In Tuesday’s Editorial section of the Seattle Times, Sid Morrison, Chairman of Energy Northwest’s executive board, talked about the need of nuclear energy to support renewable energy sources in meeting our future electric-energy needs.

Noting that “conservation and renewable-energy sources are an essential and responsible part of the answer to our future energy needs; they just aren’t the whole solution,” he acknowledges “the intermittent nature of wind and solar power is a real problem. On-again/off-again power destabilizes the regional transmission grid through dramatic power swings created by changing weather conditions.”

This is why Morrison calls for full-time baseload power:

Tired attempts to link commercial nuclear power to vastly overblown cost and risk factors and defense wastes are irresponsible. Used commercial nuclear fuel is a valuable commodity that can be recycled, as is the routine in many of the world’s nuclear-energy countries. Approximately 95 percent of the used fuel in every commercial reactor can be recycled safely, thereby reducing dependence on foreign energy sources and minimizing the need for new uranium mines.

He also points out that it will take “multiple sources of power, perhaps all the options available to ensure reliable, affordable, environmentally responsible power is available to grow a vibrant regional economy.”

His whole piece, “Nuclear Power should not be Blindly Dismissed as Part of Total Energy Solution,” is definitely worth a read.

by Laurence Pernot

At AREVA, we strongly believe that there is no solution to the energy and climate crisis that doesn’t involve nuclear energy, even if nuclear energy alone isn’t the solution.

We hear your objections: If it’s so obvious that nuclear energy has to be part of the solution, why is it still ignored in places like some countries in Europe, where they’re determined to fight climate change and reduce CO2 emissions? Why has a country like Germany, where people have such a highly-developed environmental awareness, decided to progressively get rid of nuclear energy?

Why? Because, in some parts of the world, when it comes to nuclear energy, ideology still remains stronger than reality.

Of course, any expert in energy knows that renewables – except biomass and geothermal – are not baseload energy sources. Solar and wind power plants need coal- or gas-fired back-up plants. It’s common sense: anyone can tell you that people aren’t going to stop using electricity when the wind dies down, or on a cloudy day, or after sunset. We need dependable, reliable power 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

One telling example: France emits 8 times less CO2 per kilowatt-hour than Denmark, a country where the share of renewables is close to 30%. However remarkable the development of renewables in Denmark may be, a huge part of its power still has to be generated from the burning of fossil fuels. That example clearly shows how unwise it is to oppose nuclear and renewable energy, as many nations have done for decades, and as opponents to nuclear energy still do. It’s much more realistic to consider renewables and nuclear power as complementary – two essential parts of our 21st-century energy equation.

Our conviction is at the end of the 21st century, when we look back, we’ll see that one of the main features of the century was the development of a diverse range of non-carbon-emitting sources of energy, including renewables and nuclear. Discarding nuclear energy a priori due to ideological blindness or unfounded fears would be both nonsensical and dangerous.