The State of the Planet Conference convened at the Earth Institute at Columbia University this past Thursday and Friday. Man, have special interests grabbed the environmental movement like a bulldog by a throat, or what? Perhaps I’m getting increasingly hypersensitive as we continue to slog on, but panelists seemed more divided by the issues this year than in 2006. In short, we all agree that we must do something, but none of us can agree on what that may be.
Can you hear me now?
Of course if you ask a telecommunications person what will solve world poverty, he’s going to say, “Telecommunications;” and ask an agronomist what will help solve the fuel crisis, and he will emphatically respond, “Agriculture.” Ask a buttoned-up economist how he sees the world, and he’ll say, “an industrialized free market economy,” and give the Chairman of the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority the podium on climate change solutions, and she’ll talk up nuclear like it’s a half-silver bullet solution out of hell.
As for the latter—given by U.K.’s Lady Barbara Thomas Judge, (“Babs,” as I like to call her)—was one of the more egregiously one-sided talks of the afternoon. For a balanced discussion, you can’t just give the benefits of an energy (and yes there are benefits to all forms of energy depending on how you slice it), without some of the embedded costs and a look into an alternative, well-informed opinion.
News on Nukes
You can view Babs talk here and see what she has to say. In short, she acknowledges that “Nuclear is an issue that divides people…[but] the politics are changing”—a reference to growing interest in energy options to combat greenhouse gases.
“In the U.S. three applications are going through right now going through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Chairman Dale Klein told me that those three nuclear applications will be approved,” she confidently said at the State of the Planet Conference.
According to a March 28th article in Scientific American, those three pending applications include two reactors at the South Texas Project power plant near Houston, new reactors at Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, and the Shearon Harris nuclear plant outside Raleigh, North Carolina. However, none of those plants “have completed the NRC’s long design safety and feasibility evaluation, which could take years to complete.”
As for the benefits of nuclear, Judge reiterated that “new nuclear is not old nuclear,” citing the fact that newer plants have 10 percent of the waste compared to older, ailing technologies; nuclear energy is a base-low generator that keeps on generating energy at a reasonable cost; and the infrastructure and job benefits around nuclear power plant communities. “Of course,” she said, “It is not the answer, but an answer.”
I still found it to be highly disconcerting that the State of the Planet didn’t have an alternative point lined up to approach the podium, which made the day reek even more of special interest groups. Quite frankly as far as I am concerned, “special interests” should only come before “sustainable development” in the dictionary and shouldn’t preclude multi-faceted, balanced solutions with healthy room for debate. Judge’s keynote left no room for Q&A and was immediately followed by a panel on Identifying Energy Solutions for Sustainable Development. I went up after the panel anyway in order to squeak out a question. Perhaps I pontificated too much, since Edward McBride, the moderator of the panel and energy writer for The Economist cut me off. One of the panelists answered a third of the question, without even addressing my last two points.
The biggest question on the tip of my tongue is the true economics of nuclear. Without even arguing ailing nuclear power plants or health issues of toxic waste, I wanted to hit on these three areas:
- Storage Costs. The cost of storage of the waste, which includes deep geological storage, which was discussed at State of the Planet.
- Insurance Costs. If nuclear is so safe, why then are insurance companies, the great risk arbiters of our market system, unwilling to insure homeowners and families in a nuclear power plant accident? Instead, families are at the mercy of the Price-Andersen Act, which caps the loss potential to a pittance per family in case of an accident with U.S. taxpayers having to pick up the rest. This is something we have to revisit, especially considering that some of our nuclear power plants across the U.S. are ailing or are up for decommissioning.
- Investment Banks. Over the last 60 years or so, nuclear has seen over billions of dollars worth of subsidies (reports show anywhere from $70 billion to $150 billion). Without these huge sums of money, large investment banks are unwilling to lend money to build nuclear reactors—whether it’s using “new” or “old” technologies.
As far as I am concerned, these are some of the embedded costs and important questions that we must address before embracing such technology. Judge urged the press to shed a positive light to nuclear, but how can you ask us to do that especially when you come off like a used car saleswoman pushing a Pinto? And mind you, we haven’t even touched upon the idea of putting highly radioactive material in lead-lined basins in our mountains or deep under the ocean in hopes that science will eventually take care of them. Perhaps when we develop an advanced, cost-effective, large-scale, plutonium-free reprocessing system, will wide-spread acceptance of nuclear begin to make a little more sense.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
To point #2 above: the idea that Price Anderson provides insurance is incorrect. The largest public and private insurance companies in the world all write nuclear insurance for John Q. Public…they just make the utilities pay the premium. The reason you don’t get nuclear coverage under your homeowners insurance is because you get it for free from the same company via a policy which utilities are forced to buy. If you could get it for your home the companies would have to pay you twice (unlawful)…it is far cheeper and more cost effective to simply tap the utilities, who are the only ones with the ability to minimize the possability for a loss to occur. Further, I would point out that to date they have done an exemplary job, and would be happy to discuss the issue in greater detail if there is interest as I make my living insuring the public against nuclear bodily injury and property damage.
