The Nuclear Comeback
14 Mar, 2009 06:03 pm
Enlarge text
Reduce text sizeThe natural gas crisis caused by the cutoff of supplies from Russia earlier in the year crystallized for many nations the threat of being overly dependent on another country for their energy supplies.
 |
Italy has decided that this seems to be a prudent course of action:
After a 20-year ban, France helps Italy embrace nuclear energy
MILAN, ITALY – Twenty years after banning new nuclear plants, Italy is turning to France to restore its nuclear program.
On Tuesday, Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi signed a cooperation deal with President Nicolas Sarkozy for the construction of four power plants in Italy.
Italy shut down its four nuclear plants following a 1987 national referendum that rode a wave of fear and outrage over Russia’s Chernobyl reactor meltdown. Now it is joining a growing number of European countries – including Germany, Slovakia, and Bulgaria – that are returning to nuclear energy due to concerns both about carbon emissions and about the reliability of energy supplies from Russia.
Even without the gas crisis, this was inevitable because the long-term supply situation isn't overly favorable for Europe. It is inevitable that the UK will turn back to nuclear power in a big way (lest their citizens freeze as fossil fuel supplies deplete) and it is inevitable that we in the U.S. will expand nuclear power in a big way in the decades ahead.
Regular readers know that I strongly favor an expansion of renewable energy, but renewable electricity is starting from a very small base. Electricity produced from renewables (minus hydropower) is less than 3% of total U.S. electricity production, and even with aggressive growth projections that is unlikely to change dramatically. Why? Total renewable electricity production in 2007 hit an all-time high of 105.3 million megawatt-hours. The growth over 2006 was impressive; almost 10 million megawatt-hours. (2008 numbers aren't yet complete, but it looks like they will be about 10 million megawatt-hours than 2007). Yet the average annual growth of electricity demand over the previous 10 years was 66 million megawatt hours. At that rate, renewable electricity production could quadruple in the next 5 years and just about cover historical demand growth.
So if we are serious about moving away from coal, I believe we will have to expand nuclear power. We would need to add renewables at six times our current rate just to keep up with historical growth rates. Displacing much coal is out of the question unless demand can be curtailed. As I have said before, I am not opposed to nuclear power by any means. I understand that there are environmental issues that aren't completely resolved. But you can make that case for just about any energy source.
I do know one thing about human nature, though. When energy starts to become sufficiently expensive - as gasoline did last summer - environmental concerns will take a back seat to economic concerns. Look no further than the popularity of the 'drill here, drill now' campaign. This was one issue where John McCain did get some traction during the presidential campaign. If gas is $1.50 a gallon, people are concerned about the environmental impacts of expanded drilling. At $4.00 a gallon, they are prepared to let you drill in their back yard.
The same will be true of nuclear power. Opposition will be inversely proportional to the cost of electricity.
Originally published on R-Squared energy blog
Add to Facebook
Add to Yahoo ! MyWeb
Add to Furl
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Digg
Add to Google Bookmarks
Add to Newsvine
The Guardian newspaper of Monday 19 October broke the story that the UK government is preparing to guarantee a minimum price for carbon dioxide emissions to encourage the development of nuclear power stations. Putting a high cost on greenhouse gas emissions from power stations will force up the wholesale price of electricity, ensuring a better financial return for nuclear power stations (and for renewables such as wind). The decision to create a floor price for carbon demonstrates that the full costs of nuclear technology are probably well above today's wholesale electricity prices. We may well need nuclear power but we are going to pay heavily for it. The government’s optimistic noises from 2006 to the middle of this year about the commercial viability of nuclear power have turned out to be wrong.
On 30 October 2008, the Royal Society, the British academy of science, announced the launch of a major new study looking at whether planetary scale geoengineering schemes could help reduce the effects of global climate change (1). Among the schemes are: placing giant mirrors in space to reflect sunlight away from the Earth; releasing tiny particles into the upper atmosphere to help cool the climate by reducing the amount of the sun's energy that reaches the Earth's surface; and fertilising the oceans with nutrients, such as iron, to promote blooms of phytoplankton which would soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Understanding how the great hopes of early nuclear power advocates eventually turned into great disappointment may shed some light on nuclear power's future.
In terms of its achievable potential, financial and social cost, and even carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear power is not an optimal solution.
Jacques Foos analyses questions on world development in an un-dogmatic style. He is a professor at the National Conservatory of the Arts et Metiers and the director of the Nuclear Science Laboratory.
For Philippe Garderet, the scientific director of Areva, the world leading company in nuclear energy, “the real subject at hand is not knowing whether people will want nuclear reactors, but knowing whether big industry that produces them will be capable of producing them at the rhythm demanded and at the quality sought after.”
-
17/03/10
Are the health dangers from nuclear radiation exagerated?
-
03/03/10
Biofuels and land use
-
03/03/10
North Sea Oil and Gas may Provide One Third of Britain's Energy by 2020.
-
25/02/10
Do Texas and the North Sea Foretell the Future of Oil Production?
-
02/02/10
Is Hydrogen Research Driven by Fantasy?
| [1] | Comment by Global Changes
- 26 Mar, 2009 11:27 am If the world focuses on creating a working nuclear Fusion reactor, our energy problems will be completely solved. With enough clean and renewable energy to severely set back climate change |
Alert Moderator
| |
Read more
