Image Credit: mandj98, Creative Commons.
Nuclear power. Rarely have two words caused so much gnashing of teeth among environmentalists, who are increasingly split on the technologies merits. The same goes for energy policy analysts. When I present my version of the climate change slide show assembled by Al Gore, the most penetrating feedback invariably comes from advocates of nuclear power.
The usual argument typically follows this logic: Its carbon footprint, while not zero, is considerably lower than other fossil fuels, so surely it should play a significant role in our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and forestall the worse effects of climate change?
In theory, yes. In practice, no. The main problem with nuclear power plants, at least those using the technology we're using now, is they are just too darn expensive. That and the long-time frame involved in seeing new plants through the proposal, regulatory and environment reviews, commissioning and construction phases. At best it takes a decade for a new nuke to come online in the United States.
Add to that the global equipment bottlenecks for the industry that severely limit the number of plants that can be built at any one time, and we simply can't build them fast enough to make a dent in fossil-fuel emissions. Here's how Sharon Squassoni, the author of a new report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace sums up the situation:
The International Energy Agency, an industry advisory group] estimates that without significant policy changes, nuclear energy could grow annually by 0.7 percent, for a total 15 percent increase by 2030. This would equal about 415 GWe, up from the current 371 GWe, or an annual build rate of three reactors per year. At this rate, nuclear energy would actually decline from a 16 percent market share to 10 percent as electricity demand increases. CO2 concentrations would go up, despite this nuclear energy capacity's ability to offset between 11 and 13 Gt of carbon through 2030. In this business-as-usual projection, no big policy changes would be implemented, carbon emissions would rise, and nuclear energy's share of electricity generation would decline.
One could argue for a new policy context, but the status quo is there for good reasons, including fears about proliferation of nuclear weapons, plant safety and radioactive waste disposal. They have forced up the cost of new plants to around $5 billion or $6 billion for every 1,000 MW reactor, in many cases much higher. That makes it the most expensive way to generate electricity among all the traditional technologies.
Compare the 0.7% growth rate expected for the nuclear industry to what the clean, renewable energy sector experienced last year -- a year hobbled by what we eventually recognized was a global recession. Reuters passes on these numbers from the U.S. Energy Information Administration:
Non-hydro renewable energy increased 17.6 percent in 2008 compared to the year before.... Much of the growth in non-hydro renewable energy generation was spurred by the wind and solar sectors, which increased in 2008 by a robust 51 percent and 36 percent, respectively.
The same story quotes an industry analyst who predicts a slight decline in the growth rate of renewables this year, to perhaps 25%. Still, that means the sector should double in size (and therefore it's contribution to power generation) in less than three years. Faster than that as the economy rebounds. Nuclear power will take 100 years to double in size at the current rate of growth.
Squassoni writes: "The more urgent climate change requirements are, the less likely nuclear energy will be able to meet these challenges."
It's important to remember that the problems with nuclear power arise from today's light- and heavy-water reactors that require enormous engineering efforts to ensure safe, reliable and efficient power generation. There are alternatives, what are known as fourth-generation nuclear technologies, that may be able to get around at least some of the problems. We could, for example, use thorium, instead of uranium, as a raw material, and a liquid fluoride coolant, an approach that generates a fraction of the waste, which rapidly decays to an inert form.
But no one's actually built such a plant yet, and we have no idea how expensive such technology will ultimately prove to be. At best we're looking at 2025 for the prototype to come online.
Given that we should be bringing our emissions down by 2015, it looks like solar and wind give us a significantly better and faster bang for our buck than expansion of the nuclear sector.
Leave a Comment