Gwyneth Cravens Author Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy

Posted July 15, 2008, 9:34am

The atmosphere's burden of carbon dioxide increases by 3.2 gigatons annually, we urgently need to apply every means of reducing anthropogenic causes: conservation, efficiency, renewables, and nuclear power, which, along with hydroelectric power, is the world's biggest low-carbon electricity source.

Wind and solar power make only 2% of US electricity and are not reliable enough to provide base-load electricity. At present our only large-scale sources of base-load electricity are fossil fuel plants, nuclear plants, and hydroelectric plants. Coal-fired plants supply about 50% of our electricity. Their fine-particulate waste kills 24,000 Americans annually and causes cardiac and pulmonary disease in hundreds of thousands of others. In the 20th century over 1,000 Americans were killed by dam failures. But not one member of the American public has ever died as a result of the operation of commercial nuclear plants.

According to the Financial Times, efforts are being made in Germany to keep nuclear power. Many other countries are planning either to revive nuclear power or start using it.

Richard Meserve President Carnegie Institution

Posted July 15, 2008, 9:40am

Electrical generation that does not result in the emissions of greenhouse gases has to expand if we are to limit the hazards from climate change. We will need to use everything in our tool kit in order to reduce carbon emissions. Nuclear power today provides about 70% of US electrical generation that does not emit greenhouse gases during operation. It has to be part of the response. The NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) has indicated that it expects to receive applications for the construction and operation of as many as 34 new plants by 2010. Not all these applications will be filed and no doubt not all the filed applications will result in new plants. But there is the prospect of significant new nuclear construction in the US. From a climate change perspective, this should be seen as very welcome.

However, nuclear power will have only a very indirect impact on oil consumption. Oil is not a significant fuel for electrical generation in the US. There is the possibility of an indirect impact because of the linkage of oil prices with those of natural gas, which is used for electrical generation, and perhaps eventually through plug-in hybrids. But I do not think that the case for nuclear should emphasize the reduction of US dependence on foreign oil.

Max Schulz Senior Fellow Manhattan Institute's Center for Energy Policy and the Environment

Posted July 15, 2008, 9:44am

Professor Elliott does a good job laying out some of the challenges facing our energy policymakers. I would add the need to take into account the electricity demands of a growing economy. Simply, we are going to require a lot more electricity than we presently use. We consume about 3.6 trillion kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity annually, but the Energy Information Administration predicts our demand will grow and we will consume nearly 5 trillion kWh by 2030. That’s about a 30% increase (and I believe those projections take into account expected efficiency and conservation improvements). That electricity will have to come from somewhere. Nuclear power offers the ability to generate large volumes of baseload power safely and efficiently, while producing no GHG emissions. Meeting our growing demand needs in an environmentally friendly fashion is, to my mind, one of the chief reasons we should encourage the expansion of nuclear power.

Jim Riccio Nuclear Policy Analyst Greenpeace

Posted July 15, 2008, 9:53am

NASA's James Hansen says that we have a seven year window in which to abate the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. If we actually want to address climate change, rather than merely subsidize nuclear corporations, we need to choose energy sources that are fast and affordable and nuclear is neither.

Nuclear power is a false solution to the problems of climate change and expensive gasoline. The opportunity cost of wasting billions on new nuclear power plants would be better spent on energy efficiency and renewable energy such as solar and wind. According to scientists from the Rocky Mountain Institute, every dollar spent on efficiency and renewables displaces 7 to 10 times the amount of CO2 as a dollar spent on nuclear. Not only is nuclear not essential; it’s not even necessary.

E. Donald Elliott Professor of Law Yale Law School

Posted July 15, 2008, 10:00am

I've also heard that Germany may be waffling on its prior (political) commitment to phase out nuclear and meet climate goals at the same time. But just last month, Australia's new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd renounced his predecessor's policy commitment to build a new generation of nuclear power plants to address climate change. Rudd said that his country would instead pursue "a huge range of energy options available to Australia beyond nuclear," and this is despite the facts that his country has huge deposits of uranium and currently exports about $600 million of it a year to other countries (see source). But I noted that Rudd was not very specific about the other "energy options" he had in mind, and at the same time, decided to cancel a long-standing ban on new uranium mines, so Australia could mine more uranium and ship it to other countries to use in their reactors! So maybe it is all just political posturing?

Christopher Paine Director, Nuclear Program Natural Resources Defense Council

Posted July 15, 2008, 10:08am

It’s important to distinguish between the climate change and “energy independence” goals of a nuclear power expansion. Nuclear already plays a significant role in de-carbonizing the electricity sector, but no current role in the transportation sector, where US oil dependence is greatest. A mass deployment of plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles [PHEV] over the next several decades could create a nexus between nuclear power growth and reduced oil dependence, but it does not exist today and will not have a significant impact until there is a major market penetration of PHEV’s and EV’s [electric vehicles], which one would assume is at least 10-15 years away, at the earliest.

Even if this nuclear power-transportation nexus eventually comes to pass, it will not contribute to “energy independence” because the U.S. does not possess significant high-quality uranium resources and thus will not become a significant source of its own uranium consumption. Moreover, given the harmful groundwater impacts of in-situ leach (ISL) mining of uranium–the dominant technology for extracting low-grade uranium in the US–there are sound reasons why increased domestic uranium production is a bad idea. Reactor component production and reactor construction is likewise a thoroughly multinational industry with dominant foreign involvement, so the case for new build nuclear rises or falls on whether it can deliver de-carbonized megawatts safely and cost-effectively.

