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 …

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 Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …