Nuclear Moves to Front Burner

The SF Chronicle gives a summary of the current interest in nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels. Some environmentalists are looking at nuclear as a means of generating lots of power, without contributing to global warming. There are a lot of nuclear plants in the planning stage.

I recently heard a debate sponsored by the SF based Long Now Foundation on the topic of Nuclear Energy and Climate Change. Ralph Cavanagh of the Natural Resources Defense Council made a strong case against nuclear energy. He argued that nuclear energy SHOULD be considered, along with solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources, but that the economics will make it hard for nuclear to compete with these other sources. Remember that nuclear HAS TO deal with waste disposal AND extra security against a terrorist attack. We need to insist that all competing technologies be given the same amount of subsidies, that the goverment not favor nuclear over the other choices. Let the market decide what is the most cost-efficient source of "alternative" energy. Interestingly, not one utility company has been willing to construct or fund a nuclear reactor project in the U.S in over thirty years!

"(Ralph) agreed that nuclear should not be considered taboo and should be included as a candidate clean power source, but its history is not encouraging. No new reactors have built in the US since 1973. Nevada has stonewalled on waste storage at Yucca Mountain. The nuclear industry has all manner of government subsidies, loan guarantees, and protections from liability. It has never competed in the open market with other energy sources.

California, Cavanagh said, has led the way in developing a balanced energy policy. Places like China are paying close attention. PG&E has become the world's largest investor in efficiency, led by Carl Weinberg (who was in the audience and got a round of applause). And now there are signs that California may become the leader in setting limits to carbon emissions. Within limits like that, then the private sector can compete with full entrepreneurial zest, and may the best technologies win. Nuclear would have to compete fairly with new forms of biofuels and with ever improving renewables. "

I agree with Ralph, let's make sure that the playing field is level: let nuclear compete with the other technologies. The other technologies need to prove they can scale up and generate the needed amount of megawatts. On the policy side, the goverment also needs to encourage efficiency and conservation. Here is Stewart Brand's summary of the debate.

NRDC has a position paper on Commercial Nuclear Power, check out the Executive Summary and the Introduction:

"Moreover, unless plug-in hybrid, all-electric, or fuel-cell powered vehicles, or electric trains, are commercialized on a large-scale, nuclear power has virtually no role to play in reducing emissions from the transportation sector, which currently depends on petroleum for 95 percent of its energy needs. "