E. Donald Elliott Professor of Law Yale Law School

Posted July 15, 2008, 10:13am

I agree with Richard that nuclear doesn't have much to do with the price of gasoline. However, if we build more natural gas plants to produce electrical power, that does increase our dependence on imports (at least in the short run, because of limitations on our pipeline capacity). But we phased out almost all of our oil-fired power plants in the 1970's and 1980's in the wake of Arab oil embargo.

So the real choice for a utility executive today who is considering building additional capacity is probably coal (with or without carbon sequestration), wind, natural gas and/or nuclear. I'd be interested in Chris Crane of Exelon's perspective on how they and others in their industry see and evaluate their options for building incremental capacity. What are the distinguishing factors and pros and cons of each choice?

Jim’s comment is really interesting.  I would certainly agree that nuclear takes a long time and has a high initial capital cost. But are you saying that you think there's enough potential in "energy efficiency and renewable energy such as solar and wind" that we can do what we have to do on climate based on them alone, without building new power plants?

Sharon Squassoni Senior Associate Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Posted July 15, 2008, 10:27am

Energy independence, in general, is a myth, but especially with respect to nuclear energy's ability to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, for the reasons mentioned by Chris and others. Keep in mind that US utilities in 2007 imported almost 90% of their uranium, 40% of conversion services, and 90% of enrichment. But nuclear energy faces dwindling uranium resources toward the end of the century.  It is not a renewable energy source unless you're prepared to go to breeder reactors.

E. Donald Elliott Professor of Law Yale Law School

Posted July 15, 2008, 10:41am

Max’s figures are more consistent with the other projections I've seen than the idea that conservation and renewables can do it alone.

Plus it isn't always so easy for policymakers to get individuals to take all the steps that we should to conserve, particularly when the initial costs seems higher and the economic payback comes over a period of years. Most of us (myself included) don't do everything that we could to conserve.

And there's also the issue of international development—developing countries are clearly going to be building more power plants to meet increased demand, so they, as well as we, are going to need non-polluting (or less polluting) ways of producing more electricity.

Let's make sure that we do talk about breeder reactors during the course of this discussion. Because as Sharon points out, one runs out of uranium without them, but nuclear becomes virtually a renewable resource with them. I understand reprocessing our existing nuclear "waste" would supply nuclear fuel for about 2000 years.

As my former boss at EPA, then-Administrator Bill Reilly used to say (with apologies to Wordsworth): "A 'waste' is just a 'resource' in the wrong place."

Chris Crane Executive Vice President Exelon Corp.

Posted July 15, 2008, 11:31am

Nuclear energy is simply one essential portion of an overall energy portfolio that provides clean, safe, secure, reliable and affordable power to this country. The appropriate choice for our consumers, economy and environment is neither a dangerous overdependence on any one energy source, or an ill-advised prohibition of any one key element. The United States must continue its push toward diversity of a low carbon energy supply. The first and most effective step in energy security is energy conservation and increased energy efficiency. Beyond that, nuclear and renewables must be further developed and utilized, the recent over-reliance on natural gas as a generation fuel must be contained, and development work continued to find economic and reliable ways to use coal cleanly.
 
To respond to Don's question, the "choice" for a utility executive who is faced with the need for additional capacity is not a single choice of one generation source, but a broad range of less than perfect responses. At this point in our financial and technology contexts: renewables do not provide sufficient quantities of reliable baseload power; natural gas is too expensive and too volatile both in cost and supply; coal is not yet clean enough; and new nuclear (as well as new coal) faces cost issues and an uncertain political path forward. The utility executive looks at costs (operating as well as capital), timing, regulatory and political predictability, local community support, reliability, markets and prices, and shareholder value.
 
So I reiterate–we need a broad portfolio that takes advantage of every option's strengths, while managing every option's disadvantages. Nuclear is in any event a key part of that response.

Jim Riccio Nuclear Policy Analyst Greenpeace

Posted July 15, 2008, 11:58am

Last year, Greenpeace published our global energy scenario entitled Energy Revolution that would reduce emissions 50% by 2020 without using nuclear power. We at Greenpeace believe you can abate the impacts of climate with out resorting to new nuclear plants. The report was reviewed by Stephen Pacala from Princeton and the forward was written by Dr. Pachauri, the Chairman of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].

As Pacala and Socolow posit in their climate wedges, our scenario would replace coal plants with natural gas while phasing out nuclear power. The report can be found here.

The Department of Energy's Five Labs study came to a similar conclusion. In 2000, an exhaustive technology assessment was conducted by five Department of Energy laboratories. They concluded that technologies exist that can reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to below 1997 levels by the year 2020 while reducing oil imports by 2 million barrels per day and enhancing national security. These reductions are achievable without any increase in nuclear power generation from current levels.

Max Schulz Senior Fellow Manhattan Institute's Center for Energy Policy and the Environment

Posted July 15, 2008, 12:16pm

Sharon is right that energy independence is a myth. I think our overall goals should be energy, economic, and environmental security, but not independence. I don’t think energy independence can make sense in a world with global markets for fuels like petroleum, coal, natural gas, and uranium (some of these global markets are more developed than others, of course). However, that said, the continued growth of these markets, with a focus on expanding the base of both suppliers as well as customers, helps contribute to global energy security.

Chris Crane made an excellent point that nuclear is just one part of a broad portfolio of energy options. It is not one single "answer" to our energy and environmental challenges, but it must be part of the overall answer as we seek a diversity of supply. Our energy security relies on a diversity of supplies and suppliers.

