Against these lofty aspirations for nuclear, however, is the simple fact that -- while nuclear power provides 20 percent of US electricity -- no US utility has ordered and built a nuclear power plant since the 1970s. The chief reason for this is economic.
Since the widespread deregulation of power generation and distribution in the 1990s, it has been power-company investors, not ratepayers, who have borne the financial risk if a new plant proves uncompetitive in the market or, worse, suffers a severe accident. Power producers have looked at the numbers, including those caused by the uncertainties of the nuclear licensing process, and opted for plants fueled by natural gas or coal.
The financial case for existing nuclear plants has been enhanced by the improved productivity of the plants in recent years and by many owners' success in getting their licenses renewed for an extra 20 years. Also, recent steep increases in the cost of natural gas have somewhat improved the prospects of new nuclear power in competition with that fuel, but it is difficult to imagine a resurgence of nuclear energy unless Congress and the Bush administration get religion on climate change and sharply penalize -- through a carbon tax or a cap on carbon emissions -- the production of electricity with fossil fuels.
But not just cost has kept nuclear power from playing a greater role. There is also the danger of an operating accident, a serious waste disposal problem, the risk that countries or individuals will misuse civilian reactors to produce material for nuclear weapons, and the threat of terrorist sabotage. Two years ago, a group of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard professors led by John Deutch and Ernest Moniz studied nuclear energy's future. The professors found that ''the nuclear option should be retained precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of power," but they also acknowledged the unresolved problems of the technology.
Moniz said this week that the 2003 study has had its intended effect of opening a ''healthy" new dialogue on nuclear energy. But he said he would liked to have seen more progress since 2003 on the resolution of the waste disposal issue.
Shirley Ann Jackson, president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the Clinton administration, believes that progress has been made in developing new reactor designs that reduce the hazard of operating accidents. She is also encouraged by international cooperation among plant operators and nuclear regulators to share best practices and prevent a new Chernobyl that would undercut support for nuclear power globally.
Still, Jackson called waste disposal the industry's ''Achilles' heel." Innovative techniques can ''reduce the volume and nastiness of what you have," she said in an interview, but she believes a central solution, such as the proposed Yucca Mountain site in Nevada, is also needed. In the meantime, plants have begun to take spent fuel from storage in water pools, which in many cases have reached their capacity, and moved them into on-site dry steel and concrete casks, which are less vulnerable to terrorist attack.
As for the threat of nuclear proliferation, the Deutch-Moniz study calls for the United States and other nations with major nuclear power programs to offer guaranteed supplies of fuel and waste-management services to countries that forgo enrichment and reprocessing activities, which create the greatest potential for weapons production. This policy and aggressive antiproliferation enforcement by the International Atomic Energy Agency are needed whether or not new nuclear power plants are built in America or elsewhere.
If new reactor designs prove as safe as hoped and if progress is made on waste disposal, proliferation prevention, and protection against terrorism, nuclear power will deserve a chance to compete in the market against other sources of power that do not emit CO{-2}. But the market for any alternatives to fossil-fuel power will open up only after the United States decides to cap or tax the carbon emissions that fossil-fuel plants contribute to the atmosphere's greenhouse.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2005/06/16/nuclear_reconsidered/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
