The Pew Research Center last week reported that if current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005. How are we going to meet the energy needs of 438 million people, while also reducing carbon emissions by up to 80 percent? Good question.
Would you want your dream home built next to a nuclear power plant? While you might expect most Americans to say "no," Patrick Moore, founding member of Greenpeace and co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy (CASEnergy) Coalition, claims that most Americans wouldn't really mind. Moore cites a national survey conducted by Bisconti Research Inc. with Quest Global Research Group that found 76 percent of Americans living in close proximity to nuclear power plants are willing to see a new reactor built near them.
On February 26, 2008, the Progressive Policy Institute held a forum to discuss the future of nuclear energy and its impact on climate change. The discussion included Moore, Gwyneth Cavens, author of Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy, Thomas B. Cochran, director of the Nuclear Program at the National Resources Defense Council, and Christopher Flavin, President of Worldwatch. The discussion identified and examined some of the critical issues concerning man-made climate change and the potential of nuclear power as part of the solution.
Recent research by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, in collaboration with the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the EU in Ispra, showed that global emissions of the six Kyoto greenhouse gases increased by 75% between 1970 and 2004 to about 45,000 megaton CO2-equivalents. Their research shows:
Since 2006, China's CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use and industrial processes (cement production) have been larger than the emissions of the USA. With approximately 8% higher emissions than those of the USA, China now tops the list of CO2 emitting countries. In 2005, the CO2 emissions of China were still 2% below those of the USA. The EU-15, with a volume of emissions about half of that of China, occupies the third position, followed by Russia, India and Japan.
Meanwhile, fears of global warming haven't slowed demand for energy in the United States; in fact, experts project an increase in the US of 1.1 percent each year through 2030. With growing oil prices and possibly more abundant coal reserves than in any other single country, coal energy would be an obvious alternative to oil in the U.S. But some environmentalists argue that some of the 150 new coal-fired plants now proposed should be replaced by cleaner and more efficient nuclear plants.
At Tuesday's forum, Moore argued that nuclear power already provides 20 percent of the United States' electricity, and with demands for electricity expected to increase 30 percent nationally by 2030, the U.S. needs more nuclear energy if it wants to keep up with its energy needs. Alternative renewable energy sources are important, but can only take us so far--wind and solar can be unreliable and the possible uses for geothermal energy are limited. Moore noted that the other major sources of emission-free electricity are hydroelectric plants, which provide 6.6 percent of our nation's electricity; wind energy, which accounts for 0.4 percent; and solar energy, which accounts for 0.01 percent. Moore also downplayed fears that nuclear energy plants' radiation poses a safety hazard by noting that smoking a pack of cigarettes a day has been shown to be 400 times more risky than living within close proximity to a nuclear power plant.
Cavens cited CO2 emissions and their impact on the environment. One of Cavens' main concerns was the impact of carbon emissions on the chemistry of the ocean. When CO2 gas dissolves in the ocean it makes carbonic acid which can damage coral reefs corrode shellfish shells, disrupt coral formation, and interfere with oxygen supply.
Cavens also argued that France's accelerated increase of nuclear power capacity since 1974 should serve as a model for other countries seeking to reduce emissions and gain energy independence. According to the World Nuclear Association:
France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe. It also has an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro. France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to it's very low cost of generation and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this. France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
Thomas B. Cochran talked about the pros and cons of turning to nuclear plants to decrease the impact of man-made climate change. On one hand, he noted that nuclear energy is a reliable generator of electricity, a low-carbon generator, and a reliable and efficient source of fuel. On the other hand, the downsides of nuclear energy include the high cost of new plants, concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation (from uranium enrichment and reprocessing), reactor safety issues, problems associated with spent fuel and nuclear waste disposal, health and environmental issues (like those associated with uranium mining and milling), and the low health impact from routine plant emissions.
The main issue Cochran stressed was that the issue is not whether nuclear is preferable to coal, but rather whether the federal government should subsidize new nuclear power plants. Cochran believes that the government should focus on emissions cap or an emissions tax rather than subsidies for new plants. Cochran argued this point in an article presented at the 2004 Western Governors' Association North American Energy Summit:
Assuming you believe in economic efficiency and a free market, you should be advocating a reduction in subsidies to energy companies for production of electricity by nuclear and fossil-fueled plants. Moreover, to level the playing field and allow all new innovations to compete, you should be advocating internalizing the environmental costs of these technologies. Therefore, you should support a cap on CO2 emissions to limit global warming or accomplish the same by placing a tax on carbon emissions.
Flavin believes that a diverse mix of energy, solar, hydro, coal, and nuclear sources will serve us best in the future. He argues that the financial cost of building and operating a nuclear plant cannot profitably be recouped by selling the electricity. Flavin says the push for nuclear power must not be exaggerated and must allow for the growth of other technology. Flavin expects renewable power to eventually surpass nuclear power, noting China's growing reliance on wind power, and India's extensive use of solar power.
U.S. population growth fosters manufacturing and need for energy. As America's population steadily increases so will its need for more viable sources of energy. It is clear that there is no perfect source of energy, but which one is best suited to meet the demand of an estimated 438 million Americans in 2050?