E. Donald Elliott Professor of Law Yale Law School

Posted July 15, 2008, 12:25pm

Chris's comment was very helpful. I understand the importance of a diversified portfolio of generation sources. On the other hand, by coincidence I noted that today Exelon announced that "we are making a commitment to reduce, offset, or displace all of our greenhouse gas emissions by 2020," making it (I believe) the first US utility to commit to becoming "carbon neutral." I wonder if it would have been possible for Exelon to make such a commitment without your substantial proportion of nuclear assets? Perhaps that's what you meant by "essential"—not the solution in and of itself, but an indispensible part of the solution?

Christopher Paine Director, Nuclear Program Natural Resources Defense Council

Posted July 15, 2008, 12:46pm

Referring to Don’s query to Jim—is there “enough potential in ‘energy efficiency and renewable energy such as solar and wind’ that we can do what we have to do on climate based on them alone, without building new [nuclear] power plants”?—the answer, on a pure resource basis, is clearly yes. The US has enough potentially recoverable efficiency savings and renewable energy resources—direct solar radiation, indirect solar radiation, wind, geothermal, biomass, small hydro, and wave-tidal energy, to eventually power the entire US economy, essentially indefinitely, without nuclear or coal. Thus the essential questions involving these resources are the following:

1) Assuming the political will to adopt stringent carbon cap and trade policies and a sharp rise in the CO2 emissions allowance price, what is the likely evolution of “grid parity” prices for each and how do these compare with the levelized cost of new-build nuclear 10 years hence?

2) Will we make the necessary investments in new transmission and distribution infrastructure that will allow us to take full advantage of renewable and low-carbon distributed generation resources, or will the grid maintain its present bias toward centralized “baseload” thermal power plants?

3) Will we have the good economic sense to prioritize, via sensible federal, state, and PUC requirements, investments in efficiency and other prompt, lower cost resources ahead of higher-cost investments like new-build nuclear and coal with carbon capture? 

How large a role new build nuclear is likely to play depends a lot on how one answers these questions.

Cédric Philibert Senior Consultant International Energy Agency

Posted July 15, 2008, 1:10pm

Our recent publication, Energy Technology Perspectives 2008, shows how to halve global energy-related CO2 emissions by 2050. Promoting energy efficiency is the most important area for controlling GHG emissions. Then come in almost equal shares renewables and carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) on large fossil-fuelled combustion facilities. Then comes nuclear power.

Without nuclear power (or without CCS, or without renewables…) it would not be absolutely impossible to achieve the same climate mitigation objectives–but that would be costlier. More likely, for the money our societies are ready to spend to alleviate the threat of climate change, we would do more in using all possible options.

Some countries still have a long way to go on energy conservation. Others have large renewable potential. For example, countries having areas with strong direct normal insulation can produce large amounts of guaranteed and dispatchable solar electricity through concentrated solar. Others have fewer of the same resources, and will need nuclear, or a combination of nuclear and coal with CCS.

Of course nuclear power cannot be developed everywhere, in particular due to proliferation concerns. But I’m often struck by the claims that nuclear cannot bring a significant contribution for it now provides only 6 or 7% of the world’s total primary energy supply. By the same token, solar PV [photovolatics] and CSP [concentrated solar power] provide much less, and we all hope they will be a very important part of the solution.

Gwyneth Cravens Author Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy

Posted July 15, 2008, 1:20pm

A few points: Nuclear plants can also run on thorium, which is more abundant than uranium. And uranium is a common element in the earth's crust. The fuel supply for nuclear plants is assured for thousands of years, as has been pointed out. Reactors have been devised that can consume nuclear waste or transmute part of it into much-needed medical isotopes.

Rocky Mountain Institute's claim about greater efficiency trumping new nuclear plants has been analyzed by statistician David Bradish and found misleading.

New reactor designs can be built and brought online more quickly than was once the case. Japan and Canada have managed to do that. During WWII the US mobilized its resources to rapidly turn out ships and planes.

Nuclear plants avoid the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions as would occur if about 65 million cars were taken off the road.

Chris Crane Executive Vice President Exelon Corp.

Posted July 15, 2008, 1:49pm

Exelon feels strongly about the need for immediate action to address climate change. The formal rollout of the Exelon 2020 Low Carbon Road Map represents several years of thoughtful deliberation on this critical issue combined with consistent, disciplined efforts to improve our supply of electricity in a safe, reliable and cost effective manner. Regardless of the mix that constitutes Exelon's energy portfolio, Exelon sees the potential of climate change as so dramatic that we cannot wait for others to act.

With the help of our valuable energy portfolio mix, the Exelon 2020 Low Carbon Roadmap will reduce, offset or displace more than 15 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year by 2020 through: reducing or offsetting Exelon's carbon footprint by greening operations; helping customers and communities we serve to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions; and offering more low-carbon electricity in the marketplace.

These commitments, along with a strong effort to advocate public policies in support of climate change improvement, are necessary to reverse climate change impact. Obviously, our nuclear fleet is a major component in achieving our goal in this effort. We will need all of our proposed solutions to be "indispensable" for this initiative to succeed. So Don has it right - nuclear is necessary, but not entirely sufficient, to resolve the climate change challenge in a workable way.

Max Schulz Senior Fellow Manhattan Institute's Center for Energy Policy and the Environment

Posted July 15, 2008, 2:19pm

I have to disagree with Christopher Paine’s argument. While I love efficiency, I don’t believe it does much to lower aggregate energy consumption. There aren’t really any “savings” to be had in efficiency. If you think about it, efficiency merely lowers the cost of using energy. Our economy has become wonderfully more efficient over the last several decades … yet as a result we consume far more energy. If we want to curb demand, we should promote inefficiency. We would all drive a lot less if CAFE standards mandated cars that only got three miles to the gallon.

