Skip to main content

How Nuclear Energy Can Help Count the Cost of Carbon

Matt Wald
The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

A Federal appeals court recently ruled against companies that make commercial refrigerators in a case involving energy efficiency standards. What does this have to do with nuclear power? Potentially, a lot.

The Federal government’s goal is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which the Intergovernmental Climate on Climate Change and the Environmental Protection Agency have found are destabilizing the climate. But the United States does not have a tax on carbon, or even an overall limit on emissions. This gap in regulations is one reason that nuclear power plants usually do not get credit for the fact that their production is carbon-free.

But the government does have an emerging tool, called the "Social Cost of Carbon." That cost, determined jointly by several federal agencies, puts a dollar number on the damage caused by an additional ton of carbon dioxide emissions.

As of last year the cost was put at between $11 and $56 per ton of carbon dioxide.

The recent decision, by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, concerned appliance efficiency standards. The Energy Department sets efficiency standards for 60 categories of devices, everything from ceiling fans to light bulbs to air conditioners, under a 1975 law intended to cut oil consumption (oil was widely used to make electricity in those days) and to produce “potential environmental benefits.” And it used that law to set a standard for commercial refrigerators.

As part of the cost/benefit analysis, it counted the benefits of reduced carbon dioxide production from reduced electricity demand. But the refrigeration industry argued that the Department of Energy was not authorized to use the Social Cost of Carbon. In fact, the department has been doing so for several years now. Here’s a list of standards in which the social cost of carbon played a role.

The Court ruled that the government can, in fact, use the social cost of carbon and count carbon pollution reduction as a benefit when it decides on energy efficiency standards.

The case, may be relied on in a variety of future decisions by the Energy Department and other agencies, and other courts as well, as they consider arguments over rules and policies that have an impact on climate change.

This is another step in the acceptance of the Social Cost of Carbon, a yardstick for determining the value of avoiding a ton of carbon emissions.

Recently New York State used the Social Cost of Carbon to calculate the value of electricity production from several nuclear reactors whose continued operations were threatened by inexpensive natural gas and subsidized wind power.

And the court decision in the refrigerator case made another significant point: because U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide affect the climate globally, “those global effects are an appropriate consideration when looking at a national policy.” Thus the Energy Department was permitted to use a measure of global damage avoided by a carbon-saving measure when it calculated benefits and costs. Other governmental agencies can also take account of the global benefits.

On Friday, for example, the Justice Department cited the decision in the refrigerator case in defending a case against the Clean Power Plan, which seeks to put state-by-state limits on carbon emissions from power plants.

Comments

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…