The American Nuclear Society just wrapped up its annual meeting in Washington, D.C. Since the theme was how nuclear energy is essential to address climate change, it was exciting that the meeting kicked off with a Nuclear Summit at the White House on Friday that highlighted that issue.
In most international climate talks over the last 25 years, the United States has downplayed the fact that most of our low-carbon electricity generation is from nuclear power. You never hear that in most media discussions. But now the White House is talking nuclear up.
Kirsten Cutler, the Obama administration’s assistant director for nuclear energy and nonproliferation, said, “[This Nuclear Summit] provided valuable insights on why maintaining U.S. leadership in nuclear energy is important for supporting economic competitiveness and jobs creation, enhancing international nuclear safety, security standards and nonproliferation controls, and enabling the next generation of nuclear scientists, engineers, and technology developers to build the future of nuclear energy.”
Given that the global nuclear power industry is set to expend over $1.5 trillion in the next 20 years, it is certainly important that the United States maintains itself as a leader in this field. We have the largest, safest and the most effective nuclear program in the world.
The American Nuclear Society meeting covered many topics, but the pressing issue of climate change was front and center. At the All Energy Forum, a panel discussed what our future energy mix should be in order to combat global warming (full disclosure – yours truly was session chair).
The discussion started off with a talk by Dr. Richard Somerville on climate change. A Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps and a theoretical meteorologist, Somerville was a lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
Somerville pulled no punches and stated that, as a world, we are just not doing enough, quickly enough, to address this issue (see figure, bit busy but worth the read; see also http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com). The longer we wait, the more difficult it will be to keep global warming to a mere 2°C (3.6°F).
In fact, at the rate we are not acting, we will see a 7°C (12°F) rise in global temperatures this century which will drastically lower crop yields and change weather patterns to our detriment. Just this week, the World Bank released a report saying that over a hundred million climate exiles will be generated by global warming, numbers that dwarf the present Syrian crisis.
Top: Emissions pathways we can choose to give just a 67% chance of limiting global warming to 2°C... [+]
Somerville agrees that we will not be able to address global warming without a significant increase in nuclear power.
As the United States prepares for the next United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP21) in Paris in December, the Administration understands how important nuclear energy is in addressing the twin dilemmas facing humanity:
- Energy Poverty: the only way to eradicate global poverty, and its evil stepchildren war and terrorism, is to bring at least 3,000 kWhs per year to everyone on Earth, necessitating an additional 15 trillion kWhs of electricity each year to power the 9 billion people who will live on Earth in about 2040. This almost doubles the amount we produce now, and requires capital investments of well over $5 trillion, no matter what energy mix we choose.
- Climate Change: the way we have traditionally supplied that much energy is through fossil fuels, particularly coal, and that has put the planetary ecosystem at risk. Any serious plan to address global warming must include a lot of nuclear as well as hydro and other renewables in order to displace the need for coal and oil. Natural gas cannot do this alone.
As American Nuclear Society President Dr. Gene Grecheck pointed out, “It is not ethical to keep four billion people in poverty in the name of environmental protection. We have the technology to do both. And that includes nuclear power.”
Find out what’s happened to the oil industry—and where it’s headed next.
The figure below shows what the Administration considers an ideal energy mix for 2030, the type of mix that the Clean Power Plan is supposed to encourage. Notice that nuclear energy is still almost 20% of our total mix, just what it’s been for decades.
A Nuclear Summit held at the White House on Friday highlighted EPA’s expectations that nuclear power... [+]
There will be some new nuclear power plants built between now and 2030, a combination of large plants and some small modular reactors, but most of this nuclear capacity will still be from about 80 power plants that operate today. These plants have been relicensed for another 20 years, bringing their total operating life up to 60 years. Many of these will be relicensed again for another 20 years, totaling an 80-year life, a process that has already begun for some reactors.
Similar to our large hydroelectric dams like Grand Coulee and Hoover, it is a testament to our engineering skills that so many reactors can safely operate for this length of time. But if we don’t want to fail in our commitment to a low-carbon future, then we do need to prepare for the next generation of nuclear plants to replace all of these existing ones.
And that brings us to the White House Nuclear Summit, where the Obama Administration announced actions to help sustain and finance nuclear energy, including:
- $900 million in the Department of Energy’s 2016 budget to support commercial nuclear energy
- Supplement DOE's existing $12.5 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear energy projects
- Launch the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN), coordinated by the Idaho National Laboratory, to provide outside researchers access to nuclear energy-related capabilities and expertise within the DOE complex. This is needed to bring advanced nuclear reactor designs to commercialization, at the same time ensuring the continued safe, reliable, and economic operation of the existing nuclear fleet
- Make $2 million available in the form of vouchers to small businesses entrepreneur-led start-ups for assistance in obtaining nuclear know-how from our National Lab system
- Provide support to small modular reactor licensing, simulation and control room development for light-water reactors
Nuclear Energy Institute President Marvin Fertel appreciated the Administration's decision to hold the nuclear summit ahead of upcoming international climate change talks in Paris. “In the United States, nuclear energy is by far the largest source of zero-carbon power, generating 63% of the electricity from emission-free sources…any credible, sustainable program to reduce carbon emissions must preserve existing reactors, encourage license renewal and encourage the construction of new nuclear energy facilities.”
But Janet McCabe, EPA's top air official, was cautious, saying "The Clean Power Plan is not all-powerful,” and is not a nuclear rescue plan.
McCabe implored the nuclear industry to work out plans with their states. "We can't, on our own through this policy, change the trajectory for power plants that are affected by many, many factors," she said, referring to nuclear plants that are closing due to bizarre short-term economic forces. If a nuclear plant closes down, like several recent ones, that will represent “significant zero-carbon generation that a state will have to make up,” she added.
Let’s hope Vermont, New York, Wisconsin and Massachusetts were listening.