Moreover, I don’t have Christopher’s confidence that renewables can take the lead in our energy economy. The heavy lifters traditionally have been fossil fuels like coal, petroleum, and natural gas, as well as uranium to make nuclear power. They provide over 90 percent of our energy today, because they are far, far better than renewable technologies at efficiently and economically delivering large supplies of reliable energy. Wind and solar deliver less than one percent of our nation’s electricity, and intermittently at that. With no serious storage capabilities for electricity on the horizon, the intermittency of these technologies is a big knock against them.

Jim Riccio Nuclear Policy Analyst Greenpeace

Posted July 15, 2008, 2:44pm

We at Greenpeace applaud Exelon's desire to address climate change. And we agree that the world can’t wait. But that is precisely why new nuclear plants are a false solution to global warming. Nuclear power can not be brought on line in time to abate the catastrophic impacts of climate change.

John Rowe, Exelon's CEO, said he wouldn't build a new nuclear plant until the waste issue is solved. So it doesn't sound like Exelon will be building any reactors anytime soon. Despite having received government dollars to site a new reactor at Clinton in Illinois, Exelon's drive for a new reactor seems to have stalled and they haven't even applied for a license from NRC. So is Exelon interested in building new nuclear plants or merely getting the carbon credits for the reactors they already own?

E. Donald Elliott Professor of Law Yale Law School

Posted July 15, 2008, 3:19pm

If I read it correctly, there’s a consensus emerging that at least theoretically, we COULD meet climate change goals without nuclear. (That's also a clear implication of the Sokolov "wedges" idea–there are several different combinations that all get to meeting climate goals.) But at what cost?
 
Plus everyone seems to agree that conservation and renewables also have an important role to play–and some even think they could do it alone. Although again, at what cost? (economic or otherwise)?
 
So perhaps we can bore down on (1) why not have some new and/or existing nuclear as part of the mix? and (2) what are the costs, timing and other issues that would counsel some people against increasing nuclear, or even to reduce or eliminate our existing commitment to nuclear?
 
Also, just for clarity, is there anyone out there who thinks that we should significantly increase our commitment to nuclear in the U.S. between now and 2050 (while we and the rest of the G-8 are pledged to cut GHC emissions by 50%)? Or are we really just talking about maintaining more or less what we have (roughly 20%) as part of a diversity of energy sources?

Gwyneth Cravens Author Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy

Posted July 15, 2008, 3:56pm

People in the environmental movement are starting to realize that without significantly increasing nuclear power we can't sufficiently reduce GHG emissions. If a carbon tax is instituted, nuclear power will become relatively cheap. If new reactors (including the more flexible, inherently safe modular micro-reactors now in development) are not added to meet the rising demand for electricity, then instead many more fossil fuel plants will be built to provide base-load. Carbon capture technology is in its infancy and is likely to be energy intensive. New coal-fired and gas-fired plants would not qualify as low-carbon sources. And coal plants would still emit deadly fine particulates.

Jesse Ausubel, Head of the Department of the Human Environment at Rockefeller University and a long-time expert on the impact of human activity on the environment, states that "renewables are not green" because of their vast environmental impact. He writes, "Considered in watts per square metre, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors." [see pdf]

Doug Chapin Principal Officer and Director MPR Associates, Inc.

Posted July 15, 2008, 4:12pm

Sorry to get into the conversation late. I am out of the country and six hours ahead of you. I am not a member of a consensus that we could theoretically meet climate goals without nuclear for two reasons. First this is not a theoretical problem but a real one; so we need real, practical, in the sense of technically feasible and robust solutions. Second, my opinion is we cannot do it without nuclear. I am not persuaded that just because nuclear cannot solve the whole problem in seven years that we should not pursue it. There is no magic timeline and none of the solutions can solve the problem in a short time; the scale and complexity of the problem are just not amenable to short-term solutions. The discussion earlier about the need for a robust portfolio choices, each applied as best for various conditions, seems to me to be the best way to proceed. If there is a consensus evolving, it seems to be there.

Richard Meserve President Carnegie Institution

Posted July 15, 2008, 4:23pm

We perhaps could meet our climate change goals without nuclear. The issue is one of cost and hardship in the transition to a different world. The aim should be for a trajectory to a sustainable energy world that is minimally disruptive–economically and socially.

In this connection, it is my view that nuclear has to play a starring role. It is a major source of carbon-free energy that is available 24/7. Wind and solar technologies have the potential for deployment growth, but they are intermittent resources that are distant from users, thus requiring substantial expansion of transmission resources. Some of these technologies are costly and moving them to a percentage contribution in the double digits will require large increases over current levels in manufacturing, employment, investment, and installation. Not all are environmentally friendly.

The harsh reality is that coal provides 50% of our electricity. Somehow we need to move quickly to sequestration–a very uncertain and costly bet–or we need to replace coal with something that is carbon free. If we hope to reduce carbon emissions over the period to 2050, the share of energy that comes from nuclear will have to grow above the present 20%.

Jim Riccio Nuclear Policy Analyst Greenpeace

Posted July 15, 2008, 4:31pm

Greenpeace is opposed to new nuclear plants due to the unresolved issues of cost, safety, security and waste. We oppose nuclear power in the climate context due to the opportunity cost. Despite government subsidies, new nuclear power is still prohibitively expensive. The latest figures provided by nuclear corporations to Florida regulators place the cost for a new reactor in a range between $12 and $ 18 billion. But the industry's track record would suggest that any new reactor will be well over budget and behind schedule. In December, MidAmerican, a subsidiary of Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway was the first corporation to postpone plans for a new reactor. When MidAmerican performed their due diligence review they determined that a new reactor did not make economic sense. When the world’s greatest investor won’t invest in nuclear power due to its poor economics, I would think that would cause others to reconsider.

