3. Climate change mitigation
Concern over climate change has boosted the acceptability of nuclear power. Due to the low carbon footprint of nuclear power, even die-hard environmentalists are jumping onboard the nuclear train. Proponents of nuclear power are saying that it is the only possible solution for major carbon reduction.
Actually, there are reasonable and economical plans for renewable energy sources to supply all the world’s electrical needs by 2050. Renewable projects can come online in a few years as opposed to the decade or more that it can take to site, license and construct nuclear power plants. In addition, there is a great deal of carbon dioxide released in the construction of a nuclear power plant that takes years of plant operation to pay back. We have to go with energy sources that can be constructed and operational as quickly as possible to fight climate change. Even with the boom in Chinese nuclear reactor construction, the amount of electricity that the new nuclear plants will add to the Chinese power grid is tiny compared to the operating and polluting coal power plants there. Nuclear power is not going to be the magic solution to climate change mitigation.
4. Uncertainty of abundant cheap natural gas
The boom in natural gas production has helped it replace coal as the biggest source of power generation in the U.S. Since carbon emissions are lower for gas than coal power plants, abundant natural gas does help reduce overall carbon emissions. However, if natural gas replaces aging nuclear power plants, the carbon emission go up.
Abundant natural gas can serve as a bridge to renewable sources taking over all energy generation by 2050. Natural gas will continue to be cheap long enough for renewable to replace it. The price tag for nuclear power just keeps going up and the cost of renewables just keeps going down.
5. New types of reactors
Proponents of nuclear power say that new types of nuclear power reactors such as small modular reactors (SMRs) can bring down prices and improve safety for nuclear power because they will be built in factories and shipped to the site where they will operate.
As problems with falsifying quality control documents for nuclear components should indicate, just being built in a factory does not guarantee quality control. It is questionable whether three SMR reactors that produce a combined total of nine hundred megawatts can be built and operated any cheaper than a single nine hundred megawatt conventional reactors. While there is increasing interest and investment in SMRs around the world, the fact is that there are none that have been licensed yet to operate anywhere. There will be years of design, testing, regulatory review and licensing necessary before any SMRs are constructed and attached to the grid. With the continuing expansion of and lowering cost of renewable sources of energy generation there may be no need for a fleet of SMRs.
I am not impressed with the arguments above on the coming “rebound” of nuclear power in 2018. There are many other factors opposing major expansion of nuclear power in the near future but I will mention just one. Another major nuclear accident somewhere in the world is inevitable. When it happens, the prospects for nuclear power will take a major nose-dive.
