How many times does nuclear power get to have a “comeback”?
At least one more, the Washington Post Anthony Faiola reports today (11/24/09), under the headline “Nuclear Power Regains Support,” and the subheads “Tool Against Climate Change” and “Even Green Groups See It as ‘Part of the Answer.'” The “greening of nuclear power” story is a perennial corporate media favorite (Extra!, 1-2/08), and no example of the genre would be complete without the environmentalist-turned-nuclear-lobbyist whose financial ties to the nuclear industry go politely unmentioned.
In this case, it’s Stephen Tindale, described as the former head of Greenpeace’s British office and not described as former head of communications and public affairs for npower renewables, a subsidiary of the energy company RWE, whose website declares: “Building new nuclear power stations is a key part of our commitment to meet the UK’s energy needs and to reduce carbon dioxide intensity. We have formed a joint venture with E.ON UK to develop at least 6GW of new nuclear capacity in the U.K.”
So, aside from people who have been paid by the nuclear power industry, who are the “green groups” that the subhead promises see nuclear power as “part of the answer”? The article cites two groups who support the climate change bill currently before Congress, which includes nuclear subsidies–the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund. But both groups are still opposed to nuclear power–the Sierra Club’s official position is still the one it passed in 1974, declaring that “The Sierra Club opposes the licensing, construction and operation of new nuclear reactors utilizing the fission process” until safety, waste and proliferation issues are addressed; the group’s magazine (1-2/07), addressing the climate change issue, concludes that “virtually every other form of power is cheaper and less risky.”
The Environmental Defense Fund, meanwhile, declares in a 2005 statement that “serious questions of safety, security, waste and proliferation surround the issue of nuclear power. Until these questions are resolved satisfactorily, Environmental Defense cannot support an expansion of nuclear generating capacity.”
So it doesn’t sound like either of the green groups cited by Faiolo actually view nuclear power as “part of the answer.” It’s safe to say that reporting like the Washington Post‘s, which always looks for the corporate-friendliest solution to any environmental issue, is part of the problem.
Good points, Jim, but although Sierra and EDF may not advocate for nukes, the question I have is just how hard they’re opposing them.
That might be a question to ask of other enviro groups as well, don’t you think?
I will add this. I am a staunch environmentalist. And I also support the increased use of nuclear power. I consider them to be safer than coal power plants, for example. And while I agree with FAIR and Jim here that the idea that environmental groups are supporting nuclear power is a farce, my understanding is that many scientists see it as a viable and easy alternative to continued reliance on natural gas, oil, and coal power plants. And while I do agree that some better solution needs to be done with the waste, rather than leaving it in vats at the power site, I do not understand how we can trust the scientists and the scientific process when they say global warming is real, evolution is real, they give us the internal combution engine, and yet, we do not trust them when they tell us that the methods devised for creating nuclear power and store the waste is stable and full proof.
I do think the first step that needs to have been undertaken like 10 years ago in fighting climate change is a complete overhaul of the nations electric grid, making it more efficient, and better able to carry electricity large distances while losing little power. The next thing we need to do is build wind and solar power plants to meet the nations electric demand. And only in those few places were solar and wind power might not reach efficiently, and to ensure a diverse power grid, should be build nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is a lot safer than coal, oil or gas, but not as safe as solar and wind. Thus, I think that is the order that will should be pursuing our power grid strategies.
Nuclear is dead. The US lacks the expertise in plant construction, the public doesn’t want it anywhere near them, and it is enormously expensive. Approved sites require a large water source and seismic stability. Good luck finding enough of these things for nuclear to play any significant role. A prominent MIT study concludes that nuclear power is not commercially viable without Government subsidies. No capital without fleecing the taxpayer. I don’t see this ever amounting to any kind of GW solution.
Folks might want to have a look here:
As U.S. Probes Radiation at Three Mile Island, Christian Parenti on Enduring “Zombie Nuke Plants” Nationwide
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/25/as_us_probes_radiation_at_three
Subsidizing insanity, like Thanksgiving, is an American tradition.
Yeah, despite my support of nuclear power, I will say this…I would never want a private company running it. The risk of the company skimping on important safety features to improve profits concerns me too much. I think a government operation, that was not concerned with profit, who could deciate 100% of its energy fees to upkeep and maintaining a proper staff would be a superior option.