Richard Meserve President Carnegie Institution

Posted July 15, 2008, 5:30pm

The cost numbers cited by Jim Riccio are the full costs, including financing and site costs and transmission upgrades, for two reactors. The current best estimate for the overnight cost (in 2007 dollars) of a new reactor ranges from about $3100/kWe [kilowatt - electric] to about $5000/kWe. Other generating companies do not see this as prohibitively expensive, as shown by the fact that the NRC has been told to expect 34 applications for combined licenses for new reactors by the end of 2010. New nuclear is viewed as economically acceptable because of the fast-rising costs for coal and natural gas, the inability of renewable energy and efficiency to satisfy growing baseload power needs even if deployed aggressively, and the inevitability of government controls on greenhouse gases.

Christopher Paine Director, Nuclear Program Natural Resources Defense Council

Posted July 15, 2008, 5:33pm

Let me respond to Max’s comment. First, my comments were directed at prioritizing investment in available low-carbon energy resources, based on their comparative cost per ton of CO2 avoided, not on excluding any resource, including nuclear. Second, the statement that efficiency “doesn’t do much to lower aggregate energy consumption” contains insufficient information to be meaningful. Certainly, at the level of any economic unit you care to measure–an individual household, town, city, state or country–concerted efforts to accelerate the capture of end-use efficiency gains produces large measurable consumption savings over what would otherwise occur under a business as usual scenario over the same time period. To argue otherwise is to suggest that every kilowatt saved by a more efficient bulb, appliance, or entertainment system will somehow induce a consumer to buy more of these goods in exact proportion to his energy savings, until he returns to his/her previous consumer indifference curve for electricity. I don’t think there is any empirical support for this kind of argument.

Even if there are “perverse” efficiency price effects–some people buying and USING more of a good because it requires less energy and seems more affordable, not all consumers will do this, and not all will do so at a rate that overwhelms the gains from broadly applicable efficiency gains. No one is arguing that efficiency can fully or permanently offset the increased electricity consumption that comes from population growth, a general rise in living standards, or the increased market penetration of a wide range of new electronic devices. Thus efficiency is but one valuable, promptly available, and clean energy resource to be pursued among many, and its low cost relative to new-build nuclear suggests that on a rational ROI basis, it should be prioritized ahead of new build nuclear. So should other low-carbon energy investments with a lower cost per ton of CO2 avoided. When we are exploiting all these resources to the fullest, to the point that a marginal kilowatt of these clean resources is projected to cost as much as a marginal kilowatt of new build nuclear in the same timeframe–that is the time to bring on the nukes, not before.

Sharon Squassoni Senior Associate Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Posted July 15, 2008, 6:33pm

In response to Dick and Jim's exchange on costs, one of the criticisms of nuclear energy is that Wall Street won't finance it because of the high risks. So I think it is necessary to look at the all-in costs, which Moody's estimated last year at about $6000/MW. Jeff Immelt of General Electric told the Financial Times that new nuclear plants would not be built in the US without carbon pricing, from which we can infer that the subsidies in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 have not been enough. The question is what price per ton of carbon emitted?

Whether or not the United States builds new nuclear power plants, the strong advocacy for nuclear power by the US, France, and Russia on the merits of climate change and energy security are clearly encouraging many other states to consider nuclear power. Almost 30 states have expressed interest since 2005. Many are developing nations, but some are oil-rich and won't need private financing for their nuclear power plants. Will they have the requisite safety, security, and regulatory infrastructure in place to ensure safe operation of reactors? It's not clear.

Christopher Paine Director, Nuclear Program Natural Resources Defense Council

Posted July 15, 2008, 6:36pm

“Overnight costs” are an industry convention to compare the material, labor, and project management costs of building a new plant if it could be built “overnight.” The relevant costs are the full-up cost estimates, one of which Jim Riccio cited, which include allowances for real escalation during construction, financing and site costs, grid integration costs, and other owners costs (training, startup, permitting, and amortized reactor engineering costs).

Prior to a federal program established in late 2005 to provide a federal tax credit worth 1.9 cents/kWh and federal loan guarantee authority (currently $18.5 billion) covering up to 80% of a project’s cost, there were zero applications pending before the NRC for the construction and operation of new nuclear power plants. Absent this degree of federal support, which also includes 50% DOE cost-sharing for licensing costs and “regulatory risk” insurance (against possibly legitimate regulator induced delays in construction) totaling several hundred million for each of the first six units, there would be zero COL applications pending before the NRC.

So it is a bit hasty to conclude from such applications, either pending or expected, that there is a widespread utility consensus regarding the “economic acceptability” of new build nuclear power. That perception will only approximate reality following imposition of a stringent cap on carbon emissions and a resulting CO2 price of at least $50-$100 per ton.

Chris Crane Executive Vice President Exelon Corp.

Posted July 15, 2008, 6:38pm

I agree with Doug Chapin and am not part of any potential consensus that climate change COULD be challenged effectively without nuclear. My company's distribution companies have an obligation to serve their customers' electricity needs. Therefore, cost and reliability must be an integral part of this conversation. Why focus on addressing climate change at very high cost without nuclear, when more broadly based response at lower cost is within reach?

Doug Chapin Principal Officer and Director MPR Associates, Inc.

