Far from being a solution
to global warming, nuclear power will actually set America
back in the race to reduce pollution. Nuclear power is too slow and too
expensive to make enough of a difference in the next two decades. Moreover,
nuclear power is not necessary to provide clean, carbon-free electricity for
the long haul.
The up-front capital
investment required to build 100 new nuclear reactors could prevent twice as
much pollution over the next 20 years if invested in energy efficiency and
clean, renewable energy instead. Taking into account the ongoing costs of
running the nuclear plants, a clean energy path would deliver as much as five times
more progress for the money.
Early action matters in the
fight against global warming.
·
The more total
carbon dioxide pollution that humanity emits into the atmosphere, the greater
the warming – and consequent damage. Earlier action allows us more flexibility
to respond to an evolving understanding of humanity’s role in shaping the
climate.
·
According to
current science, humanity as a whole can emit no more than 1 trillion metric
tons of carbon dioxide from 2000 through 2050 in order to have a 75 percent chance
of limiting the global temperature increase to 3.6° F above the pre-industrial
era – a target the international community has set to limit the severity of
global warming impacts. This 1 trillion metric tons is our “carbon budget.”
·
To facilitate
keeping total emissions within this budget, a panel of distinguished Nobel
Prize-winning scientists have called on developed nations to reduce their
emissions of global warming pollution by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by
2020.
·
Reducing
emissions from power plants holds large potential for early progress. The share
of the U.S. emissions budget
available to electric power plants could be as little as 34 billion metric tons
of carbon dioxide (CO2) from 2010 cumulatively through 2050.
New nuclear reactors would
be built too slowly to reduce global warming pollution in the near term, and
would actually increase the scale of action required in the future.
·
No new
reactors are now under construction in the United
States. The nuclear industry will not complete the first
new reactor until at least 2016, optimistically assuming construction will take
four years after regulatory approval.
·
However, it is
likely that no new nuclear reactors could be online until 2018 or later. During
the last wave of nuclear construction in the United
States, the average reactor took nine years to build. New
reactors are likely to experience similar delays. For example, a new reactor
now under construction in Finland
is at least three years behind schedule after a series of quality control
failures.
·
The American
nuclear industry is not ready to move quickly. No American power company has
ordered a new nuclear power plant since 1978, and all reactors ordered after
the fall of 1973 ended up cancelled. As a result, domestic manufacturing
capability for nuclear reactor parts has withered and trained personnel are
scarce.
·
Even if the
nuclear industry managed to complete 100 new reactors in the United States by 2030 – the level of
construction advocated by supporters of nuclear power – new nuclear power
plants could still only reduce cumulative power plant emissions by 12 percent
over the next two decades, leading to a higher and later peak in pollution. As
a result, America would burn
through its 40-year electric sector carbon budget in just 15 years. (See Figure
ES-1.)
In contrast, energy
efficiency and renewable energy sources can make an immediate contribution
toward reducing global warming pollution.
·
Clean energy
can begin cutting emissions immediately. Energy efficiency programs are already
reducing electricity consumption by 1-2 percent below forecast levels annually
in leading states, and the U.S.
wind industry is already building the equivalent of three nuclear reactors per
year in wind farms, and growing rapidly.
·
With the
up-front capital investment required to build 100 new nuclear reactors, America could prevent twice as much pollution in
the next 20 years by investing in clean energy instead. (Midpoint estimate, see
Figure ES-1 and page XX for more details.)
·
However, even
this level of investment in clean energy would not be enough to keep U.S. power plant emissions within budget. (See
Figure ES-1.) America should
cut power plant emissions on the order of 50 percent within the next decade to
limit the worst consequences of global warming.
Figure ES-1:
Projected Cumulative Electric Sector Emissions of Global Warming Pollution
after 2010 with No Action, Accelerated Nuclear Deployment or Accelerated Clean
Energy Deployment
Nuclear reactors are too
slow to cut enough pollution in the next two decades. With the up-front capital
investment required to build 100 new nuclear reactors, America could achieve twice as much by investing
in clean energy instead.
Nuclear power is expensive
and will divert resources from more cost-effective energy strategies.
·
Building 100
new nuclear reactors would require an up-front capital investment on the order
of $600 billion (with a possible range of $250 billion to $1 trillion),
diverting money away from cleaner and cheaper solutions.
·
Any up-front
investment in nuclear power would lock in additional expenditures over time.
