On nuclear energy - the solution that dare not speak its name

"The best way to diversify . . . away from dependence on foreign sources of energy, is for us to take advantage of new technologies and expand safe nuclear power in the United States of America. To me, that would achieve several objectives. One, it's a renewable source of energy; two, it's a domestic source of energy; and three, it would help us meet our obligations to clean air requirements. . . . I think it is a way for the United States to be less dependent on foreign sources of energy, which is good for our economy, and, frankly, helps us with foreign policy."

“America is poised to reinvest in nuclear energy as part of a larger strategy to move away from our over-reliance on natural gas. Nuclear energy is clean, reliable and affordable. We are planning the construction of new nuclear power plants and the implementation of improved waste strategies.”

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.)
February 2, 2004

"I was reminded again of the amount of carbon dioxide that nuclear power plants do not put into the air, . . . the amount of dollars that reliance on nuclear energy does not add to our trade deficit,...the reduction in imported oil that a reliance on nuclear power for the generation of electricity affords us. [I]t is important that we continue to maintain and strengthen going forward our reliance on nuclear energy."

“It is clear . . . that the environmental and energy security benefits of nuclear power are so compelling tht not only must we ensure the continued operation of our existing nuclear plants, but we must also encourage the construction of new nuclear plants . . . to help meet the projected increase in electric power demand.”

“Our nation’s future electricity needs cannot be met almost exclusively by natural gas, but must be a reasonable combination of efforts that include energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear energy and clean-coal technology."

“We see a convergence of powerful economic and political forces . . . that should lead to a renaissance of nuclear power. The momentum for new nuclear construction has been building quietly over several years, sustained not only by the industry but also by federal officials who believe strongly in the future of nuclear power as an emission-free and secure source of electricity. Nuclear has an increasingly strong case to make.”

“The favorable trend for all these measures of plant performance can be attributed in part to changes in the way that the NRC measures plant performance, as well as the sector’s proactive response to meeting much stricter inspection requirements imposed by the NRC.”

“After engineering costs are paid and construction of the first few nuclear plants has been completed, there is a good prospect that . . . lower costs would allow nuclear energy to be competitive in the marketplace. Federal financial policies that could help make early nuclear plants more competitive include loan guarantees, accelerated depreciation, investment tax credits, and production tax credits. In the long term, the competitiveness of nuclear power could be further enhanced by the rising concerns about greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fuel power generation. . . . A transition from oil-based to hydrogen-based transportation could, in the longer run, increase the demand for nuclear power as a non-polluting way to produce hydrogen. If gas imports increase, nuclear power could substitute for gas and contribute to energy security.”

“Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emission. . . . Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions.”

“A portfolio of technologies now exists to meet the world’s energy needs over the next 50 years and limit atmospheric [carbon dioxide] to a trajectory that avoids a doubling of the pre-industrial concentration. . . . [A] wedge of nuclear electricity would displace 700 gigawatts of efficient baseload coal capacity in 2054. This would require 700 gigawatts of nuclear power with the same 90 percent capacity factor assumed for the coal plants, or about twice the nuclear capacity currently deployed.”

Steven Pacala and Robert Socolow, Princeton University
“Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years With Current Technologies”
Science Magazine
August 2004

“With a barrel of crude hitting a record $55 on Oct. 25, more Americans are coming to see nuclear energy as a cost effective and environmentally acceptable alternative to fossil fuels, which could boost national security by reducing dependence on Middle East oil.”BusinessWeek

“If oil prices stay high, if people worry about carbon dioxide causing global warming, if the Middle East stays violent, nuclear power stands a good chance of making a huge comeback in this country.”

“Nuclear power didn’t go away. Instead it got better. Nuclear power today supplies 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, second only to the 52 percent generated by coal. Nuclear power has other advantages. It doesn’t come from politically unstable countries and it doesn’t release greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. That last point is critical.”

“By all means, let us use the small input from renewables sensibly, but only one immediately available source does not cause global warming, and that is nuclear energy. . . . Nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources . . . We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilization is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear—the one safe, available, energy source—now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.”