Posted July 16, 2008, 1:06am

I agree that a cost basis per carbon avoidance for utilizing new sources is one of many useful yard-sticks. How do renewables look today on such a basis if I need large amounts of power now or in the next seven years? We need to make sure that costs are done on a level playing field with transparency so one can see all the numbers and make valid comparisons. The costs for new nuclear are becoming public and they are higher than they were before, but we have not seen or heard the comparable numbers produced in a comparable way for the other “cheaper” paths. I don’t think anecdotal info does it; the utilities do not use anecdotes or books written by advocates to make those calls. So a big need in this area is authoritative, relatively unbiased numbers the public and the decision makers can use to set policy. There are also premiums that one is willing to pay for special circumstances and this must also apply to carbon avoidance as well–cheapest is not always best. The light beside my computer is so dim here that it is hard to see the keyboard, but it is energy efficient from the look of it.

Second, I am not the expert, but I think there is real evidence for the “rebound” effect on increased use resulting from increased efficiency. Isn’t that why people buy more cost efficient cars or air conditioners in many cases? They could just use the same old device less, but many buy the new one so they can drive as far or farther and set the thermostat at the same place or lower and not as much more as they might; in effect, they have a budget for energy. We should still conserve, but efficiency changes don’t relentlessly translate into reduced consumption matching the efficiency change. It is always less expensive and saves more GHG to turn the lights off than it is to buy new energy efficiency light bulbs, but a lot of folks don’t do that.

E. Donald Elliott Professor of Law Yale Law School

Posted July 16, 2008, 9:00am

As I reflected on our discussion yesterday, I was particular impressed by the point made by Cédric Philibert, Richard Meserve (and others) that we probably want to achieve global climate change goals with the minimum of social disruption and pain, and as a practical matter, that probably indicates a balanced, diversified approach with some additional emphasis on nuclear, as well as conservation, energy efficiency, renewables, and advanced coal with sequestration. However, I understand that some of us disagree and are still opposed to nuclear. I am wondering if it would be productive today to drill down to explore the underlying basis of that opposition?  Is it really all about economics, or doesn’t the opposition also reflect deeper concerns as well? Assume hypothetically that it could be shown that a least-cost, greenhouse gas compliance strategy includes nuclear (without government subsides); wouldn’t Greenpeace, NRDC, and others still be opposed? If so, why?

Jim Riccio Nuclear Policy Analyst Greenpeace

Posted July 16, 2008, 9:15am

Richard was right. I was citing "all in" costs vs. overnight. But shouldn't these corporations be more honest about the true costs with those being asked to foot the bill? So the consumers were being told that the cost would be in the $3000 to $5000/kWe range and the actual cost was as much as than double that....sounds like the same old nuclear industry to me.

Not even the industry believes that all those expressing "interest" will actually build. Unistar said they wouldn't build a new nuclear reactor unless the government guaranteed that they wouldn't lose money, i.e. loan guarantees. Nuclear is so expensive that many of these CEO's are being asked to bet their corporation. The cost of a new nuke represents the entire value of their corporations.

E. Donald Elliott Professor of Law Yale Law School

Posted July 16, 2008, 9:28am

I think we're really on the same page on this one and arguing about semantics. Yesterday I said "even if we could do it theoretically without nuclear, at what cost?" Then Chris and Doug came back and said: "it's not a theoretical issue; consider the costs."  That's exactly what I was trying to do:  Steer us away from the unproductive theoretical debate about whether we could get there without nuclear and back toward the practical one. Sorry if I wasn't clear, but we are in vigorous (if not aggressive) agreement on this! The substantive issue is whether nuclear would, in fact, decrease (or as some apparently maintain, increase?) the economic and social costs of meeting GHC targets–not the unproductive "theoretical" one of "could" we comply without nuclear if we ignored the economic and other costs of doing so.

Sharon Squassoni Senior Associate Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Posted July 16, 2008, 9:38am

Before moving on, as Don suggested, to the underlying views about nuclear energy, I would just like to point out that Doug's question—how do the costs of renewables look today or in the next seven years?—needs a longer timeframe. As a Westinghouse official recently pointed out, no new nuclear plants are going to come on-line in the US by 2015.  Even if we could assume that the utilities applying now for COLs are going to build those plants, it's almost a decade from application to connection to the grid. So we have to look at how renewables are developing now.  And the experience of installing wind power in, among other places, Texas, is pretty encouraging.

One other note on the ability of the nuclear industry to ramp up its production. As the Keystone Report pointed out last year, the required rate of build to add 700 GWe of additional capacity by 2050 (assuming most of current operating reactors will have to be retired by then) is about 25 per year, which was achieved only in the highest construction years in the 1970’s/80’s. For the past two decades, fewer than 10 reactors per year have come on-line globally. The industry currently can't do more than about 10/year, particularly in the critical area of reactor pressure vessels. Undoubtedly, the industry will respond to increased demand with more capacity, but is this going to happen soon enough? The IEA's Energy Technology Perspectives Blue Scenario requires a rate of build that is, on average, 32 reactors/year. Allowing for slower rates in the earlier years, it would require upwards of 40 reactors built per year in later years.

Jim Riccio Nuclear Policy Analyst Greenpeace

Posted July 16, 2008, 9:44am

No offense Don, but your hypothetical reminds me of an old T-shirt: Pigs can fly, the earth is flat and nuclear power is safe!

I would be happy to discuss why I and other environmentalists oppose nuclear power. However, the issues of waste, safety, security, and proliferation are not the issues upon which the CEO's will decide to build new reactors.

Chris Crane Executive Vice President Exelon Corp.

Posted July 16, 2008, 10:02am

The nuclear industry, the Department of Energy, and the nuclear regulatory process have made major strides in addressing the lessons learned in the last generation of nuclear construction, in preparation for the next generation of new build. The regulatory process is substantially improved, providing significant opportunity for public participation as well as strengthened predictability for investors. Consortia of utilities and vendors have worked together to drive standardization of design, under the auspices of DOE's Nuclear 2010. Plant designs are improved, capitalizing on passive safety features and simplification of mechanical systems. That focus on improvement has resulted in the announcement of more than 30 COL (combined construction and operating license) applications.

