“We’ve essentially fallen 10 years behind the rest of the world in nuclear technology, but the Obama administration’s decision to support nuclear will finally get the ball rolling. Within a decade we may very well catch up with the rest of the world in developing the energy technology of the 21st century.”
- William Tucker, Author “Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America’s Energy Odyssey“
Here’s a chart showing the International Energy Agency’s estimate of the combination of technologies that will be needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the United States – and put the world on a sustainable energy path.
As you’ll see, we need nuclear power as part of a comprehensive solution: investing in energy efficiency, wind, solar, geothermal, carbon capture, energy storage, electric vehicles, and more. In doing so, we are sparking a new industrial revolution that will create millions of new jobs here in the United States and lay the foundation for America’s long-term economic prosperity.
There are two items to highlight from the Washington Post today. First, here is this quote from an op ed piece we like a lot:
“The merits of nuclear power have been debated for years. Such power has drawbacks, not least the waste that reactors produce and that the government cannot decide where to store. But given that nuclear power produces essentially no carbon emissions, it’s an appealing option for consistent and relatively clean electricity generation….the president is right to signal that he will unfreeze the regulatory process, which, in concert with public discomfort, has stymied the industry for decades. And there is a reasonable argument that nuclear should get this federal push. Though nuclear may well be more cost-efficient than its critics allege, huge upfront construction costs scare off investors. If loan guarantees for the first batch of new plants help demonstrate that reactors can be built without the delays and cost overruns that have characterized some nuclear projects, capital will come to nuclear without as much governmental support in the future and without taxpayers actually spending much.”
And in a separate section of the WashPost site, blogger Ezra Klein posts this chart, explaining in part why the Administration is supporting Nuclear over other dirtier electiricity generation technologies…
President Obama’s recent support for nuclear energy has ignited a genuine discussion on the issue. No longer can nuclear energy’s benefits be ignored or scare tactics employed to shut down discussion, the American media is getting behind the facts.
“Absent nuclear power, any clean-energy policy is largely decorative since the more talked about elements – wind, solar – can only supply power at the margins. Nuclear plants generate 20 percent of U.S. power now and 70 percent of the power considered to come from clean sources.”
From today’s Wall Street Journal, an op-ed by Russian businessman, Oleg Deripaska
Russian businessman, Oleg Deripaska
“It is 50 years since the first commercial nuclear power plants began to generate electricity. Even in the dark days of the Cold War, these reactors, in France and the U.S., were seen as vital to the world’s future. They were expected to mark the beginning of a new peaceful atomic age that would help meet our energy needs.
Nuclear power now generates 15% of the world’s electricity. But a combination of alternative and plentiful energy sources, high costs, the impact of the Chernobyl disaster as well as scare campaigns has meant nuclear power has failed to live up to its pioneers’ loftiest ambitions.
Oil is, however, no longer cheap or plentiful. There are serious worries about future supplies. At the same time, demand for energy continues to accelerate to support the growth of developing economies. Climate change caused by emissions from fossil fuels poses a threat to our quality of life. It is no surprise that the balance is tipping back in favor of nuclear power.”
In an excellent editorial in The Australian, Barry Brook and Martin Nicholson, climate change scientists, make the case for nuclear power as an essential component of any climate change plan. To those who think high-profile incidents that took place twenty years ago or more make nuclear power unsafe, they talk about new safety technologies and note:
Comparing the flawed Chernobyl design to today’s reactors is like saying modern aviation is too dangerous because the Hindenburg airship exploded in 1937.
“The technology is straightforward. Used nuclear fuel is taken to a recycling facility where it is chemically reprocessed into a so-called mixed-oxide fuel, which is then used in a nuclear power plant to produce more electricity. This process significantly reduces the need to mine more uranium. And, more importantly, it reduces the amount of nuclear waste that cannot be recycled and must be stored in concrete-and-steel cylinders until an underground repository becomes available….Closing the nuclear fuel cycle with a reprocessing facility would increase nuclear power’s share of electricity generation in the United States; further the goals of meeting the nation’s energy needs from power plants that don’t pollute the air or emit greenhouse gases; lessen the need for imported uranium; and significantly reduce the amount of nuclear waste that will need to be permanently disposed of. Let’s get on with it.”
– Lynn Edward Weaver, president emeritus of the Florida Institute of Technology (from news-press.com November 19, 2009)
As part of the audience yesterday during the opening plenary of the American Nuclear Society’s annual conference, I heard speeches from some of the industry’s most prominent leaders, government officials, and distinguished politicians. They spoke of the critical need for new nuclear builds over the next few decades, but never has this message had so much at stake. Facing a global crisis on multiple fronts, they have all come forward to say that while nuclear is not the answer, it must be part of the solution.
America needs nuclear because it will be a domestic energy source that is clean and reliable, and one that can provide thousands of jobs. But these leaders already understand this message and are working right now to develop new projects and legislation for a cleaner, secure energy future. It is now up to Americans really look at our needs, the problems we face and make a decision.
“I do believe that climate change is an issue and we need to deal with carbon in the air…I think the most effective way to do it is to double nuclear production and to do heavy (research and development) on alternative energy.”
– Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, who had just announced with Democratic Senator Webb a plan to issue legislation doubling nuclear power in the US within 20 years and funding research into renewables and recycling of nuclear waste.
Closing the session along with Virginia Senator Jim Webb, Senator Lemar Alexander (Tennessee) had a poignant analogy: if we were going to war, we would not mothball our nuclear navy and start investing in sailboats. (video).
“Nuclear will play a key role in our clean energy strategy. And the reality is: nuclear is non-emitting. Nuclear energy displaces between 40 and 80 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually relative to producing the same quantity of electricity from gas or coal.
Canada has been a pioneer in the development of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Today our nuclear industry generates billions of dollars of economic activity and accounts for thirty thousand direct and indirect jobs…. One of the key phrases that you hear is that we’re undergoing a nuclear renaissance. It’s a form of electricity that is being embraced by many countries around the world.
At the International Energy Agency Meetings in Paris last week, leaders around the world re-stated what we have known for some time: without a significant increase in nuclear power, the world will be unable to meet required greenhouse gas reduction targets….
The nations of the world are responding to the challenges of climate change. Canada has developed many innovative technologies that will be vital in meeting those challenges. We are researching, developing and deploying many new technologies. But the nuclear technology that we did so much to pioneer a half century ago will remain at the forefront of the global quest for clean and reliable energy.”
“The merits of nuclear power have been debated for years. Such power has drawbacks, not least the waste that reactors produce and that the government cannot decide where to store. But given that nuclear power produces essentially no carbon emissions, it’s an appealing option for consistent and relatively clean electricity generation….the president is right to signal that he will unfreeze the regulatory process, which, in concert with public discomfort, has stymied the industry for decades. And there is a reasonable argument that nuclear should get this federal push. Though nuclear may well be more cost-efficient than its critics allege, huge upfront construction costs scare off investors. If loan guarantees for the first batch of new plants help demonstrate that reactors can be built without the delays and cost overruns that have characterized some nuclear projects, capital will come to nuclear without as much governmental support in the future and without taxpayers actually spending much.”