“By the mid-1980s, . . . I became aware of the emerging concept of sustainable development: balancing environmental, social and economic priorities. . . . Since then, I have worked under the banner of Greenspirit to develop an environmental policy platform based on science, logic, and the recognition that more than six billion people need to survive and prosper every day of the year. . . . Renewable energies, such as wind, geothermal and hydro are part of the solution. Nuclear energy is the only nongreenhouse gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand.”

“I have been a committed environmentalist for man years. It is because of this commitment and the graveness of the consequences of global warming for the planet that I have now come to the conclusion that the solution is to make more use of nuclear energy.”

Hugh Montefiore, former Bishop of Birmingham (UK) and former chairman and trustee for Friends of the Earth
The Tablet (UK)
“Why The Planet Needs Nuclear Energy”
Oct. 23, 2004.

“If we NIMBY anywhere and anytime, we should not expect the utility industry to provide electricity to everyone, everywhere, all of the time. If we believe that global warming is a real threat to our planet, then the very best way to provide base load electricity is through emission-free production of nuclear power.”

Return to opening page		.
On Nuclear Energy - a solution that dares not speak its name. Today I was asked to sign a petition against the erection of 27 giant wind generators in an wild area of natural beauty some 20 miles to the West of Edinburgh. Apart from polluting the skyline and impacting on wildlife the proposed wind farm will require an equivalant 'stand-by' capacity in case of windless days. A generation ago I witnessed a large demonstration against the building and opening of the Torness Nuclear power station some 30 miles south east of Edinburgh. It was a beautiful sunny day and the protestors included all ages groups, members of many faiths and Greenpeace supporters. No-one was talking about greenhouse gasses, rather the 30,000 year half life of waste by-products from the reaction process and the impact on jobs in the nearby deep coal mining industry. Jump forward to the incident at Three Mile Island and the catastrophe at Chernobyl. In some Western democracies Nuclear Energy became the solution that dare not speak its name. Britain's coal mines were closed as energy generation turned to gas and cheaper imported fossil fuels. Gradually the world became aware of the impact of carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gasses on climate change. Expanding economies, and populations, in India, the Far East and Latin America demanded an accelerating share of energy resources and production. At Kyoto (see earlier article), some governments pledged to reduce greenhouse emissions and develop renewable energy sources such as wind, hydro, solar, wave and tidal power. While Kyoto is well intentioned it fails to invole the potential nuclear solution. Individual governments play to the gallery by promoting renewable alternatives but they also know that these cannot address, let alone reduce, the exisiting and increasing demand for energy. Nuclear generation appears - at present - the only long term viable solution. The risk associated with storage and decomissioning of plants is just that - a risk. Risk in many avenues of life needs to be better expained and understood so that judgements can be made based on fact rather than pure emotion. But don't expect politicians in the west to lead the field for a better public understanding. Some relevant facts and opinions for the debate. Are we re-entering the dark ages? Endorsements of Nuclear Energy Status of the world's nuclear power plants taken from The Scotsman Tue 19 Apr 2005 Are we re-entering the dark ages? JOHN BOWKER SENIOR CITY CORRESPONDENT ENERGY is one talking point Labour is hoping will not rear its head during the next couple of weeks. A full-blown power failure would be a disaster for the government’s credibility - and with it the chances of an historic third term. Like the MG Rover debacle, blackouts similar to those in the United States, Italy and the UK two years ago would be yet another example of complacency by this government. It might be why we are heading for the ballots in May; having negotiated the winter months, a spring election should make it easy to keep the lights on. However, a report just out from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) says we are about to be plunged into darkness again - and not just in the UK. Worldwide, populations are suffering from poor levels of energy investment and ageing power plants. The research calculates that about $12.7 trillion (£6.7tn) of investment, greater than the entire US annual economic output, is understood to be needed globally to meet an expected doubling in electricity consumption through 2030. That total raises the bar above the estimated $10tn electricity spend agreed by the International Energy Agency (IEA) for the same period. "Blackouts are expected to become more frequent," the report damningly concludes. "Two-thirds of utility respondents believe