By Chris Hildebrand, Contributor
The Copenhagen Conference was a miserable failure. Despite the best efforts of many world leaders, the tentative agreement—which is so weak, according to President Obama, that it doesn’t even require Senate ratification—is nothing more than a pledge for more sincere efforts. It sets a new target to prevent global warming of more than 2 degrees Celsius—a temperature change the world might already have all but guaranteed, depending on which scientist one believes. In other words, Copenhagen continued to provide words without action.
America, however, needs more than words. The need to “go green” has already become harnessed as a business and marketing tool, and with the potential for a large scale cap-and-trade bill lurking around the corner in Congress, many American companies are poised to take the plunge. But despite the billions invested in solar, wind, hydropower, or geothermal technology, nuclear has been overlooked: no new nuclear reactors have been built in the country in over 30 years.
The current fleet of American reactors—104, to be exact—meet nearly 20 percent of the country’s overall electricity demand, and their efficiency and safety have improved overtime. This is not to say the road has not been easy: economic setbacks due to increasing costs and high-profile accidents such as Three Mile Island (or for many older Americans, Chernobyl) have traditionally given the industry serious pause. Nevertheless, they have reliably provided electricity at rates comparable to coal-fired plants—if they are slightly less competitive economically.
However, when compared with other “clean” or “renewable” technologies, such as wind, solar, or hydropower, nuclear is the only option that has the proven to effectively, efficiently, and most importantly cleanly meet rising electricity demands in the coming years.
Wind power, while clean, is not cheap, and continues to be the ace-in-the-hole for many American power companies should cap-and-trade come into existence in the U.S. Existing wind plants will provide large companies—such as Florida Power & Light, which runs several multi-million dollar wind farms in the Midwest—with carbon credits to balance out their other, more “dirty” energy plants. It is, in other words, a multi-million dollar hedge against future U.S. climate change legislation—not a long-term solution in its current form.
This is true beyond the economics, as well: the technology to effectively store electricity generated by wind turbines has not yet been successfully designed and marketed. As a result, wind power can only provide power when the wind is blowing, and can only supplement existing power grids—not provide a constant stream of electricity to replace coal or nuclear plants.
The same can be said of solar power. Like wind, solar power is expensive and not yet efficient enough to compete on a large scale with coal or nuclear. The technology is, however, rapidly developing, and the Obama administration has been quick to highlight to the PR opportunities, such as the opening of the largest solar power plant in Florida last October. The plant in question, however, is said to only offset the carbon emissions from several thousand cars on the road, and is designed to ease the pressure on the energy grid during peak times, such as during summer heat waves.
Nuclear power becomes more attractive to both consumers and businesses when considered in the current domestic context. The recession, while technically over, continues to negatively impact employment. Copenhagen was a disaster to environmentalists, and despite progress on health care, has still yet to be addressed (as promised during the Presidential campaign) in Congress. Nuclear power can help address both these problems, and importantly for politicians, can do so at little political cost, thanks to several recent polls which have shown that the majority of Americans are ready to embrace nuclear power.
Studies have shown that nuclear power—in the context of a cap-and-trade program or similar significant climate legislation—becomes more economically competitive, enough to make it a very serious rival to coal-fired power plants. Furthermore, it will create jobs, and begin to satiate future electricity demands that threaten to overwhelm the existing power grid. Most importantly, it will accomplish all this with a smaller carbon footprint than coal or natural gas.
The current administration seems to agree, and have recently announced billions of dollars in guaranteed federal loans for the creation of new nuclear plants in the country. To complement these loans, several new nuclear plant designs have been submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), focusing on improved efficiency, reduced capital costs, and better safety. However, the promised money is only enough to build one or two of each new design, which nuclear experts have long criticized as too little and not enough to accurately assess the merits of each design. The loans can only go so far, and if costs increase, taxpayer dollars will bear the burden.
Nuclear power, however, is not perfect. It is not the ultimate solution to the problem facing the globe, but rather one answer among many alternatives. Solar, wind, and hydropower should continue to be funded and used on a significant scale to supplement existing technologies and buttress the budding efforts of America’s “green revolution.” And despite the frightening prospects of nuclear proliferation, post-Cold War fears of rogue nuclear states have largely been avoided, with the obvious exceptions of North Korea and Iran. With better control of nuclear fuels, however, the emergence of more states like North Korea and Iran is unlikely.
As it stands, the administration is on board, as is the public and environmentalists. The political costs appear not insurmountable, and the technology is there. So America: if you truly desire to “go green,” why not go nuclear?