It is ignorant to speak of “putting highly radioactive material in lead-lined basins in our mountains or deep under the ocean in hopes that science will eventually take care of them” because when this is done — except for the “lead-lined” bit, that’s more stupidity — when this is done, science will have taken care of them.
The reason this is true, the reason environmentalists working for antinuclear organizations quietly but calmly get on board nuclear-powered ships, is that the stuff is highly radioactive only in terms of concentration, not absolute amount.
When it is deeply buried, there is more natural radioactivity above it than there is artificial radioactivity in it. If it were on the bottom of the ocean — an adequate but not optimal place to put it — its power to contaminate the ocean, should the containers it is in someday leak, is on a par with the power of the saltshakers in the Titanic similarly to make the oceans brackish, and undrinkable.
All energy sources have problems. However let me briefly touch on the three questions:
1) Storage - the volumes of nuclear waste are much smaller than our current fossil fuel technologies (i.e., 100,000 tons of spent fuel from 50 years vs 2 billion tons of coal every year). In fact, mining technology is now at a point where deep boeholes become feasible (i.e., 5 km depth instead of .8 km of current geological plans). At such depths very little if any material will find its way back to the biosphere. As for plutonium, the best way to get rid of it is in a reactor.
2) Insurance - Most large industrial activities have liability limits. No jumbo jet would fly without the international treaties that protect their liability. Price Anderson is actually a better deal than just a liability limit and the industry pays the fees.
3) Investment Banks - Like the utilities they are waiting to see if any of the new designs (e.g., some being built in China now) can be brought in on schedule and budget. So far the experience in Asia (and France) is if you stick with a few designs and a dedicated crew you can build plants on time and on budget (e.g., ABWR in Japan and the Korea Standard Plant in ROK).
I know that the Climate Movement wants an all renewables path, however there do remain issues with these technologies as well (e.g., no economic energy storage to alleviate the intermittency). Why not use nuclear (and even carbon sequestration) to get society through the transition? Once the issues with renewables are resolved, the transition source could be phased out.
I have commented here before, but the author of this site already seems to have his mind made up that there is no room for nuclear power.
But I will comment yet again in hopes that the readers will at least get a less anti-nuclear spin on commercial nuclear power.
Storage Costs
High level used nuclear fuel is already being stored. It has been for decades, and it’s not harming anyone. That’s a good thing. Where’s the toxic waste created by the manufacture of solar cells being stored? How about the mercury emissions from coal power?
If waste storage was so cost prohibitive, then nuclear would not even be on the table. Operational costs of nuclear are among the lowest of any baseload source, including coal and hydro. In fact, nuclear is the ONLY large scale electrical generator that is REQUIRED to store all of it’s waste (which isn’t really waste, because it can be recycled). If coal power was held to the same standard then there would be no way it could be cost competitive with nuclear. Nuclear would be BY FAR the most cost effective baseload energy source.
Insurance Costs
So… How much has Price-Anderson cost the US tax payer? Nothing. The utilities pay 100% of the premiums, and it has never been utilized - not even after Three Mile Island. You’re hinging your argument on what it COULD cost. Similar arguments could be hinged on the Hoover Dam breaking. This insurance was modeled on the same type of insurance that protects makers of child vaccinations. No one has unlimited liability.
Subsidies
I’d question the source of your information. I’m guessing that you’re lumping all nuclear technologies together, and when you add Department of Defense dollars into the equation, you can make it look like a lot of subsidies are being given to the “nuclear industry.” In fact, commercial nuclear power (which is what we’re talking about here) has received very little in the form of subsidy in the past 30 years.
The industry proposals for funding assistance for the first few new nuclear plants are similar to that provided for other major capital intensive projects that will provide significant benefit to the nation. Recently, clean coal projects have applied for and been granted financial assistance in the form of loan guarantees; the Alaska pipeline received a loan guarantee for 80% of project cost, some $18 billion; wind power generators receive a production tax credit of $18/MWh. It is standard practice for the federal governments to assist major transportation projects that will improve national infrastructure and benefit the average American. The industry proposals call for funding assistance for the first set of new plants, after which time, there would be no further need for financial assistance.
bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek