Although nuclear power is facing a stiff headwind of public rejection, rising costs and investor skepticism, they are trying to reinvigorate the industry by claiming that nuclear power is a low-carbon emission energy source and should be subsidized, if necessary, as a hedge against climate change.
Amory Lovins, one of the top energy experts in the U.S., says that nuclear power plants are so big, slow to construct and expensive that they "reduce and retard" climate protection. He estimates that every dollar spent on building a new nuclear power reactor purchases from two to ten times less carbon savings and is twenty to forty times slower than spending that dollar on other solutions that are cheaper, faster and safer. These other solutions render nuclear power both uneconomical and unnecessary. Increasing the efficiency of electrical usage, conservation, insulation of buildings, renewable alternative energy generation, and generating heat and power together which is called cogeneration all are more beneficial in the fight against climate change than nuclear power. Renewables and cogeneration together accounted for eighteen percent of the world's electricity in 2009 while nuclear only accounted for thirteen percent. This is a reversal of their percentages in 2000. These two alternatives also accounted for over ninety percent of the new electricity added to the worlds power grids in 2008. These trends have continued to the present.
Since 2007, the expansion of nuclear power has added less to total world electricity generation than solar power which is the most expensive alternative energy source. While the cost of wind and solar power keeps dropping, the cost of nuclear power keeps rising and the additional safety features recommended since the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 will drive the cost up even further.
There are dozens of nuclear reactor projects being touted by the global nuclear industry but most of them have no actual starting dates and some of them have been "under construction" for decades. Most of these projects are in just four countries, Russia, India, China and South Korea. Three of these countries have economic problems that will probably delay nuclear projects and all of them have strong public resistance against nuclear power. None of these four countries could build nuclear reactors without serious government involvement.
In order to be of any use in climate change mitigation, energy projects must be ramped up as quickly as possible. In addition to the problem of long licensing periods and slipping construction schedules, nuclear power is carbon intensive at the beginning. Massive amounts of carbon dioxide are emitted in the mining, refining and transportation of nuclear fuel as well as the concrete used to build the reactors and the dry casks used to store spent nuclear fuel. It may be decades before the carbon debt of a nuclear power plant is paid off. We don't have those decades.
In light of the problems mentioned above and other problems details in other blog posts, nuclear power generation is not a viable solution to the problem of carbon emissions and climate change. It is regrettable that serious scientists and environmental activists have been taken in by this false hope. Stepping back and looking at the broad picture, it is obvious that nuclear power should not be part of the post-fossil fuel mix of energy sources for any reason.
