Does Nuclear Energy Make Sense?
It’s too soon to say anythingdefinitive about what’s going on in Japan. Who really knows what
the outcome might be from the frightening breakdown of the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant (
target=”_blank”>the radioactive releases could go on for
months)?
But the speculation about what this means for a much-touted
nuclear “renaissance” in the U.S. began in earnest last week. As
the New York Times reported, “
target=”_blank”>U.S. Nuclear Industry Faces New
Uncertainty.”
Some quick background: For years, no new nuclear plants were
built in the U.S. But nuclear power is now being taken seriously
again. Roughly
target=”_blank”>30 to 40 applications for new plants or
expansions to existing facilities are moving through the process
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
One of the main reasons nuclear is “back” is that it satisfies
two very distinct interest groups: (1) pro-energy lobbyists and
companies that usually sit on the right (although President Obama
has adopted the rallying cry of “all-of-the-above” as an energy
independence strategy as well), and (2) those who want to
aggressively fight climate change, who usually camp out on the
left.
In the past, being an “environmentalist” of any stripe meant
being anti-nuclear. More recently, however, some high-profile
environmentally-minded people, such as Whole Earth Catalog founder
target=”_blank”>Stewart Brand, have been promoting nuclear
power, mainly because it might hold the promise of fighting climate
change (since it produces virtually no carbon emissions).
To me, the conversion of environmentalists to pro-nuclear
advocates is a sign of just how terrifying they find the prospect
of climate change specifically.
Ok, so jump back to today. For obvious reasons, nuclear is being
questioned again. I’ll admit to being incredibly conflicted about
this source of energy and I usually punt when asked the question.
But we have to take the recent events into account. Pretending that
it should have no impact on the debate - see
target=”_blank”>Senator Mitch McConnell’s comments to this
effect - is absurd.
The reality is that we’re debating energy strategy anyway, for
reasons ranging from national security to national competitiveness
to climate change. The kind of devastating accident unfolding in
Japan only highlights the issues and brings to the fore the
conversation we’re already having. But as a result I find myself
asking two main questions about grid-based energy (as opposed to
transportation fuels, which nuclear does not play a role in).
1) Does nuclear energy make sense?
We can debate this topic endlessly and there are seemingly good
reasons that environmental groups and others have changed their
views on nukes. Put most simply, it provides steady base power (
target=”_blank”>20% of our electricity today) and is close to
“zero carbon.” So as a longer interim solution, until the grid and
economy are cleaner, it could be logical. But the most compelling
argument I’ve heard against nuclear is not about safety (although,
again, how can we not include that in the discussion given what’s
going on?). No, it’s about cost.
For solid analyses on all things energy, I look to long-time
expert Amory Lovins and his impressive assortment of in-depth
studies. In a couple of reports, “
target=”_blank”>Four Nuclear Myths,” and “
target=”_blank”>Nuclear Power: Competitive Economics and Climate
Protection Potential,” Lovins tackles the economics of building
and insuring nukes, among other things. In short, compared to
focusing on energy efficiency, nuclear is really expensive. [Since
I first posted this,
target=”_blank”>Lovins wrote a HuffPo piece with much more
detail on these arguments.]
Without going into massive detail on economics, I’ve always
liked the really simple logic around renewables - they have zero
variable cost (wind, sunshine, and underground heat are free).
Lovins and others put more data around how the economics of
renewables will win out over time, but basically, free is hard to
beat.
2) Does any centralized energy make sense?
This may be a more heretical question, but it may actually drive
us to an answer faster than the question about nuclear power
itself: why do we generate energy at large plants on a grid to
begin with? There are efficiencies of course, and the need for
baseload power, but there are also massive losses of energy as we
step it down from the plant to the grid to our homes and buildings.
Instead, why not build a far more distributed energy system (or at
least invest only in distributed energy going forward)?
What I mean by this is solar on every roof, geothermal in every
basement, local wind turbines in every neighborhood and on city
buildings, and an electric car storing energy in every garage.
This vision of a clean energy grid is
not a tree-hugger fantasy; in fact, it’s already on its
way.
Renewable energy experts have told me that cost of producing
solar panels is down 50 to 70 percent in the last few years, a
direct result of massive investment in the clean economy by China,
which has become a solar manufacturing powerhouse. As solar
entrepreneur and CEO of the Carbon War Room Jigar Shah says, “China
is doing to solar panels what it did to computers and iPhones -
bringing the cost way down.”
The other major argument for a big distributed energy push is
security. Former CIA director Jim Woolsey likes to point out that a
tree branch in Ohio brought the entire Northeast grid down in the
summer of 2003. As
target=”_blank”>he says, terrorists “are smarter than those
Cleveland tree branches and could easily cause a major
catastrophe.”
On a more local level of “security,” we can also discuss safety,
both personal and environmental. Traditional energy is getting
harder and more dangerous to find. We don’t dig a mile under the
ocean for fuel for the heck of it. That’s where we have to go now.
Underwater drilling and nuclear energy are some of the most
complicated technologies in the world, which means there are very
large inherent risks. A spill of oil or nuclear radiation can
affect millions of people.
Local energy is local in its risks also. It’s not too cheeky to
point out that if a natural disaster causes an offshore wind
turbine to fall, or a solar panel to rip off a house, there’s no
spill and limited danger.
Between basic economics, security, national competitiveness (the
push to a clean economy creates jobs), the logic for a distributed,
non-nuclear, non-fossil-fuel grid and transportation network seems
very strong.
I’m sure many readers have passionate, and different, opinions
on this issue, so let’s have the conversation. But please, let’s
assume that we all have the best interests of the business
community and country at heart. We all want a strong, healthy,
sustainable economy - the question is whether nuclear should be a
part of that future. That’s looking more and more unlikely each
day.
(This post first appeared at
Business Online. See
target=”_blank”>the comments on this post for a nice debate on
the topic.) Sign up for Andrew Winston’s blog, via
target=”_blank”>RSS feed, or
target=”_blank”>by email. Follow Andrew on Twitter
target=”_blank”>@GreenAdvantage)
Source: www.andrewwinston.com