We should be looking to Europe as an example. they get a huge percentage of their power from nuclear. They also have alot more modern techniques as far as waste disposal…I might be wrong, but I think they may even be able to recycle their nuclear waste to be re-used.
kort r4i,
You are right, about reusing the waste. The benefit to that also, if I have my facts straight, is that the reactors that do produce that waste that can be reused, the waste has a half-life on the order of hundreds of years, not thousands or tens of thousands of years (these are breeder reactors). The down side, and the reason such reactors are not used in the US, is that the waste comes out basically ready for a nuclear bomb. They use Plutonium. With lots of nuclear bomb ready plutonium lying around, the fear is it could be stolen by terrorists or other nations. Europe and Japan use such reactors to great effect.
Nuclear is a dead end technology.
Why move from a polluting depleting energy source to a more quickly depleting, dangerous “energy source”.
Power down, folks!
http://www.transitionus.org
& while the nuclear debate goes on & we continue to subsidize the plants we have, other alternatives wallow.
Nate Lewis of Cal Tech says we’d need to finish a new plutonium plant every 2 days for the next 50 years, if we hoped to replace 80 percent of present energy use with nukes.
Ain’t happening!
Nuclear Power is one of the most expensive ways to produce electricity.
Nuclear power creates 25 times more carbon emissions than Wind Power when construction and fuel cycle emissions are included not to mention the unsolved issues and costs of Nuclear Waste…
Renewable and sustainable energy costs less than fossil fuel and nuclear sources which costs are projected to rise even further by 2020.
The November issue of Scientific American Magazine has an article detailing a realistic plan of how existing wind, water and solar technologies can sustainably provide 100 percent of the world’s energy by 2030. Among several key points the article points out that:
The U.S. Energy Information Aadministration projects that the world by 2030 will require about 16.9 teraWatts (trillion Watts) of power. However, the accessible power from wind power ranges from 40 to 85 teraWatts and 580 terawatts from solar power alone.
We currently have developed only 0.02 teraWatts of wind power and 0.008 teraWatts of solar power worldwide.
The current cost to generate and transmit power from for wind, wave, and hydroelectric is less than 7 cents/kiloWatthour.
The projected costs to generate and transmit power in the year 2020 for wind, wave, and hydroelectric will be 4 cents/kiloWatthour or less while coal and nuclear will be at least twice that.
Most importantly, the article points out that the major obstacle in the plans implementation is political not technical.
A recent study done by the Environmental Law Institute found that the federal government provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuelsâ┚¬”Âa mature, developed industry that has enjoyed government support for many yearsâ┚¬”Âtotaled approximately $72 billion over the study period, representing a direct cost to taxpayers. Doing the same thing for Nuclear Power industry when nobody in the private sector will finance or insure it is just as unwise and a waste of taxpayers money.
We have an opportunity to change that situation and develop cheaper clean sources of renewable and sustainable energy for U.S. residents and industry.
Whether we do or not depends on whether we base our decisions on the facts or the fear-mongering of the entrenched fossil fuel and nuclear industries and their captive politicosâ┚¬Ã‚¦
Dear mr. RobertE
Have you read the article by karl Grossman in the Feb. 2008(sic?) issue of EXTRA, inwhich he makes a compelling case that nuclear power not only fails as an alternative to greenhouse gas emitting technologies, but via the nuclear fuel cycle exacerbates global climate disruption due to greenhouse gas emmissions? It’s appalling how most of the media trumpets the industry’s P.R. at teh expense of critical inquiry.
Think nuclear power plants are safe? THINK AGAIN:
New research reveals that thyroid cancer rates near the Indian Point nuclear power plant are among the highest in the nation. Government statistics show that, compared to the U.S., thyroid cancer rates are 106 percent higher in Rockland County; 102 percent higher in Putnam County; 87 percent higher in Orange County; and 42 percent higher in Westchester County.
Think reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is the answer to nuclear waste? THINK AGAIN:
Reprocessing would cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, undermine U.S. nonproliferation policy, pollute the environment, and threaten public health. According to the National Academy of Sciences, the cost of reprocessing existing spent fuel in the United States would total more than $500 billion. The development of reprocessing technology in the US would make it harder to prevent other countries from pursuing this nuclear weapons technology.
Moreover, reprocessing complicates the nuclear waste problem, rather than solves it. Reprocessing is the most polluting part of the nuclear fuel cycle and actually increases the amount of waste that must be managed.
