|
While we have been watching the antics of our pollies on the CPRS bill, a similar theatre is unfolding in the United States. While they probably would not bet even money on it, a 28-November Editorial in the Los Angeles Times notes that the bi-partisan effort by the Senators John Kerry (Democrat-Mass) and Lindsey Graham (Republican - South Carolina) offers the only hope for the US Senate passing the cap-and-trade bill this year. Nevertheless, the Editorial laments the fact that Kerry and Graham had to amend the draft by adding billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other subsidies for nuclear power, to increase its appeal to the conservative senators.
IMHO, while the nuclear seems to be offering a plausible zero-emission alternative at the first glance, its cost is of concern. The Los Angles Times Editorial reiterates this concern with probably even more emphasis than I would have placed. I quote from the Editorial: "Nuclear energy is not a reasonable solution because plants take too long to build and cost far too much. Actually, it's been so long since one has been built in this country that no engineering firm will even provide an estimate on the cost...The last time there was a wave of nuclear construction in the United States, it took an average of nine years to build a plant, meaning we wouldn't see the first one until at least 2018 -- too late to play any significant role in meeting the Senate climate bill's goal of cutting emissions 20% by 2020."
And the Editorial offers the geothermal energy as the principal and the superior alternative to nuclear: "The nation's fleet of 104 nuclear plants supplies nearly 20% of our electricity. Building 100 more, as nuclear proponents have proposed, would supply a vast amount of carbon-free energy, and do so 24 hours a day without interruption. But then, so would geothermal power plants. Electricity can be generated by pumping water into hot, permeable rocks deep underground, and as the technology improves, the potential for geothermal is enormous. According to an MIT study, in fact, geothermal plants could eventually supply as much power as the nation currently gets from its nuclear reactors -- without producing any radioactive waste." And finally: "Nuclear power is a failed experiment of the past, not an answer for the future. Every dollar invested in it is a dollar misdirected, one that should have gone to more efficient, cheaper and cleaner power sources."
My PhD (years and years ago) was on simulation and control heat transfer and flow instabilities in nuclear reactor steam generators. Although I have migrated to other areas since then, I have always maintained an interest in nuclear electricity. However, I think it is foolish to think that nuclear energy will be a cheap alternative. At the moment, with construction periods for new plants projected as somewhere between 7 and 20 years, it is probably the most expensive alternative because of the financing costs. Whether anything can be done to fast-track a nuclear project, while ensuring public safety is not compromised remains to be seen.
|
The Nuclear Plants Around the World from the INSCDB Web Site
|