the likelihood of blackouts will increase or remain the same, while only a quarter think it will reduce." The findings are based on a survey of 119 investors and utilities executives in 36 countries. Failures of power cables in upstate New York, London and northern Italy left millions of people, offices and subway systems without power in 2003. Despite the warning, power-plant development has since failed to keep up with rising demand, meaning countries like the Netherlands and Italy have to rely on imports. The UK is becoming a net importer of gas this year. Security of supply - safely transporting power from source to home - is a "major concern" for 72 per cent of the utility executives, up from 65 per cent last year. This becomes a greater issue when gas is forced to travel long distances, particularly from politically sensitive nations such as Iraq and Russia. In fairness, it is understood that if Labour wins the election, Tony Blair will announce a radical change in policy. Energy minister Mike O’Brien is believed to have been given a simple remit on his appointment last year: keep the lights on until after the general election. Funds will be needed to build new gas import terminals in the UK, as reserves in the North Sea dwindle. Mark Hughes, director of European utilities at PwC, believes the UK will import about 70 per cent of the gas it needs within five years. Then there is the thorny question of nuclear power. More than half of the respondents to the PwC survey said they expect the introduction of new nuclear power stations - even with popular and political opposition - because countries need to replace ageing reactors. Rising investment in renewable sources, especially wind farms, isn’t expected to deliver enough power to replace output from thermal or nuclear stations, currently at about 23 per cent of UK electricity. The survey said its participants "expect the share of renewables to remain virtually the same in the next ten years" - meaning the government will miss its targets. In the UK, it is hoped renewable sources are expected to generate about 10 per cent of the country’s electricity by 2010 and 20 per cent in 2020, up from about 5 per cent now. That will not happen if the PwC research proves accurate. Nuclear power stations are further supported by the commitment to cut carbon emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. Nuclear plants do not emit carbon dioxide. North America is the most vulnerable region to blackouts, and will need about $3.4tn of investment by 2030, more than any other territory, because it is also the biggest energy consumer. Europe will need about $1.9tn of the total worldwide investment by 2030 because some of the continent’s wires, including those in the UK, are at the end of their 40-year life. And the sky-rocketing market in China will need about $2.4tn of investment in power and gas assets, the PwC report reveals, in order to feed its growth in demand. In Spain, gas-fired power stations and gas import terminals are being built as power demand is forecast to grow by 5.6 per cent this year, above the European average. The country currently suffers frequent supply cuts. European power and gas mergers are expected to stay at the same level as last year, where they represented about 40 per cent of a worldwide M&A total of $123 billion, Hughes said. More takeovers are likely in Eastern Europe, where companies such as Germany’s E.ON and RWE or Belgium’s Electrabel are expanding. "An eastern focus beckons with European companies becoming further engaged with south-eastern Europe, Russia and former Soviet Union countries both in their hunt for gas and to build their presence in reforming markets," according to the report. Eastern European countries such as Poland and Bulgaria are selling stakes in some of their state-owned power plants. Dusseldorf-based E.ON plans to increase its stake in Slovak power company Zapadoslovenska Energetika. "Companies are continuing to move out of their home territories in their pursuit of scale, but the main focus is on their wider local regions rather than pursuing a globally stretched footprint," the report says. About 83 per cent of European utility respondents said they planned to stay focused on their "home regions", the report said. Electricité de France, the world’s largest power company, has sold some of its assets in Asia as it plans to focus on Europe. top Endorsements of Nuclear Energy Government Officials "The best way to diversify . . . away from dependence on foreign sources of energy, is for us to take advantage of new technologies and expand safe nuclear power in the United States of America. To me, that would achieve several objectives. One, it's a renewable source of energy; two, it's a domestic source of energy; and three, it would help us meet our obligations to clean air requirements. . . . I think it is a way for the United States to be less dependent on foreign sources of energy, which is good for our economy, and, frankly, helps us with foreign policy." President George W. Bush Electoral Palace, Mainz, Germany February 23, 2005 “America is poised to reinvest in nuclear energy as part of a larger strategy to move away from our over-reliance on natural gas. Nuclear energy is clean, reliable and affordable. We are planning the construction of new nuclear power plants and the implementation of improved waste strategies.” Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) February 2, 2004 "I was reminded again of the amount of carbon dioxide that nuclear power plants do not put into the air, . . . the amount of dollars that reliance on nuclear energy does not add to our trade deficit,...the reduction in imported oil that a reliance on nuclear power for the generation of electricity affords us. [I]t is important that we continue to maintain and strengthen going forward our reliance on nuclear energy." Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) Hearing, U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works May 20, 2004 “It is clear . . . that the environmental and energy security benefits of nuclear power are so compelling tht not only must we ensure the continued operation of our existing nuclear plants, but we must also encourage the construction of new nuclear plants . . . to help meet the projected increase in electric power demand.” Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) June 2003 “Our nation’s future electricity needs cannot be met almost exclusively by natural gas, but must be a reasonable combination of efforts that include energy conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear energy and clean-coal technology." U.S. Conference of Mayors Resolution June 2004 Wall Street “We see a convergence of powerful economic and political forces . . . that should lead to a renaissance of nuclear power. The momentum for new nuclear construction has been building quietly over several years, sustained not only by the industry but also by federal officials who believe strongly in the future of nuclear power as an emission-free and secure source of electricity. Nuclear has an increasingly strong case to make.” Prudential Equity Group, LLC “Back On Line: U.S. Nuclear Power Generation Set For Resurgence” January 2005 “The favorable trend for all these measures of plant performance can be attributed in part to changes in the way that the NRC measures plant performance, as well as the sector’s proactive response to meeting much stricter inspection requirements imposed by the NRC.” Moody’s Investors Service “Nuclear Power Trends in the United States” February 2004 Academia “After engineering costs are paid and construction of the first few nuclear plants has been completed, there is a good prospect that . . . lower costs would allow nuclear energy to be competitive in the marketplace. Federal financial policies that could help make early nuclear plants more competitive include loan guarantees, accelerated depreciation, investment tax credits, and production tax credits. In the long term, the competitiveness of nuclear power could be further enhanced by the rising concerns about greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fuel power generation. . . . A transition from oil-based to hydrogen-based transportation could, in the longer run, increase the demand for nuclear power as a non-polluting way to produce hydrogen. If gas imports increase, nuclear power could substitute for gas and contribute to energy security.” University of Chicago “The Economic Future of Nuclear Power” August 2004 “Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emission. . . . Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology “The Future of Nuclear Power” 2003 “A portfolio of technologies now exists to meet the world’s energy needs over the next 50 years and limit atmospheric [carbon dioxide] to a trajectory that avoids a doubling of the pre-industrial concentration. . . . [A] wedge of nuclear electricity would displace 700 gigawatts of efficient baseload coal capacity in 2054. This would require 700 gigawatts of nuclear power with the same 90 percent capacity factor assumed for the coal plants, or about twice the nuclear capacity currently deployed.” Steven Pacala and Robert Socolow, Princeton University “Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years With Current Technologies” Science Magazine August 2004 News Media “With a barrel of crude hitting a record $55 on Oct. 25, more Americans are coming to see nuclear energy as a cost effective and environmentally acceptable alternative to fossil fuels, which could boost national security by reducing dependence on Middle East oil.”BusinessWeek “With Oil Over $50, Nukes Are Back.” Nov. 8, 2004. “If oil prices stay high, if people worry about carbon dioxide causing global warming, if the Middle East stays violent, nuclear power stands a good chance of making a huge comeback in this country.” Forbes “The Silence of the Nuke Protesters” January 31, 2005 “Nuclear power didn’t go away. Instead it got better. Nuclear power today supplies 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, second only to the 52 percent generated by coal. Nuclear power has other advantages. It doesn’t come from politically unstable countries and it doesn’t release greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. That last