Nuclear Options Costs

by Jim DiPeso, REP vice president for policy and communications, published in The Enterprise, Shoreline, WA, August 26, 2009

The Aug. 12 letter, “Coal, nuclear more efficient choices,” is misinformed about both nuclear and renewable energy.

Fuel rods that have been irradiated inside nuclear power reactors cannot be handled with gloves. They are highly dangerous, emitting gamma radiation that would be lethal to someone exposed at close range without protection.

Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and reused, but the process is not cost-competitive with the once-through fuel cycle used in U.S. commercial reactors. A report published this month by nuclear experts at the universities of Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin concluded that only in the distant future will it likely become clear whether and when it is commercially advantageous to reprocess spent nuclear fuel one or more times before permanent disposal.

France reprocesses because the French nuclear industry is a creature of that country’s government and has relied on subsidies and government guidance for decades. That’s not necessarily wrong, but small-government conservatives in this country who praise the French nuclear program almost never mention it.

Regarding renewable energy, high levels of solar and wind generation could be accommodated by backing them up with gas-fired power plants. Unlike coal and nuclear plants, gas-fired plants can be cycled on and off in short order to keep load and generation in balance. Gas-fired plants can be built far more quickly and with less capital expense than nuclear plants, and gas is far cleaner than coal. Thanks to recent discoveries and new production technology, gas is more abundant in our country than we thought only a few years ago.

A 2008 report published by federal energy laboratories and other experts concluded that wind could supply up to 20 percent of projected U.S. electricity demand in 2030 at only a slightly higher cost than conventional energy resources.

Demand projections are not destiny. McKinsey, a global business-consulting firm, published a report a few weeks ago estimating that energy efficiency measures could reduce U.S. demand by nearly 10 percent of today’s level while yielding nearly $700 billion in net savings.

Making rational energy choices should be guided by facts and independent judgment, not by knee-jerk ideological spin either for or against any particular energy technology.