I already commented on this in the breathroughgen blog. Again, nice to see BTI tackling the tougher issues.

With all due respect, it is very unfortunate that the Breakthrough Institute is propagating these industry-friendly myths about nuclear power.

First, nuclear power is not cost-competitive even with huge government loan guarantees and liability shields costing taxpayers billions of dollars. Investors aren't building new plants because the ballooning construction costs have made nukes our most expensive electricity option. Please read the Rocky Mountain Institute's the Nuclear Illusion (pdf) for a detailed and rigorous analysis of the life cycle costs of nuclear power compared to other conventional and alternative sources.

Second, we do not need nukes to beat global warming. Please read Arjun Makhijani's Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free, which is a thorough analysis of how we could de-carbonize the U.S. energy supply by about 2040 or 2050, with great attention given to cost factors. Makhijani is a nuclear physicist, not opposed to nuclear power in principle, but for a whole host of reasons nuclear does not make the cut.

Third, your dismissal of the public's "fear" as uninformed and your off-handed treatment of proliferation issues is really ill-conceived. For nukes to make a difference in global warming we'd have to start adding new reactors at roughly the pace of one a week for the next couple of years, and we'd have to do it not only in the technologically advanced "stable" countries but all over the world. The risks of proliferation, missing fissile material, and waste hazards multiply exponentially. Presumably the U.S. taxpayer will once again be asked to bear all financial liability for these risks, because the industry itself certainly won't.

Thanks for your response, Phil. To go nuclear or not is an ongoing, heated debate, and I appreciate the valid points you make.

From what I've read, the cost of nuclear is up for debate: EPRI says 6.5 cents/kWh (according to a June 2008 Economist), the RMI piece cites estimates between 7.7 and 11.1 cents/kWH, a 2007 Keystone places the (levelized) cost at 8-11 cents. Of course, the price at consumer is likely to be higher than levelized estimates (as Lovins points out).

Lovins also acknowledges that "The dominant cause [of rising nuclear costs] is severe manufacturing bottlenecks and scarcities of critical engineering, construction, and management sills that have decayed during the industry's long order lull." Components also have to be imported from overseas, and the weak US dollar drives up costs as well. Note that the high cost of building a power plant could be significantly reduced by switching from a "craft-based" approach (where each plant is individually constructed) to a "manufacturing" approach where components are mass-made in factories and put together onsite. Of course, a much larger demand for plants in the first place is necessary for this to make sense--for nuclear to become cost-competitive, yes, it does mean that we need a thriving nuclear industry.

It's true that nuclear is not yet cost-competitive with either oil/coal electricity sources, or alternatives such as renewables or efficiency measures. But the discussion of whether or not we "have all the technology we need," what needs to be deployed, what can (or should) be left out of the global warming/carbon independence solution, etc. is ongoing. Check out the Breakthrough Institute's debate with Joe Romm for reference. Depending on whether you abide by Socolow and Pacala's "seven wedges" to solve climate change, or Marty Hoffert's eighteen, nuclear seems more or less inevitable.

Nuclear proliferation under the mask of domestic electricity production is a very valid concern, and I'm not sure how to reconcile it. Transitioning to a new energy era is clearly an international endeavor, but it's hard to say where nuclear can best play a role.

I read Carbon Free and Nuclear Free. Their fallback plan if they can't bridge the technology gap for renewables is to use coal with carbon sequestration. Personally I believe that sequestration should be on the table, but all the major risk studies show coal more dangerous than nuclear.

As for RMI, their reports show that the micropower fuel is natural gas, which is not renewable.

Yes, nuclear is not perfect, but there is no zero risk, zero carbon, and 24/7 technology that can single-handedly replace fossil fuels in power generation. We need to look at nuclear without ANY myths (pro- or anti-).

Folks interested in a clear eyed review of RMI and the Lovins' ability to deliver might find this useful:

Smil, V. 2000. Rocky Mountain visions: A review essay. Population and Development Review 26: 163-176.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~vsmil/publications_pdf.html

Cutting Greenhouse gas is more important than cost differences with coal. We can tax economies which use dirty fuel to gain competitive advantage. Common guys, we are heade for a global population of 12 billion and the aggregate ramifications are huge. -w

Helen -

With regard to the cost issue, China is already building plants using more modular construction such as AP-1000. Also India is looking at vessel forging manufacture [http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C_Indian_manufacturer_looks_outwards_1607083.html]. The bottlenecks may be relieved sooner than many think...

Robert

Here are some thoughts on nuclear energy you left out of your discussion.

Not only are nuclear reactors expensive to build, but they are expensive to decommission as well. No one really know what it will really cost or what we will do with the radioactive debris should we decide to dismantle aging power plants. Entombment in concrete is the present obvious answer. Has anyone calculated the CO2 contribution of mixing that much concrete?

Nuclear power is highly subsidized and this must be added to the equation when comparing relative costs of power generation. Lets try incentivizing renewable energy first before we capitulate on nuclear energy because we think we have no other alternatives.

Likewise, do we really trust our civilization's ability to store and guard some of the most dangerous substances on the planet for a period longer than currently recorded time? History has amply demonstrated that systems of government are fragile and impermanent. Nuclear waste storage must be the opposite.

And nowhere in your analysis do you mention the radioactive tailings that poison uranium miners and the residents of nearby mines. There are serious health issues involved in uranium production and undisclosed costs related to those issues.

Several nuclear reactors around the world have already been decommissioned. It is not THAT difficult. As for uranium mining, we mine uranium differently than we did in the 50' and 60's. Mining is never clean, but the same issues are faced getting heavy metals for solar cells as well (e.g., cadmium).

And if I had a nickel every time I hear about nuclear waste. The smaller volumes mean that the wastes are EASIER to manage than those from fossil fuels. We know from such events as the Oklo phenomenon that these wastes can be isolated for eons.

Yes nuclear is controversial and expensive, but it is no less safe (most experts say it's safer) than our current energy infrastructure.

I think you are hearing about the wastes because people are justly concerned about them. By the way, how long is an eon, and will the governments charged with isolating them still be around for eons? Plutonium is poisonous in infinitesimal amounts.

I suggest that our current energy infrastructure is as much a curse as a blessing. While expedient, our goal should not be to perpetuate the past approach. The downsides are clearer now. We need to work for renewable and sustainable solutions independent of fossil fuels. My vote, for transition purposes, would be to use natural gas rather than nuclear. We have an ample domestic supply and increasing production. As the gas runs low we will hopefully have developed mature sustainable solutions.

In the mean time our money will be best spent on increased efficiencies in energy use rather than investments in massively expensive nuclear plants. How many proposed power plants could be tabled if we just matched Europe in energy consumption per capita?

At Oklo, the plutonium was isolated for over 1.8 billion years (and that was with water entering the deposit). I agree that plutonium is not a breakfast food, but it is no more toxic than many compounds used in industry. I think that folks are more worried about radioactivty because they are less familiar with it. Gasolene is toxic, explosive, and carcinogenic, yet folks don't worry about it because they use it everyday.

According to the ExternE study, nuclear has about the CO2 release of wind (i.e., much less than natural gas). Still, both fuels will likely be part of the transition to a lower carbon economy.