Concern over how America will meet its future energy needs is causing the power industry, politicians and even some environmentalists ask whether new nuclear power plants should be part of the nation’s energy mix. Increasingly, they are answering in the affirmative.

Among the factors that are getting nuclear a second look are rising electricity demand, possible greenhouse gas legislation, and American dependence on foreign energy imports, combined with high costs and the relative unreliability of various alternative energy.

According to the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 2008 “Annual Energy Outlook,” electricity sales will increase up to 5,089 billion kilowatt hours by 2030 — an increase of 39 percent. For the power industry, nuclear power is attractive because it is reliable and has low operating costs. Despite the fact that no new nuclear power plants have been licensed since 1979, the nuclear power has not been dormant as the country’s 103 operating reactors generate approximately 20 percent of the nation’s electricity.

Nuclear plants have dramatically improved efficiency, from an average of 58.5 percent of rated capacity in 1980 to an average more than 90 percent today. Indeed, the increased electricity produced by nuclear plants since 1990 could power 26 cities the size of Boston or Seattle. While efficiency has increased, the operating costs of nuclear power plants have decreased. Thus, the operating costs have fallen from 3.31 cents per kilowatt-hour in 1988 to 1.7 cents today — lower than either coal or natural gas-fired plants.

In addition, the U.S. has an abundant domestic supply of raw nuclear fuel, or uranium. 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. Better still, 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. Thus, if the United States joined France and Japan in recycling used fuel, existing and future spent fuel rods would provide a virtually unlimited supply 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.

Recycling used nuclear fuel would also conveniently and dramatically reduce the amount of nuclear waste from power plants.

In an indirect way nuclear power could possibly play a part in reducing our dependency on foreign oil as well. High gas prices have already encouraged the development of electric and or plug-in, hybrid-electric vehicles. Should these vehicles become adopted in significant numbers in the U.S., nuclear generated electricity could displace some of the imported oil currently used to power American autos. This would strengthen the country’s hand in the conduct of foreign policy as we would depend less on oil rich governments, such as those in Venezuela, Russia and in the Middle East, which sometimes have interests opposed to our own.

From an environmental perspective, the expansion of nuclear power should also prove a winner. Compared to other significant sources of electricity, nuclear power has many environmental benefits. For instance, compared to fossil-fuel plants, nuclear plants produce virtually no air pollution. By contrast:

• Coal-fired power plants produce 13 pounds of sulfur dioxide and 6 pounds of nitrogen oxide per MWh of energy produced

• Oil-fired power plants produce 12 pounds of sulfur dioxide and 4 pounds of nitrogen oxide per MWh of energy produced.

Furthermore, nuclear power is a CO2 free energy option whereas 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 for every MWh of energy.

The latter point is especially important should the U.S. adopt limits on CO2 emissions in an attempt to prevent climate change. With this as a consideration, the EIA notes that should limits on greenhouse gas emissions become law, the sources of our electricity will need to shift dramatically, from fossil fuels to alternative energies. In such a case, the EIA recommends that the United States add approximately 268 gigawatts of new nuclear power. Assuming that one reactor produces an average of 1.3 gigwatts, the government would need to construct approximately 200 reactors to meet this goal.

Why does the EIA specifically identify nuclear energy in its recommendation? In a CO2 constrained world, the use of coal and natural gas, known greenhouse gas emitters, for electric power generation will have to be reduced. Yet they serve as the as critical baseload power sources. Nuclear is reliable. Thus, unlike many alternative energies, nuclear power can serve as baseload power – that is nuclear power plants can be counted on to provide day to day electricity, with little or no down-time.

Nuclear power by itself is not the solution to either worlds of even the U.S.’s energy ills, but it is certainly part of the solution. Nuclear power plants produce cost competitive, reliable flows of emission-free electricity. These factors alone make nuclear power worthy of serious consideration when shaping a thoughtful, comprehensive energy policy.
Read the NCPA report on nuclear power here.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 28th, 2008 at 10:25 am and is filed under Uncategorized .