point is critical.” Charles Stein “Diversified Energy Options Should Include Nuclear Power” Boston Globe Oct. 24, 2004. Environmentalists “By all means, let us use the small input from renewables sensibly, but only one immediately available source does not cause global warming, and that is nuclear energy. . . . Nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources . . . We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilization is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear—the one safe, available, energy source—now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.” James Lovelock, leading environmentalist, creator of the Gaia theory The Independent (UK) “Nuclear Power is the Only Green Solution” May 24, 2004 “By the mid-1980s, . . . I became aware of the emerging concept of sustainable development: balancing environmental, social and economic priorities. . . . Since then, I have worked under the banner of Greenspirit to develop an environmental policy platform based on science, logic, and the recognition that more than six billion people need to survive and prosper every day of the year. . . . Renewable energies, such as wind, geothermal and hydro are part of the solution. Nuclear energy is the only nongreenhouse gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand.” Patrick Moore, leading ecologist and environmentalist, founder of Greenpeace, Chair and Chief Scientist of Greenspirit The Miami Herald Jan. 30, 2005 “I have been a committed environmentalist for man years. It is because of this commitment and the graveness of the consequences of global warming for the planet that I have now come to the conclusion that the solution is to make more use of nuclear energy.” Hugh Montefiore, former Bishop of Birmingham (UK) and former chairman and trustee for Friends of the Earth The Tablet (UK) “Why The Planet Needs Nuclear Energy” Oct. 23, 2004. “If we NIMBY anywhere and anytime, we should not expect the utility industry to provide electricity to everyone, everywhere, all of the time. If we believe that global warming is a real threat to our planet, then the very best way to provide base load electricity is through emission-free production of nuclear power.” Norris McDonald, President, African American Environmentalist Association October 22, 2003 Benefits of Nuclear Energy Nuclear energy preserves the environment. Nuclear energy has perhaps the lowest impact on the environment—including air, land, water, and wildlife—of any energy source, because it does not emit harmful gases, isolates its waste from the environment, and requires less area to produce the same amount of electricity as other sources. Nuclear energy provides reliable electricity. Nuclear energy is a dependable provider of electricity for the United States and the world, in part because of the large size of the plants, their long periods of operation, and the expertise with which they are run. Nuclear energy is an economical energy source. Nuclear energy is efficient and cost-effective because of stable fuel prices, high plant performance, modernized plants, and renewal of plant licenses. Nuclear energy contributes to energy security, essential for national security. As an integral part of the diverse U.S. energy mix, nuclear energy is a secure energy source that the nation can depend on. Unlike some other energy sources, nuclear energy is not subject to unreliable weather or climate conditions, unpredictable cost fluctuations, or dependence on foreign suppliers. In fact, nuclear energy is a strong domestic as well as international industry, with extensive fuel supply sources. top From International Atomic Energy Authority LATEST NEWS RELATED TO PRIS AND THE STATUS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS As of 12 April 2005, there were 441 nuclear power plants in operation with a total net installed capacity of 367.253 GW(e) and 25 nuclear power plants under construction. 2005 highlights: * Chasnupp-2 (300 Mwe, PWR, Pakistan) - the first groundbreaking was done on 8 April * Tarapur 4 (490 MW(e), PHWR, India) achieved criticality on 6 March 2005 * Hamaoka 5 (1325 MW(e), ABWR, Japan) begun commercial operation on 18 January * Ulchin 6 (960 MW(e), PWR, South Korea) was connected to the grid on 7 January Changes of NPP status during 2004 (as of 31 December 2004): * New connection to the grid: o Qinshan 2-2, 610 MW(e), PWR, China, (March) o Hamaoka 5, 1325 MW(e), ABWR, Japan, (April) o Khmelnitski 2, 950 MW(e), PWR (WWER), Ukraine, (August) o Rovno 4, 950 MW(e), PWR (WWER), Ukraine, (October) o Kalinin 3, 950 MW(e) PWR (WWER), Russia, (December) * Re-connection to the grid following a long term shutdown: o Bruce 3, 790 MW(e), PHWR, Canada, (January) * Final shutdown: o Chapelcross A, B, C, D units, 50 MW(e) / each, GCR, UK, (June) o Ignalina 1, 1185 MW(e), RBMK, Lithuania, (December) * Construction initiation: o Tomari 3, 866 MW(e), PWR, Japan (October) o PFBR Kalpakkam, 470 MW(e), FBR, India (October)
The data below is from the IAEA PRIS database. Last updated on 2005/04/14


return to meditations		top

On Nuclear Energy - a solution that dares not speak its name.

Are we re-entering the dark ages?