Posted: 05/16/2005 | Author: H. Sterling Burnett
Eco-Innovators
Getting Clean while Getting Small Nuclear power has not been dormant since the accident at "Three Mile Island": http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html 26 years ago. In fact, the 103 operating reactors in the US generate approximately 20 percent of the nation's electricity. A number of factors imply that nuclear power's share of the nation's energy mix will grow. Nuclear plants have dramatically improved the efficiency of producing electricity. In the 1980s, plants averaged 58.5 percent of rated capacity, today plants function at an average of more than 90 percent capacity. Indeed, the increased electricity produced by nuclear plants since 1990 "could power 26 cities":http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=316 the size of Boston or Seattle. Operating costs have fallen from 3.31 cents per kilowatt-hour in 1988 to 1.7 cents today -- lower than either coal or, at 3 to 5 cents per Kwh, natural gas-fired plants. Of course, operating costs are only one part of an energy facility's total cost. Historically, nuclear power has been expensive because of numerous factors, such as redundant safety mechanisms, constantly changing safety requirements, and the massive containment facilities required for reactors. Fortunately, technological innovation and improved risk assessments have made it possible to produce modular nuclear plants with fewer, standardized parts. The cost of building these plants has fallen from a range of $2 to $6 billion to an estimated $1.4 to $1.6 billion. Although this is still more expensive than most other types of electricity generating facilities, nuclear power has low fuel costs; it's one of the cheapest supplies of electricity. Nuclear power could become even cheaper if emerging technologies prove commercially feasible. For instance, "China":http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html and "South Africa":http://www.eskom.co.za/nuclear_energy/pebble_bed/pebble_bed.html are building the world's first commercial "Pebble Bed Reactors":http://web.mit.edu/pebble-bed/ (PBR). PBRs use helium instead of water to cool nuclear fuel, increasing efficiency and safety. In addition, rather than using uranium fuel rods, PBRs use thousands of hardened graphite balls each containing 10,000 or so micro-fuel "pebbles" coated with tough silicon carbide. The expensive containment facilities typical in other reactors are unnecessary because a meltdown is impossible. PBR's also should be able to extract several times as much energy from a ton of fuel than conventional reactors — which means less spent fuel needing storage. Cost aside, energy security and environmental impacts make nuclear plants a critical component of a diverse electric power system. America has become increasingly reliant on imported supplies of oil and natural gas, two of the three fossil fuels used to generate electricity. Oil and natural gas prices fluctuate wildly, and supplies of these fuels may often depend upon instable regimes. By comparison, at current levels of use, accessible reserves of uranium can provide an estimated 300-year worldwide supply of fuel, according to the "International Atomic Energy Agency":http://www.iaea.org/. One kilogram of natural uranium contains as much energy as 38.5 tons of coal, but only about 3 percent of that energy is utilized in conventional reactors. If the United States joined France and Japan in "recycling used fuel":http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts/waste/waste_home.htm, existing and future spent fuel rods would provide additional supplies of nuclear fuel. Even greater supplies of nuclear fuel can be made available from the more-than-15,000 plutonium pits removed from dismantled U.S. nuclear weapons. Nuclear power has many environmental benefits. For instance, numerous studies indicate that various air pollutants contribute to thousands of premature deaths and illnesses annually. A significant portion of this pollution comes from fossil-fuel power plants. By comparison, nuclear plants produce virtually no air pollution. For instance, for every mega-watt hour (MWh) of electricity produced, nuclear power plants produce no sulfur-dioxide or nitrogen oxide emissions, while coal fired plants produce 13 pounds of sulfur-dioxide and 6 pounds of nitrogen oxides, oil fired generators produce 12 pounds of sulfur-dioxide and 4 pounds of nitrogen-oxides and natural gas fired plants produce 0.1 pound of sulfur-dioxide and 1.7 pounds of nitrogen-oxides. In addition, if one believes that human-caused CO2 emissions from energy use are contributing to global warming, nuclear power is a CO2-free energy option. By comparison, for every MWh of energy produced, coal fired power plants produce 2,249 pounds of CO2, oil fired power plants produce 1,672 pounds, and gas fired power plants produce 1,135 pounds. This is why a number of prominent environmentalists have recently argued for increasing the role of "nuclear power" in the world's energy mix. Nuclear power is not the solution to all of the world's energy needs, but it is could be part of the solution. Nuclear power plants produce cost competitive, reliable flows of emission-free electricity. These factors make nuclear power worthy of serious consideration when shaping a thoughtful, comprehensive energy policy.