Skip to main content

No Place for Nuclear Energy in Jeremy Rifkin’s “Third Industrial Revolution”

rifkin_0Last week, Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends and advisor to the European Union on climate change and energy security, was a guest on The Diane Rehm Show on NPR. He was on to discuss his new book “The Third Industrial Revolution.”

If Rifkin’s name sounds familiar, it ought to, as he has more or less been in the business of bashing science and technology since he came on the scene in 1977. It was that year that Rifkin’s book, “Who Should Play God?” was published. A broadside against biotechnology, the book more or less set the tone for the rest of his career, one where Rifkin can charitably be described as one of the nation’s leading luddites.

In the interview, Rifkin outlined five key pillars focused on the merger between renewable energy and Internet technologies that he believes will help the world wean itself from fossil fuels and become less susceptible to the pendulum swing of economic downturns.

It sounds like it could be a promising plan. However, where does he see nuclear energy fitting into the equation? I’m guessing you won’t be surprised that he doesn’t think that the nation’s leading source of carbon-free energy has any place at all in his revolution.

I think nuclear’s—it’s really over. I think Fukushima was just the last point of the departure.

A startling statement—but coming from a guy who is convinced that Germany is leading the way in this new revolution—not surprising. (I guess he didn’t read our blog post from July that discusses the extra cost to Germany’s electricity consumers if the country phases out nuclear energy.)

He goes on to give us other “business reasons” why it’s over.

The problem is this. There’s about 400 nuclear power plants in the world. They’re very old. They only make up 6 percent of our energy mix, that’s all.

Fact check: In 2010, nuclear plants worldwide provided 13.5 percent of the world’s electricity production.

He continued:

But our scientific community says to have a minimum impact on climate change, you’d have to have 20 percent nuclear in the mix of energy. That means you’d have to have 4,000 nuclear power plants. That means you have to replace the existing 400 and build three nuclear power plants every 30 days for the next 60 years. That’s not going to happen.

So, we need to tear down all operating nuclear plants to build new ones? That would be an unnecessary overhaul of reliable energy infrastructure.

“Old” nuclear plants are still held to the same strict regulatory standards as newly constructed ones, and, with continued improvements in technology and operations, these nuclear plants have proven to become even safer and more efficient. For example, more than 6,000 megawatts of power uprates have been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since 1977, which is the equivalent of adding another five to six nuclear reactors to the nation’s power grid.

Rifkin added yet another “business reason” to abandon nuclear:

We spent $8 billion to build that fail-safe vault at Yucca Mountain to put the nuclear material in. We can’t open it up because it’s already leaking.

Because it’s already leaking?! Correction: Because politics trumped science.

The Yucca Mountain repository is one of the most studied places on earth with more than 20 years of scientific research and analysis. Although the Bush administration in 2008 submitted to the NRC a license application to develop the site, a year later, the Obama administration withdrew the application and set up a blue ribbon commission to provide other recommendations.

It seems to me that some things just don’t add up in Rifkin’s plan.

You can read the full transcript here and also comment.

Jeremy Rifkin

Comments

SteveK9 said…
Of course this is all nonsense, but when people talk about the number of nuclear plants needed for the world, etc. the number sounds large. But, there is another way to look at this. The nation of France went from 0 to ~ 75% nuclear in about 20 years. They weren't sucking the world dry of steel, etc. and didn't mobilize their entire population to do this. Every country can do the same. By the same token uranium production can be expanded enormously (there is no reason to expect it to be different from copper, tin, iron, or any other mineral resource). Also, uranium or thorium breeders can expand the energy potential by 2 orders of magnitude. So, it is certainly not impossible, it's not even particularly difficult.
Anonymous said…
That's Rifkin for you.He doesn't
care if people have to pay a fortune for hydrogen fuel or electricity.As long as his dream of
a Hydrogen Economy or Third Industrial Revolution takes place.
Some dream.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…