Reprocessing creates radioactive gases and large amounts of liquid and solid radioactive waste. The only private U.S. commercial reprocessing facility, West Valley in New York State, was shut down after only six years of operation, but 30 years later its radioactive waste still threatens the groundwater and the Great Lakes watershed. It is estimated that it would cost $5.2 billion to clean up West Valley. (Physicians for Social Responsibility)
Think Nukes provide cheap power? THINK AGAIN:
. In an August 7, 2005, San Francisco Chronicle article â┚¬Ã…“Nuclear Energy Can’t Solve Global Warming,â┚¬Ã‚ Mark Hertsgaard writes:
â┚¬Ã…“â┚¬Ã‚¦Despite more than $150 billion in federal subsides over the past 60 years (roughly 30 times more than solar, wind and other renewable energy sources have received), nuclear power costs substantially more than electricity made from wind, coal, oil or natural gasâ┚¬Ã‚¦Ãƒ¢Ã¢”š¬Ã‚Â
Hertsgaard points out, â┚¬Ã…“â┚¬Ã‚¦only large government intervention keeps the nuclear option aliveâ┚¬Ã‚ and nuclear power â┚¬Ã…“has no effect whatsoever on two of the largest sources of carbon emissions: driving vehicles and heating buildings.â┚¬Ã‚Â
Nuclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative – energy efficiency, according to studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute. If $2 billion (typical cost of a nuclear power plant) were instead spent on energy efficiency measures, it would make unnecessary seven times more carbon consumption than the nuclear power plant would. In short, energy efficiency offers a much bigger bang for the buck.
The nuclear fuel cycle does release CO2 during mining, fuel enrichment and plant construction. Uranium mining is one of the most CO2 intensive industrial operations and as demand for uranium grows CO2 emissions are expected to rise as core grades decline. In comparison to renewable energy, nuclear power releases 4-5 times more CO2 per unit of energy produced taking account of the whole fuel cycle.
*Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and
renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from
nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh.
* The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost
efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the
reactors.
“One thing that utilities and Wall Street analysts agree on is that nuclear reactors will not be
built without massive direct subsidies either from the federal government or ratepayers, or from
both.
In this sense, nuclear reactors remain as uneconomic today as they were in the 1980s
when so many were cancelled or abandoned.” (From THE ECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR REACTORS: RENAISSANCE OR RELAPSE? MARK COOPER SENIOR FELLOW FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT VERMONT LAW SCHOOL JUNE 2009)
And just is case anyone thinks fossil fuels are cheap, THINK AGAIN:
FALL, 2009
Cheap coal? Not quite
The coal and oil industries argue that, despite the damage fossil fuels do to our environment, their products remain the economical energy choice.
Not so, according to our study, â┚¬Ã…“The High Cost of Fossil Fuels,â┚¬Ã‚ released this June. Under a business-as-usual scenario, America will spend $30 trillion on fossil fuels between 2010 and 2030. By transitioning to a clean energy economy that would save money through efficiency and the switch to renewable energy, we’ll spend $1.7 trillion less during that time while reducing the pollution that causes global warming.
â┚¬Ã…“And it’s not just about lowering our energy bills,â┚¬Ã‚ says Environment America’s Emily Figdor. â┚¬Ã…“We’ll save even more when you factor in the health care costs due to fossil fuel-related air pollution, as well as other social costs.â┚¬Ã‚Â
WE CAN GET THE ENERGY WE NEED FROM SOLAR, WIND, AND BY REDUCING OUR ENERGY NEEDS MASSIVELY WITH ENERGY EFFICIENCY. WE CAN DO THIS NOW. THE POTENTIAL EXISTS AND IT IS DOABLE. AND IT DOES NOT MEAN SACRIFICING AND NOT ENJOYING CREATURE COMFORTS TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL. IT WILL MEAN LIVING HEALTHIER LIVES AND SAVING MONEY ON YOUR ENERGY BILLS. JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF MANY THAT COULD BE CITED, THE POTENTIAL OF WHAT CAN BE ACHIEVED, AND WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING ON A NATIONAL SCALE:
Germany plans to boost the percentage of electricity generated by renewable sources to 45% by 2030 and we should do the same. We have far more wind power capacity than Germany.
The sun doesn’t always shine on a given solar panel, nor does the wind always spin a given turbine. Yet if properly firmed, both wind power, whose global potential is 35 times world electricity use, and solar energy, as much of which falls on the earth’s surface every ~70 minutes as humankind uses each year, can deliver reliable power without significant cost for backup or storage.
Spanish Wind Giant Seeks $500M Slice of US Clean Energy Pie
by Stacy Feldman – Jul 21st, 2009
There’s no denying that America is sitting on a veritable goldmine of wind power.
The wind power potential across the United States is tremendousâ┚¬”Âas much as 16 times its total electricity demand, according to a new Harvard-led study recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. For Iberdrola, U.S. wind power is also more reliable and less prone to seasonal fluctuations than Europe, where the first and last quarters of the year are windier than the middle months, Galán said.
Wind turbines could more than meet U.S. electricity needs, report says
The Interior Department report, which looks at the potential of wind turbines off the U.S. coast, is part of
the government’s process to chart a course for future offshore energy development.
