Nuclear Energy in the US: A Strange Love Indeed
Well, AEman wouldn’t actually say love, not in 2004, though it might have been love a long time ago. And if you refer to the previous post on what China is up to with pebble reactors, it may be love again. But lately it hasn't even been "like." For many of the more environmentally-oriented in the US and especially Europe, nuclear power is essentially the energy anti-christ.
AEman though, is little inclined to weigh theological issues in his analysis. Rather, he is solely interested in nuclear power as a new power energy source ... even if its misapplication could cause trouble, even it its mismanagement could cause environmental problems or loss of life. It's all about risk management and selecting the best mix of benefits and risks. All of the old power sources cause significant environmental damage and lead directly and indirectly to loss of life. Arguably some of the new energy approaches don't have such dire side-effects and that's bloody fanstastic. But until they're grown up and ready to take center stage, it's going to be a continuing excercise in compromise and balancing risks and rewards.
Today, the AEman test visits itself upon nuclear power as an energy source that’s at once both old and new. Old in that it’s been around for about fifty years and is widely deployed, both in the US as well as in the rest of the world. New because a lot has happened in the last 20 or so years, both to the technology as well as to the world.
Though few new plants have been built since the seventies, the 103 currently operational U.S. nuclear power plants produce about 20% of U.S. electricity. In Europe (specifically the EU zone) that number is 35%, with France topping the list with 78% of its electricity derived from nuclear power plants.
China and India have started ten or so new plants in the last several years and are building another ten as fast as they can. Compared with the US and the EU countries, both are really just getting started. On the other hand, the US and EU have been holding steady for so long that China and India will likely whistle past them before too long.
Worldwide, nuclear power accounts for 15 percent of global electricity output and it hasn’t budged a hell of a lot in the past 20 years. That’s going to increase, although the recent post on coal use (Coal Case) shows coal plant construction increasing rapidly in India, China and the US where there’s no shortage of the stuff.
Why are nukes interesting again after falling out of favor with Three Mile Island and Chernobyl? Reason number one is that they don’t require carbon-based fossil fuels. The uranium which they require is plentiful and would easily sustain a massive US and global plant build out. And while the US and European programs have been frozen, science has marched on with new plant designs that have substantially improved the safety and efficiency of nuclear power.
Before the test commences, a few fun nuclear power facts from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) follow:
- The average electricity production cost in 2003 for nuclear energy was 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour, for coal-fired plants 1.80 cents, for oil 5.53 cents, and for gas 5.77 cents
- The energy in one uranium fuel pellet—the size of the tip of your little finger—is the equivalent of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal, or 149 gallons of oil.
- Uranium is a relatively abundant element that occurs naturally in the earth's crust. Uranium oxide is more abundant than gold and silver, and about as common as tin.
- In 2002, 16 countries produced over 99 percent of the world's total uranium production. Canada's and Australia's uranium mines account for over 50 percent.
The 3-part AEman test considers economic, geopolitical and environmental factors.
Economics: Good
Cost to mine, refine, transport fuel, and then dispose of the spent fuel and decommission the plant. A 2003 report from the University of Chicago economics department funded by the DOE compared the power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the US. Various nuclear options were covered and ranged from 4.3 to 5.0 c/KWh, while coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/KWh and natural gas 3.5 - 4.5 c/KWh, varying significantly depending on the price of natural gas. It’s important to note that while these figures show nuclear almost a full cent higher in total costs per KWh generated, they do not reflect the substantial recent price increases in natural gas nor the anticipated CO2 emissions costs expected to be tacked on to coal power generators in the near future.
Geopolitics: Good
Nothing like oil. No one’s killing each other over access to uranium mines in Australia and Canada so the US isn’t spending billions in protection money nor are our troops in harm’s way because of the nuclear power industry. Of course, nuke plants do bring with them a uniquely powerful threat: that of generation and proliferation of materials that could be used to build nuclear fission bombs. The US obviously feels comfortable with its own use of nuclear materials as fuel in the geopolitical context and has learned to be comfortable with nuclear plants run by our “friends” in Western Europe and Asia. We are somewhat less comfortable with the idea of nuclear plants generating power for potential adversaries like China, but if they already have a nuclear arsenal, then fretting’s not going to do much good … or bad. It’s their use in non-nuclear states that gets us agitated … and it should. Looks like we’ll be welcoming Iran to the club soon, like it or more likely, NOT.
Environmental: Good
From a greenhouse gas emissions perspective – nukes score swell – as nuke plants, when they’re running properly, release little but steam. They can mess up local aquatic environments when they release too much hot water into too small a body of water, but AEman considers this a secondary risk factor at best, and one that can be overcome through good design and new technologies. Like geopolitics, though, the initial very upbeat assessment comes with a caveat. I the case of nuclear power, it’s nuclear waste of course. Where to responsibly put this dangerous stuff: Yukka mountain and other alternative sites? Or is it new tech to break it down into less dangerous forms? And going forward, what about the inherently melt-down proof ball approach of the pebble reactor design (see previous post).
Summary
Neither the cheapest nor the safest, though from a certain perspective the cleanest, nuclear power (especially new design nukes) stands ready to help us buy time while waiting for newer AE technologies to mature. Let’s figure out once and for all what we’re going to do with the glowing leftovers (fruit cakes?) and continue to work on keeping proliferation to an absolute minimum.
New nuke plants are ideal for making electricity for residential and commercial use as well as hydrogen for the transportation sector. See today’s NY Times article - Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies - it reports a breakthrough on using nuclear power to create hydrogen much more efficiently than ever before possible. So, nukes make hydrogen. Sort of like blue states and red states ... a new power lovechild born of Dr. Strangelove and Yule Gibbons.
posted by Andy Bochman at 8:42 PM
 
|
