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 21 of the full report 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.
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.
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.
