There are many reasons to oppose an increase in nuclear power generation in the U.S. There are economic, political, social, military, environmental, and public health issues to name a few. The U.S. nuclear industry has been plagued lately by competition from cheap oil and natural gas as well as distrust by the public and lack of interest on the part of investors. They are fighting back by claiming that nuclear power is the only way to quickly low carbon emissions to combat climate change.
Recently Bisconti Research and Quest Global Research conducted a survey for the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). The NEI is a nuclear industry lobbying group in the U.S. The survey found that there was strong public support for nuclear power once the responders were told that nuclear power lowered carbon emission. One thousand adults were surveyed and eighty four percent agreed that nuclear energy "should be important in the future." Fifty percent agreed that nuclear power was a "very important" part of the nation's future energy mix. Sixty four percent indicated strong support for nuclear power even without being told that nuclear power had low carbon emissions. Twenty four percent said that nuclear power was "very important" without being informed of low carbon emissions.
Ann Bisconti, President of Bisconti Research referred to the results of the survey as "eye-opening." She also said "Once they are made aware of the magnitude of nuclear energy's impact in the low-carbon electricity mix, Americans' belief in nuclear energy's future value is almost universal and crosses gender and political party.”
Supporters of the U.S. nuclear industry feel that a good argument could be made for nuclear power expansion even if the costs were higher than alternate forms of energy generation because of the low carbon issue. They hope to be able to convince the government that shutting down nuclear plants would be a threat to efforts to combat climate change.
The nuclear industry in the U.S. will fall from providing nineteen percent of the nation's energy to eighteen percent of the nation's energy by 2030 according to a report by UBS bank. According to the nuclear industry, every time a nuclear plant is shut down, it will have to be replaced by a coal or gas fired plant which will increase carbon emission in the U.S.
Under the new national Clean Power Plan (CPP), states will have to document how they cut carbon emissions from power generation by one third. The nuclear industry tried to push for the continued operation of all nuclear power plants to be part of the CPP. When the final plan was drafted, only new nuclear power plants or significant upgrades of existing nuclear power plants were covered by the Plan.
The nuclear industry avoids discussing the possibility that alternative sustainable energy sources such as wind and solar power which are also generate no carbon emissions might be a better choice for the nation's future energy mix than nuclear. They fail to point out that nuclear power reactors takes a long time to license and construct. There are huge upfront costs and there is a lot of carbon emitted during construction. We need to address climate change and alternative sources can come online faster. Battery technology is advancing rapidly and may be able to solve the problem of intermittency that is one of the chief criticisms against wind and solar power generation. Nuclear power would be a bad choice to combat climate change.
