There’s an interesting article on Slate.com today called The Pro-Nukes Environmental Movement: After Fukushima, is nuclear energy still the best way to fight climate change?
The article says what we’ve been saying for a while: that while renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are part of a clean energy mix, they simply can’t meet the world’s growing energy demands in the next few decades without some unforeseen leap forward in grid-scale energy storage. When the wind isn’t blowing, when the sun isn’t shining, and when you don’t have a way to efficiently store huge amounts of power, where does the power come from? Unfortunately in many circumstances, that need is filled by burning fossil fuels like coal and gas.
Nuclear’s reliable base load power, combined with advances in electrifying our transportation systems, is the cleanest way to get off fossil fuels that are, as this article says, cooking the planet.
But the article does raise some concerns – the same concerns that are always raised when talking about nuclear power: capital cost and waste. It also mentions the nuclear renaissance, which, before Fukushima, was underway as the world was recognizing the opportunity for nuclear to help us quit coal and reduce emissions.
The article concludes by talking about “next generation” technology: reactors that are able to efficiently burn the used-fuel and include even more redundant safe guards (our backups have backups).
I asked our policy director, John Stewart, to touch on the cost issue and explain a bit about next generation technology: How far away is it and what’s the hold up?
Well, first, let’s point out that “current generation” nuclear power is already very good – especially when you’re looking at the carbon issue. A technology with zero carbon emissions in today’s operation is still going to be at zero in its next generation. If it’s carbon you’re concerned about, today’s nuclear technology is unbeatable. I’m abstracting, of course, from marginal improvements in the way we build or refuel the plants – we can use cleaner trucks to deliver the uranium fuel to the plant, or lower-carbon concrete technologies when we pour the foundation, but that’s about it.
The reactor “generations” you’re talking about is a classification system developed by the US Department of Energy and described in detail at www.energy.gov. Reactor technology has been advancing just like technology in many other areas over the past three decades. In cars or phones or computers, we’ve all been aware of those advances because everyone buys the results. In nuclear, reactors are advancing but virtually nobody in North America has been buying the results. The reactors we see are mostly older technology, dating back often to the seventies and eighties. They work just fine, they’re safe, they’re clean, they’re very economical, but they do not reflect the state of the art, which is mostly being bought and built in places like China and India – or will be over the coming decade or two.
So the short answer about next generation technology is it’s not far away, and the hold up is just demand. Regulatory processes aside, advanced reactor technology is available – it’s largely a matter of building it.
Conversations about cost have to be clear – are we talking about up-front capital investment, that is the plant construction cost, or are we talking about the average cost of generating a unit of power? Nuclear’s record is very clear – it is one of the most affordable ways to get a unit of power in the long run. It’s now selling for about six cents a kilowatt hour in Ontario, a real bargain especially considering how clean it is. One of the main reasons is that the plants are so durable, lasting for fifty to sixty years. When a capital asset is amortized over a period that long, capital costs can be very large and they still shrink in importance. The unit cost of power over that six decades is very low.