Exelon plans to file its own COL application this year for a site in Victoria, Texas. This progress domestically follows significant progress internationally, particularly in Asia. Japanese companies are successfully building new plants on schedule, on budget, using innovative construction techniques. Those techniques are available to us. The U.S. industry still confronts challenges in new build: the investment required is substantial and daunting - a fact recognized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Nuclear new build also faces the same commodity cost escalation and financing issues faced by any other mega-construction project. But the continuing growth of the U.S. economy demands the energy supply to support it. Increased nuclear generation, both to keep pace with demand growth and to begin to replace high-emissions sources, is an excellent option.

Christopher Paine Director, Nuclear Program Natural Resources Defense Council

Posted July 16, 2008, 10:13am

Doug, you wrote: “I agree that a cost basis per carbon avoidance for utilizing new sources is one of many useful yard-sticks. How do renewables look today on such a basis if I need large amounts of power now or in the next seven years?”

Here is the latest from the CPUC on that question. No doubt, there is quite a wide range for some of the renewables, but they are clearly in the running with new-build nuclear and it looks from this chart as though at least some projects could be brought in for considerably less than nuclear estimated $0.154 per kWh. Seven to ten years hence, given current technology trends, one would expect this chart to show even more competitive cost ranges for renewables relative to new build nuclear. The cost of end-use efficiency savings per kWh is not on the chart, but my understanding is that in California this has typically run from about $0.02 to $0.045/kWh.

E. Donald Elliott Professor of Law Yale Law School

Posted July 16, 2008, 10:24am

Jim, no offense taken. We've already had a lot of discussion about the economic costs and it is getting pretty technical, narrow and abstruse. So my suggestion–and it is only a suggestion–is that the dialogue might be more productive and interesting if we were to broaden it out a little bit to include some of the other reasons why people object to nuclear power in addition to economics.
 
You mention safety, for example, and cite a T-shirt for the proposition that it is intuitively obvious to everyone that nuclear power is not "safe." I'm not sure everyone on the dialogue would agree with you and the T-shirt that it is ludicrous to suggest that nuclear power is safe. Plus where energy supply is concerned, "safety" is a comparative issue. There are also significant human health issues surrounding the use of coal (both air pollution and mine safety issues). So maybe it would be productive and interesting to discuss a broader list of the objections to nuclear power and not just restrict ourselves to dueling estimates of the costs.
 
And in any event, to some decree the economics of nuclear power is a moot point. If you're right and no one thinks it is economic and therefore won't finance it, then a major expansion of nuclear power is unlikely to happen. So the interesting case for policy-makers to consider is whether we should decline to "go nuclear" for other reasons of social policy even if it turns out to be economically feasible (which I already understand that you don't think that it will ever be.)

Jim Riccio Nuclear Policy Analyst Greenpeace

Posted July 16, 2008, 10:39am

According to the pamphlet Exelon released yesterday: "Exelon will not commit to building new nuclear plants, however, until we are satisfied that our conditions for safety, regulatory stability, bipartisan federal, state and local support, spent fuel management and cost have been met." So despite applying for a license from NRC, it seems the decision makers at Exelon have not yet been convinced that new nuclear is a viable option.

Christopher Paine Director, Nuclear Program Natural Resources Defense Council

Posted July 16, 2008, 11:04am

I am rising to our moderator’s challenge to shift to the broader nuclear issues with this 500-word post:

A global nuclear build-out raises a host of non-carbon costs and risks that must be weighed in the balance. Nuclear power is the only energy technology that requires an international safeguards regime to discourage countries from diverting fuel-cycle facilities and materials to make weapons. It is the only energy technology for which government must assume the ultimate liability for catastrophic accidents, and the only one in which the waste is so dangerous and enduring that government must assume responsibility for its long-term isolation from the biosphere.

Reliance on the nuclear fuel cycle entails some irreducible proliferation risk arising from dissemination of the knowledge, materials and equipment required for nuclear power generation under purely national control. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s application of peaceful use “safeguards” seeks to make this risk tolerable for a nuclear nation’s regional neighbors and the international community. However, as seen in the current case of Iran and several other states of past and present proliferation concern, a national commitment to nuclear power can serve to justify a national interest in acquiring sensitive uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing facilities that are on the critical path to bomb-making, even if there is no present intention to head in this direction.

The international safeguards systems remains ill-equipped to deal with the nuclear diversion threat from such facilities, and thus it would be irresponsible to press today for a global nuclear power expansion that would require the growth and spread of such facilities. The present Administration has sought to deal with this obvious objection by proposing a civil nuclear condominium to match the military one already possessed by the five “permanent” members of the UN Security Council. But the rest of the world is unlikely to accept in the civil nuclear sphere the replication of the prevailing weapons oligopoly, and thus the severe proliferation threat posed by a global nuclear build-out will persist.

We should also remind ourselves that for any given class of reactor, its future output worldwide is contingent on the actions of the least competent nuclear operator on a bad day. This argues against pushing reactors on states that lack the technical infrastructure, safety culture, official transparency, and government accountability that are essential to minimizing the risk of accidents that could paralyze a large share of nuclear power generation.

Finally, we must consider the risks to our own and the global environment posed by a large increase in global uranium demand. This could make marginal US uranium deposits economic to exploit once again, and raises the prospect of a disastrous re-run of the severe environmental and public health abuses that marked the last uranium boom. Judging by its performance to date, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other government agencies are utterly unprepared to prevent such a recurrence.

