Does nuclear power's potential resurgence pose a threat to
renewable energy development, or can the two dovetail in a larger
energy mix?
The coming year could mark a turning point in the
fortunes of nuclear power. Does nuclear power's potential resurgence
pose a threat to renewable energy development, or can the two dovetail
in a larger energy mix?
As renewable energy enjoys remarkable expansion
worldwide, with resources like solar photovoltaics and wind energy
expected to continue their double-digit growth of recent years, the
industry finds itself shadowed by the looming revival of an energy
source that until recently seemed destined for the scrap heap: nuclear
power.
Spurred by the Bush administration, which successfully
fought for provisions in the US 2005 Energy Policy Act providing
billions of dollars in assistance for the nuclear industry, America is
poised to resume large-scale research and development on nuclear
energy _ and perhaps construction of new US nuclear plants for the
first time in nearly 30 years.
In the UK, the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair
is set to choose this year whether to keep the current moratorium on
nuclear power plant construction or to begin building new plants.
The prime minister, under heavy political pressure
from UK unions, utilities and manufacturers, is reported to be leaning
strongly toward reviving the nuclear option.
Concerns about uncertain supplies of oil and natural
gas from foreign countries have colored the UK energy controversy.
Blair's decision to revive discussions about new construction of
nuclear plants has re-ignited debate about security of supply in the
UK, according to a December 2005 report from Standard & Poor's.
S&P, which like RER publisher Platts is owned by the
McGraw-Hill Companies, found that the prime minister's decision
followed high spot gas prices of up to 170 pence per therm in
November, along with "concerns about liquefied natural gas supplies
being diverted from the UK to other markets and uncertainty over the
long-term impact of emissions regulations." Concerns about energy
supplies are fueling debate in other industrial nations, such as
Germany.
Nuclear energy proponents offer many of the same
arguments put forth by renewables advocates. Nuclear plants, they say,
offer clean reliable and home-grown power sources. Indeed, UK Science
and Innovation Minister Lord Sainsbury was quoted in the October 31,
2005 The Times of London as saying that nuclear power "clearly" is a
renewable resource, a position put forth by President Bush and other
US nuclear power proponents.
US Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, speaking in Sydney,
Australia last week at a climate change meeting of major Asian powers
(see story page 1), lumped together renewables, nuclear power and
clean coal technology as examples of what he called the
administration's commitment to R&D on climate change.
Critics, lead by international campaigner Greenpeace,
counter that, far from being renewable, nuclear power depends on
uranium ore that could be largely depleted worldwide by mid-century.
Opponents also charge that nuclear reactors can hardly be considered
clean when they generate the deadly substance plutonium, which will
last for millennia even if effective storage facilities can be built.
Further, even if planning started tomorrow for
building nuclear plants, critics say, they would not be available for
15 years or more.
>Still, some analysts see nuclear power's revival as
inevitable. "Renewable energy won't be enough," Collette Lewiner,
global leader for the energy, utility and chemicals sector at
Capgemini, told RER. "I don't think you'll see the landscape covered
with windmills. They're contributing, but not enough."
david_jones@platts.com
Created: 1/19/2006
|
Of course nuclear has to be in there, at least in the next few generations, until effective substitutes can be developed--although nuclear is becoming an increasingly sound technology will only continue to improve. Wind power and solar power--for some reason they have been "just around the corner" for the last 30 years, since I started studying environmental science in college. They may someday come into their own as viable, reliable energy resources, as may biofuels, geothermal and others. The problem is, we have arrived at the point where we need to act now, not later.
As for Germany's "successful" use of wind power, perhaps you'd be interested in the comments of a German scientist I spoke with at a conference last year. He told me that because of the geographical relationship of Germany to the large land mass (mainly Russia) to the east, his country gets wind in the summer but virtually none in the winter. That means the windmills aren't working when the people need heat. Altogether wind supplies about 4 percent of his country's energy, he said. All renewables combined provide a grand 10 percent, including hydropower.
A giant push to bring more windmills on line is underway in Germany. At the time of our conversation, about 17,000 turbines had been erected, covering an area about half the size of Arizona. He talked also about the disruptive effect of the turbines on the visual landscape, which Germans had preserved from development through strict zoning for hundreds of years. Are these things not worth our consideration when we weigh our energy alternatives?
These are complex questions that deserve thoughtful, open-minded attention, not dogma. The tools we have for producing energy may not be perfect but I think we must use them as best we can while working to improve them for the challenges we face now.
Best,
Nancy E. Roth
Science writer