Skip to main content

Barron’s on Nuclear Energy

BA-AO348A_nuke__NS_20090109203356 See, this is what we’re talking about:

President-elect Barack Obama has put forth a goal to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. by 80% by 2050, using $150 billion over 10 years to create a "clean-energy" future. Nuclear plants are the biggest producers of energy that doesn't emit any greenhouse gases.

Not just biggest, but only one able to produce baseload electricity, that is, not hampered by when the wind blows or when the sun shines. Barron’s, where this came from, is chiefly interested in suggesting where their readership might invest their money – which we never recommend you follow unless you do your own research – but that impulse to sniff out the money leads to this tidbid:

Notwithstanding the increased difficulty of obtaining financing since the credit crisis erupted, Cambridge Energy Research Associates has estimated that the potential for world-wide investment in clean energy, of which nuclear generation is the focal point, will reach $7 trillion in real 2007 dollars by 2030.

We think once you reach a trillion or so, you might as well say a zillion-kajillion – money just doesn’t make much sense at this level because mere mortals have no context for it. But we the idea – a lot of clams.

Speaking of a lot of money, here is NEI’s contribution to the story, when author Robin Golden Blumenthal addresses the cost of building a nuclear plant:

Yet the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade group, maintains that the capital costs become competitive due to nuclear plants' lower operating costs versus gas producers' costs. What's more, cost comparisons with other types of energy producers don't reflect any benefit that nuclear operators might see from carbon credits.

True enough, though we’d mention that loan guarantees tilt the balance even further back in the direction of fiscal sanity. We also do not know yet how cap-and-trade, where those carbon credits will come from, will work. The last stab at cap-and-trade went down fairly hard in the Senate less than a year ago, though it doubtless will return in some form.

The story is worth a read, especially as it addresses an issue that will come into focus as the Obama administration’s ambitions run into reality: that any effective plan for carbon reduction requires nuclear energy. Without it, those ambitions cannot be achieved.

Scott Pollack’s picture that accompanies the Barron’s article. We like it lots.

Comments

jord said…
I think you will find some baseload energy sources do not emit Co2. #1 would be hydroelectric power. Oh yeah, that. And don't forget clean coal. It's magic. LOL
Charles Barton said…
Jord, hydro is limited as a base load power source by the amount of water stored behind dams and the flow of water into impoundments. Thus hydro might be available for base load during wet seasons, but not during dry seasons. TVA regards its hydro resources as basically as peak generation resources.
Anonymous said…
In the end, hydro is a generating source inherently limited by the variabilities of natural phenomena (i.e., snowfall in the mountains). In that sense, it falls into the same category as wind and solar, but with a longer time constants.

Nuclear is fuel cycle limited, while carbon burners are maintenance limited. We have some control over those limits, at least as far as planning ahead and juggling available generating assets in a preplanned manner is concerned.

With natural phenomena, you have no control and you're always in a position of having to scramble, flying by the seat of your pants when you come down to it. That might be manageable on an individual level, but running an advanced, technologically-based society based on those unreliable and chaotic energy sources is going to be a dicey proposition at best.
Graham Sinclair said…
I like the pic too, but there's the problem: the flowers are the best part of the story. The valuation of any of the greenfield nuclear plant builds fails to properly cost the emissions or outputs as byproduct of the energy generation program. Where is the cost of the radioactive waste, and how is the binary question [will it be safely stored or not?] to be answered?

I like the blog, and continue in the debate. Nuclear may be part of the answer, with better safety records and with an answer to the waste issue.

Also see my link to the article
http://sri-extra.blogspot.com/2009/01/russians-are-coming-strutting-nuclear.html

Regards
GS
Principal | Sinclair & Company | http://sinclairconsult.com | graham.sinclair@sinclairconsult.com
Commentator | SRI Extra | http://sri-extra.blogspot.com
Adjunct Professor | Kenan-Flagler Business School UNC-Chapel Hill | http://kenan-flagler.unc.edu | graham_sinclair@unc.edu

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…