In sum, nuclear power remains an option for some capital-rich, advanced industrial economies, including the U.S., but one to be expanded only when all the environmentally sustainable alternatives available at equal or lesser cost and risk have been tapped.

Jim Riccio Nuclear Policy Analyst Greenpeace

Posted July 16, 2008, 11:08am

One of the many reasons environmentalists oppose expanding nuclear power is the threat of proliferation. Stephan Pacala from Princeton has cited this concern in 2004 when he was asked if there were climate wedges that were not worth pursuing.

According to Pacala: "I personally think nuclear is a non-starter. In the article we were not trying to choose sides, only to point out the mitigation technologies that are already in place. However, I cannot imagine that in this era of concerns about terrorism that we are going to start the production of fissionable material all over the world. It is disingenuous when the Bush administration says that the way to solve this problem is through coal and nuclear."

Gwyneth Cravens Author Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy

Posted July 16, 2008, 12:24pm

Carbon reduction begins at home. Per capita, the US is the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases. Here, commercial nuclear plants are not connected to weapons production. Here, there is careful monitoring of the spent fuel. Here, many of the reactor operators and technicians have been trained by Naval Reactors, which has operated 254 reactors without any release of radioactivity. Here, the accident rate at nuclear plants is lower than in the banking and the real estate industries.

Since it will be decades before alternative energy sources can provide base-load electricity, and provide it on a large scale to meet growing energy needs as the country uses electricity more and more as its preferred fuel, then nuclear power is essential in this country.

Nuclear power, well-managed, is safe. Certainly safer than fossil fuels, which cause thousands of deaths annually. Our reactor designs are completely different from the Chernobyl reactor and all our reactors are enclosed in several layers of containment–Chernobyl was not.

Jim Riccio Nuclear Policy Analyst Greenpeace

Posted July 16, 2008, 1:00pm

Ms. Craven's comment is at odds with the NRC testimony to Congress in the wake of the Chernobyl accident. NRC testimony stated: "Unit 4 at Chernobyl contains characteristics of both containment and confinement. There appear to be two regions that appear to be designed to withstand 27 psi and 57 psi. These volumes are in turn interconnected with two suppression pools via pressure relief valves and downcomers. The remaining portions of the plant are housed within a confinement structure."

Additionally, not all reactors have massive domes we associate with nuclear plants. GE and Westinghouse ice condensers are especially vulnerable. In 1986 Harold Denton, former director of NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, again acknowledged this vulnerability while speaking to utilities executives at Brookhaven National Laboratory. Denton noted that, according to NRC studies the GE Mark I reactors had “something like a 90% probability of that containment failing."(Brian Jordan, “Denton Urges Industry to Settle Doubts about Mark I Containment, Inside N.R.C., June 9, 1986, pp. 1, 3.)

U.S. reactors are not designed to withstand meltdowns. Meltdowns are considered "beyond the design basis" and engineers were not required to design against them.

Richard Meserve President Carnegie Institution

Posted July 16, 2008, 1:07pm

The reality is that other countries are committed to the pursuit of nuclear power, including many new entrants, regardless of whether the US is involved. It has seemed to me that we are in a much better position to influence the safety and proliferation regime that will attend the expansion of nuclear power in these countries if we are a participant in the enterprise rather than a bystander. Proliferation concerns are not a justification for the US to reject nuclear power. In fact, they justify enhanced involvement.

The proliferation concerns with nuclear power do not arise directly from reactors. Fresh fuel enriched to 5%, which is typical of reactor fuel, cannot be used in a weapon. Rather, the proliferation risk arises from the other parts of the fuel cycle–enrichment and reprocessing. What is needed is an international regime to discourage and limit the places in which enrichment and reprocessing take place and to make sure that they are under tight safeguards. Moreover, reprocessing is occurring today in other countries using technology that produces separated plutonium, which is a weapons-usable material. Again, our non-proliferation objectives would be served by seeking to assure that reprocessing involves technologies that do not produce a weapons-usable material stream. We can have no influence on the technologies that will be applied by other countries if we are not serving as leaders in defining a safer and more proliferation-resistant path.

E. Donald Elliott Professor of Law Yale Law School

Posted July 16, 2008, 1:22pm

I'm not clear whether or not someone is contending that a modest expansion of civilian nuclear power for electricity generation in the U.S. (say from 20% of our electricity today to 30% or 40% by 2040 or 2050) would substantially increase the proliferation and/or terrorism risks–and if so, how that would work?
 
I suppose we might not want to see nuclear reactors in Iraq or North Korea for those reasons (and maybe regret seeing them in Pakistan). But since climate change is a global problem, expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. and other "capital-rich, advanced industrial economies" contributes to solving the world-wide problem and creates more room for other, less "advanced industrial" countries to use other methods of power generation and still stay under the global targets over all.

Jim Riccio Nuclear Policy Analyst Greenpeace

Posted July 16, 2008, 2:33pm

I think what we're concerned about is not that the US will proliferate, but that the expansion of nuclear power globally will pose a threat of proliferation. According to reports in the NY Times & Christian Science Monitor, U.S. government officials voiced these concerns last year.

The Iranian nuclear program, which the Bush administration continues to contend is merely a cover for a nuclear weapons program, has spurred interest in the region. In the past year, thirteen Middle Eastern countries have announced their intent to pursue nuclear power. The interest expressed by majority Sunni Muslim states is viewed as a direct response to the nuclear ambitions of Shiite Iran. Additionally, in 2004, a report from Jane’s Intelligence Review concluded that an increase in the number of nuclear power plants worldwide would directly increase the risks associated with nuclear weapons proliferation.