The R Street Institute, a Washington D.C. based think-tank, recently issued a report titled "The Role of US Research and Development Policy in Nuclear Power" authored by George David Banks. R Street says this about themselves, "The R Street Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy research organization Our mission is to engage in policy research and outreach to promote free markets and limited, effective government."
Banks says that "US federal research policy should recognize the nuclear sector as a national asset and treat it equally with other non-greenhouse gas emitting energy sources." He also claims that " the civilian nuclear sector is key to the USA's influential role in world nuclear safety and non-proliferation, but warns that the country's international influence will be eroded if the country becomes a "marginal" supplier of nuclear goods and services."
Banks focuses on problems facing the U.S. nuclear industry such as the fact that only a few new reactors are under construction, the U.S. market share of nuclear technology exports is falling, competition is heating up from foreign suppliers of nuclear technology that are often state run or state supported companies, and deregulation has posed challenges for the industry. Cheap natural gas from shale has reduced the demand for new nuclear power reactors. There are federal and state mandates and subsides for alternate renewable and sustainable energy sources. The cheap natural gas and the support for renewable are the biggest challenges according to Banks.
Last June, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released its proposal for a Clean Power Plan which will reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from power generation by thirty percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Banks criticizes the EPA plan because he says that it does not adequately recognize nuclear power. His report recommends that nuclear power be considered and supported along with other low-carbon energy sources. "Regulators and grid operators should pursue initiatives that provide adequate compensation for the positive attributes of nuclear power, including on-site fuel, diversity of supply and reliability." The report blames the recent shut down of uncompetitive nuclear power reactors in the U.S. on what it calls market distortions and flaws. It says that these shutdowns are "a threat to grid reliability and the attainment of environmental and climate objectives."
The R Street report states that the U.S. nuclear power industry must increase its effectiveness in order to compete with cheap natural gas and subsidies that support other types of power generation. It recommends that the U.S. change the focus of research programs to advanced reactor designs and new materials. It says that the U.S. government must fund research that the nuclear industry cannot pay for that involved high risks but also high rewards. Currently federal R&D projects usually require private sector partners to supply at least twenty percent of the cost of projects. The report suggests that even this is too much to require and other arrangements should be explored.
First of all, I would like to point out that nuclear power generation is not a no-carbon emission energy source. Depending on rough estimates over the lifespan of a nuclear power plant including the fuel cycle, nuclear power generates more carbon dioxide than hydropower, about the same amount as wind and a little less than current solar power stations. Second, with respect to the share of the global nuclear technology market, the major U.S. company involved in exporting reactors and supporting technology is Westinghouse which is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Toshiba, a Japanese company. Third, the changes to the global nuclear energy marketplace are just that, they are not distortions or flaws. If nuclear energy cannot compete, it should be abandoned. Fourth, the U.S. government has already spent trillions of dollars on nuclear research which wound up benefiting private companies and it is about time the private sector paid for their own research. Fifth, it can take up to ten years to submit, test, license, build and operate a new nuclear power reactor. We simply do not have the time to waste in combating carbon dioxide emissions. And, finally, spent nuclear fuel is piling up all over the U.S. with no permanent repository available before 2050 at the earliest. I strongly disagree with the conclusions and recommendations of the R Street report.