Wind turbines could more than meet U.S. electricity needs, report says
The Interior Department report, which looks at the potential of wind turbines off the U.S. coast, is part of the government’s process to chart a course for future offshore energy development.
By Jim Tankersley reporting from arlington, va.
April 03, 2009
Wind turbines off U.S. coastlines could potentially supply more than enough electricity to meet the nation’s current demand, the Interior Department reported today.
Simply harnessing the wind in relatively shallow waters — the most accessible and technically feasible sites for offshore turbines — could produce at least 20% of the power demand for most coastal states, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said, unveiling a report by the Minerals Management Service that details the potential for oil, gas and renewable development on the outer continental shelf.
Zero Energy Home Enters Affordable Range
Tracy Staedter, Discovery News
May 31, 2006 â┚¬” A for-profit home builder has constructed a house priced under $200,000 that, in an average year, costs nothing to power or heat.
The so-called zero-energy home, built by Norman, Oklahoma-based Ideal Homes, is priced affordably even though it incorporates some of the latest technology and energy-efficient construction available today.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/05/31/zeroehome_tec.html?category=technology&guid=20060531093627
Subject: [windenergyweekly] Wind Energy #1340 (delayed version)
Date: 7/15/2009 3:37:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has identified about 21 million acres of public land with wind energy potential in the 11 western states and about 29 million acres
with solar energy potential in six southwestern states.
BLM has a backlog of more than 215 applications pending for wind energy
permits, including both applications for site testing (to set up
temporary poles to test wind speed) and to construct actual wind farms.
BLM has nearly 200 applications pending for solar projects,” said Rhone Resch, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association.
Wind Could Power 3 USAs
USA â┚¬“ according to a Department of Energy-funded study by scientists at the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PO Box 999, Richland, WA 99352), with existing wind-electric technology, â┚¬Ã…“a group of 12 states in the midsection of the country could produce more than three times the nation’s 1987 electric energy consumption.â┚¬Ã‚ Battele’s researchers found that this â┚¬Ã…“surprisingly largeâ┚¬Ã‚ potential exists even if â┚¬Ã…“100 percent of the environmentally protected land is excluded from wind-energy development.
ONCE AGAIN, STUDY CONFIRMS
INTEGRATING LARGE AMOUNTS OF WIND WORKS
__________________________________________
A new study by a Dutch researcher concludes that Dutch power stations can integrate large amounts of wind power with little more than up-to-date, improved wind forecasts.
The study, by a Ph.D. candidate at Delft University of Technology, also concluded that there is no need for storage facilities because new forecasting models make it easier to integrate variable wind conditions into the power system.
“The results show that in the Netherlands we can integrate between 4 gigawatts (GW) and 10 GW into the grid without needing any additional measures,” said Lex Hartman, director of corporate development at TenneT, the Dutch grid administrator.
Bart Ummels, the Ph.D. candidate, looked at wind power penetrations up to 12 GW (8 GW offshore), which is enough to meet about one-third of the Netherlands’ demand for electricity. The use of wind power in the Dutch electricity system could lead to a reduction in production costs of $1.9 billion annually and a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 19 million tons a year, according to Delft.
STUDY REAFFIRMS SOLUTION
FOR ADDRESSING WIND INTERMITTENCY
__________________________________________
Another study, this one from Stanford University scientists, reaffirms the understanding that connecting multiple wind farms across large geographical grids counteracts wind’s intermittency, creating a consistent power source.
The key is connecting wind farms throughout a given geographic area with transmission lines, thus combining the electric outputs of the farms into one powerful energy source, the study stated. Interconnecting wind farms with a transmission grid reduces wind variability and makes a significant portion of it just as consistent a power source as a base-load plant powered by such sources as coal, the study found.
“The idea is that, while wind speed could be calm at a given location, it could be gusty at others,” said study co-author Cristina Archer. “By linking these locations together we can smooth out the differences and substantially improve the overall performance.” Also authoring the report was Mark Jacobson. The findings are published in the November issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology
In 2004, Rocky Mountain Institute’s (RMI) Chief Scientist, Chairman and Co-founder Amory Lovins and a team of RMI collaborators accomplished a highly complex and innovative task — the drafting of a peer reviewed roadmap for the United States to get completely off oil by 2050, led by business for profit.
Following the release of “Winning the Oil Endgame” (WTOE), RMI didn’t stop there, but began working with key stakeholders in industry to accelerate key components of the WTOE strategy. To aid its implementation, RMI raised $3.6 million from private donors and foundations. (You can download the book from the RMI website for free.)