President Obama: The United States Needs Nuclear Energy
January 31, 2011 No CommentsBy: John Foshee
Class of 2011
College of Arts and Science
During the most recent State of the Union, President Obama stated that the United States needed to turn to a wide variety of “clean” energy sources in order to meet the United States energy needs in the 21st century. Nuclear, natural gas, wind, and solar, he said, would all be needed in a future of widely available renewable energy. Unfortunately, the President’s stated goals and his actions do not send the same signals. He is a major proponent of natural gas expansion and has largely ignored nuclear energy as a primary means of powering the electric grid.
There are two primary goals that a new energy policy needs to address, the first being increasing America’s energy independence. Currently, the United States spends billions upon billions every year defending the nation’s oil interests and the growing instability of a region that includes an increasingly belligerent Iran and collapsing regimes like Egypt and Tunisia should make energy independence a national security priority. The second goal a new, effective energy policy needs to address is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. At some point, a country wide carbon tax is likely which will soon make polluting very expensive and the growing consensus among the scientific community is that global warming has already begun. The single greatest way to accomplish these two goals is to turn to nuclear energy. The Economist puts it succinctly, “Nuclear power should be hot. It emits virtually no carbon dioxide. It requires no costly imports of oil from countries that breed terrorists. Even greens don’t hate it as much as they used too. What’s for a politician not to like?”
According to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, there are currently 104 licensed reactors at 65 plant sites in 31 states. These reactors generate about 20% of the nation’s electricity which is greater than oil and hydropower but slightly less than natural gas and far behind coal, which provides about half of America’s electricity and also the bulk of its emissions. Unfortunately many of these nuclear plants are getting up in age and not a single new nuclear power plant has been ordered since 1973. More worryingly, the US Energy Information Administration predicts that nuclear plant outputs will increase by 100 terawatts between now and 2030 which assumes that six new reactors will be built and that existing reactors will be upgraded to produce more electricity. However, because of rising demand, this will actually lower nuclear energy as a share of American electricity production. It is clear that current efforts are totally inadequate.
Put simply the government isn’t doing enough. According to the Congressional Research Service, in a 2009 report prepared for Congress, high construction costs pose the most serious obstacle to nuclear power plant expansion. Constructions costs range as high as $6 billion per reactor, which is significantly higher than for coal firing plants. The private sector has been unwilling to put up the capital for such products in the absence of loan guarantees and the tenuous status of regulatory power over the industry. The strongest effort to date by the US Government to support nuclear energy is the Energy Policy Act of 2005 enacted under President George Bush. Provisions in the bill include tax credits, loan guarantees and insurance against regulatory delays.
Unfortunately the act only provides $18.5 billion in loan guarantees, enough for 2-3 new reactors. Loan guarantees are the most crucial element in securing financing from the private sector, otherwise funding is scarce. In the absence of loan guarantees the private sector is neither willing nor capable of providing the capital necessary to undertake these expensive projects. The bright side for nuclear energy is that operating costs for a nuclear power plant are significantly lower than for any other form of energy generating technique. So in summary, the up-front costs are high but once built it takes very little to keep the plant running and can turn very profitable for the operating entity.
The Obama Administration has been less supportive of nuclear energy than the Bush Administration and seems to favor the expansion of natural gas. In my eyes, this is merely switching from one poison to a slightly lesser poison. According to an MIT study in 2003, to significantly reduce climate chance, world nuclear capacity would have to roughly triple by 2050 with the United States alone adding 200 or more new reactors. While most advocate exploring new alternative energy strategies and we should definitely endeavor to do that, they simply don’t exist on the scale necessary to impact worldwide energy consumption. Experts estimate that a combination of wind, hydroelectric, solar, geothermal, and biomass combined could only account for roughly 15-20% of energy production if leveraged at near maximum capacity. Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, a high profile environmental group, said in early 2005, “Nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse gas emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand.” The last part about satisfying global demand is very important because as nice as it would be if the world consumed less energy, it is highly unlikely. Nuclear energy is the only clean energy source that can power the world. To accomplish the two goals of US energy independence and reduction of emissions, nuclear energy is clearly the best option.
I would advocate for a bill that appropriates roughly $1.5 trillion dollars in loan guarantees over the next 35 years (roughly $43 billion a year) to revamp the energy industry. It is especially important that we take action immediately as many coal powered plants that were built in the 1950’s and 60’s are going to be decommissioned soon and a decision will have to be made on how to replace that lost production. In my view, nuclear energy is the only practical means of producing the energy necessary to satisfy the dual goals of making the United States energy independent and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Barring the discovery of a miracle means of producing cheap electricity that doesn’t hurt the environment, it is imperative that the US turn to nuclear energy in the 21st century to solve its future energy needs. Coal and natural gas are finite and hurt the environment. A carbon tax is likely for the future and US business could use the head start to begin building reactors for when that day comes. We need to lead the world in the expansion of nuclear energy and encourage other industrial giants like China, India, and Brazil to do the same. If those countries see that it is indeed possible to power a large power grid using primarily nuclear energy, they will know that coal and oil are not their only options.
It may sound cliché, but out children and grandchildren are counting on us to make the right decision and give them a clean Earth and a country that doesn’t depend on foreign whims to power their homes. We have the power to start right now and lead the world, if we wait, the US will be playing catch up for the rest of the 21st century.
Featured, Online Exclusive