclear has to be a part of the mix…unless you’re good with more coal b/c that’s cheap and readily available.
Marc,
The issue before us today is not whether one is for or against nuclear power. The issue is whether one is for or against additional federal loan guarantees and other subsidies for the construction of new nuclear power plants. The nuclear industry is facing two big problems. New nuclear plants are too expensive, and the unit cost of a a new plant is so high it cannot be privately financed. The national environmental organizations support a federal carbon cap-and-trade policy. This is the single federal energy policy that would be the most beneficial to the nuclear industry because it would change the economics of nuclear versus fossil fueled plants. But rather than lobbying for carbon cap, the nuclear industry is trying to shift a substantial portion of the cost burden for constructing new plants from the ratepayer to the taxpayer, and shift a substantial portion of the financial risks associated with constructing the plants from the generating companies and Wall Street to the taxpayers.
The economically efficient way to reduce carbon emissions is to internalize the social cost of carbon emissions through an effective cap-and-trade program, then let demand (e.g., improvements in efficiency) and supply alternatives compete for services. It is inefficient to tax those who don’t use the electricity to subsidize those who do. If Duke Energy wants to build a new nuclear plant, Duke should ask its ratepayers to pay for the new plant, and not ask Congress to have folks in Colorado, Montana (or pick your favorite state) to pay for it. There is an appropriate role for federal subsidies—to fund research and development of new potentially attractive technologies where the risks are too great to attract private investments; and to reduce the unit costs of attractive emerging technologies by generating a market. Nuclear benefited from these types of subsidies in the 1960s and 1970s and is now a mature technology. Congress should be reducing subsidies for nuclear power plant, not adding more (and it is adding many billions more). This has nothing to do with whether or not one likes nuclear power. This is about good economic and energy policy and good government.
Please see our website http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/plants/plants.pdf for further discussion.
At a time when we are redefining the energy portfolio to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources and reduce greenhouse gases, the sensible approach is to take advantage of the one source that already produces 73% of all carbon-free electricity with fuel from the U.S. or stable trading partners like Canada and Australia. Nuclear energy should be part of the energy revolution that provides the electricity we need and the clean air we want.
These are great comments, thanks to all. I’m going to read more, talk to more people and try to make up my own mind. To Tom Cochran of NRDC, just one thought–I don’t see how the nuclear loan guarantees are significantly different from the solar or wind production tax credits in that they would have the government pick particular technologies to solve the climate crisis. NRDC and EDF both say that cap-and-trade alone won’t do the trick. My ideal, theoretical polocy would be for a very tough cap-and-trade program, perhaps efficiency standards and beyond that no subsidies, in an effort to create a level playing field for all energy technologies (meaning we get rid of oil and gas subsidies too).
Red Craig-
Do you have a reference for your assertion that muc;ear is used ofr load following in France?
Marc, read what Amory Lovins, the world’s foremost energy expert has to say about nukes: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php
Re: David Lockie’s #2 above: You and I grew up across the Hudson from the Indian Point triple nuclear plant, which is slowly leaking radioactives into the river. IF the 9/11 hijackers had really wanted to destroy the U.S., flight 11 passed right over the opportunity to dive into the flimsy radioactive waste storage tanks there, turning the estuarine Hudson into a permanent (for millions of years anyway) vat of poison, closing down the entire NY metro area and destroying the economy.
Tom, please google: france nuclear load following. I just did it and ran into a slew of pages with that information.
Evan, Lovins is a phony. Here’s how he describes himself: “Mr. Lovins, a physicist, is cofounder, Chairman, and Chief Scientist of Rocky Mountain Institute.” He’s actually a college dropout and is no more a physicist than I am. He makes a living by cranking out polemics like the one you referred to. All of us would understand this question better, and perhaps even reach a consensus, if we insisted on solid information from reliable sources.
{ 1 trackback }