Over the life of a new reactor, the electricity it produces could cost in the
range of 12 to 20 cents per kilowatt-hour, or more. In contrast, a capital investment
in energy efficiency actually pays us
back several times over with ongoing savings on electricity bills, and an
investment in renewable power can deliver electricity for much less cost.
·
Per dollar
spent over the lifetime of the technology, energy efficiency and biomass
co-firing are five times more effective at preventing carbon dioxide pollution,
and combined heat and power (in which a power plant generates both electricity
and heat for a building or industrial application) is greater than three times
more effective. In 2018, biomass and land-based wind energy will be more than
twice as effective, and offshore wind power will be on the order of 30 percent
more effective per dollar of investment, even without the benefit of the
renewable energy production tax credit. (See Figure ES-2.)
·
By 2018, and
possibly sooner, solar photovoltaic power should be comparable to a new nuclear
reactor in terms of its per-dollar ability to prevent global warming pollution.
Some analyses imply that thin film solar photovoltaic power is already more
cost-effective than a new reactor. And solar power is rapidly growing cheaper,
while nuclear costs are not likely to decline.
Figure ES-2:
Comparative Ability of Electricity Technologies to Prevent Global Warming
Pollution, per 2018 Dollar Spent over Technology Lifetime – Online in 2018,
Merchant Financing Terms
By 2018, a reasonable
estimate for the first date a new reactor could be online, nuclear power will
be among the least cost-effective options for reducing global warming
pollution. Source: see discussion on page XX and Methodology on page XX.
Nuclear power is not needed
to provide reliable, low-carbon electricity for the future.
·
Nuclear power
proponents argue that nuclear plants are needed to produce low-carbon
“base-load” power. However, the need for base-load power is exaggerated and
small-scale clean energy solutions can actually enhance the reliability of the
electric grid.
·
Many clean
power sources – including energy efficiency improvements, combined
heat-and-power technologies and renewable energy sources such as biomass,
geothermal energy and solar thermal power with heat storage – are available at
any time, just like nuclear power. Others, including wind and solar
photovoltaic power, are predictable with about 80-90 percent accuracy a day in
advance. With proper planning and investments in a “smart grid” to facilitate
wise use of resources, clean energy solutions could supply the vast bulk of America’s electricity needs.
·
Over-reliance
on base-load power plants such as nuclear reactors can harm the reliability of
the grid. Because nuclear reactors provide power in massive, inflexible,
all-or-nothing blocks, they often produce large amounts of power at times when
few people need it. Moreover, when a reactor fails, it can have dramatic and
widespread consequences for the availability of electricity. For example, when
a power line failure triggered the shutdown of two nuclear reactors at Turkey
Point in southern Florida in February 2008, more than 3 million customers in
the Miami area lost power for up to five hours – causing traffic jams,
stranding people in elevators, and widely disrupting business.
To address global warming,
U.S. policy should focus on improving energy efficiency and generating
electricity from clean sources that never run out – such as wind, solar,
biomass and geothermal power. State and federal leaders should:
·
Oppose additional subsidies for nuclear power. Nuclear power has already benefited from more than
$140 billion in federal subsidies over the last half-century, from liability
protection to loan guarantees. The federal government should not further
subsidize new nuclear power plants. Any subsidies for low-carbon energy
alternatives must be judged based on their relative short-term and long-term
costs and environmental advantages.
·
Reduce the nation’s emissions deeply enough to
prevent dangerous impacts from global warming, guided by the latest scientific
understanding. The United States
should reduce its emissions of global warming pollution 35 percent below 2005
levels, with the vast majority of emissions coming domestically, and reduce
emissions by more than 80 percent by 2050. Polluters should pay for any right
to use the atmosphere, and any revenues should support investments in clean
energy and benefit consumers. The United States should also work with other
nations to achieve an international agreement to do what it takes to prevent
the worst impacts of global warming.
·
Require the nation to reduce overall electricity
use by 15 percent by 2020 and to obtain at least 25 percent of its electricity
from clean, renewable sources of energy that never run out, such as wind and
solar power, by 2025. States
should also enact similar policies or expand existing targets.
·
Strengthen energy efficiency standards and codes
for appliances and buildings with
the goal of reducing energy consumption in new buildings by 50 percent by 2020
and ensuring that all new buildings use zero net energy by 2030. Advanced
states should go further, aiming for all new buildings to achieve net-zero
energy performance by 2020.
·
Invest in electric grid modernization to maximize our potential to take advantage of a
diverse range of energy efficiency opportunities and clean power sources.
