Nuclear Power’s Role in Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Reducing CO2 Emissions is a Desirable Goal

Regardless of one’s view of the significance or even existence of global warming, few dispute the notion that the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is both desirable and necessary from an environmental stewardship perspective. Recognizing that the generation of electricity from fossil fuels (e.g. natural gas and coal) is a major source in CO2 emissions, electric utilities are left with only a handful of options to reduce their CO2 emissions. These include:

• Increase the efficiency of existing generation and use of electricity,
• Expand the technologies related to renewable energy (e.g. wind, solar, biomass and geothermal),
• Capture CO2 emissions at fossil plants and sequester the carbon, or
• Expand the use of nuclear power.

Nuclear Power Expansion – Cornerstone to a CO2 Emissions Reduction Strategy

Current thinking suggests that all of the options above will be needed to fully address the issues around CO2 emissions. Most experts agree that nuclear power represents one of the more significant ones, particularly given its potential to add large amount of capacity reliability with proven technologies.

The Current State of Nuclear Power

Approximately 20 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. and 17 percent of global production is produced by nuclear power plants. Worldwide use of electricity is projected to increase substantially (in the range of 75 percent) over the next 10 years. However, nuclear energy is likely to increase by only 5 to 10 percent over this same time period. Nuclear power’s relatively small role in satisfying this growth reflects of four traditional, yet still unresolved issues:

• In the absence of a carbon tax (or “cap and trade” provision), nuclear power has higher overall lifetime costs when compared to fossil fueled generation such as natural gas with CCGT or coal.
• There is a perceived issue with respect to nuclear safety, environmental and health effects. Also, concerns regarding the safeguarding of nuclear materials and the facilities from terrorist attacks contribute to this perception.
• The potential that the misuse of nuclear power technology can be used as a precursor to developing a nuclear weapons capability suggests a security risk to the worldwide community.
• Failure to fully implement a final solution to the management of radioactive waste introduces numerous legacy-related issues, particularly regarding the disposal spent fuel and other high level radioactive waste streams.

Nuclear Power Expansion

Although these issues appear substantial, they can and must be overcome. Not only does nuclear power represent a significant source of carbon-free power, it also has the potential of being a large contributor to the overall future electricity supply. If one assumes a 3-fold growth in nuclear generating capacity worldwide over the next 40 years (growth from 366 nuclear reactors now in service to 1000), the amount of carbon equivalent avoided annually would be 800 million tons (gas-fired) or 1,800 tons (coal fired).

There are several factors the will be necessary to ensure the future expansion of nuclear power:

• Choice of Fuel Cycle (i.e. type of fuel, type of reactors and method of disposal of spent fuel): Though the waste disposal (or lack thereof) aspects of “closed” fuel cycles (ability to recycle fuel) are attractive, they are more than offset by issues of cost, proliferation, and fuel cycle safety. Therefore, the “once-through” fuel cycle (discharged fuel sent straight to disposal) is viewed as the optimum solution, particularly given the view that the world-wide supply of uranium is sufficient to maintain 1,000 reactors over the next 50 years.
• Public Attitudes will shift as the industry improves the costs and technology related to nuclear power. Though carbon-free power is a primary benefit, it will not be a major factor in shifting public opinion to favor nuclear power.
• Economics will ultimately drive the success of a nuclear power initiative. To overcome the significantly higher costs (and attendant risks) of construction, cost sharing with the government for the initiating activities (i.e. site banking, NRC certifications of plant designs, and construction/operating plant licenses), recognition of nuclear power as part of the renewable energy portfolio, and government subsidies for “pioneers” in the form of tax credits may be necessary.
• Safety has been a major concern since the accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. Any options around the development of fuel cycle facilities and reactor development will need to emphasize convergence to risk free designs.
• Waste Management should include revitalization of the Yucca Mountain project (storage of high level nuclear waste) and a network of centralized facilities for storing spent fuel should be established worldwide.
• Nonproliferation implies a continued role for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to focus on its safeguards function with greater attention paid to suspected illicit facilities and proliferation risks from fuel enrichment technologies.

Click here for an introduction to nuclear power.