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

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 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…