Nuclear Power and Climate Change:

What’s (Not) To Like?

Rusty Russell, J.D., AICP Department of Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning (UEP)

Tufts University

Environmental Studies Program Lunch and Learn Thursday, October 13, 2011

The Questions

Is nuclear power needed for the mitigation of climate destabilization?

What are the alternatives and how do they compare to nuclear?

What is the likely path of nukes globally?

What are the operant risks/benefits?

What are the known unknowns?

What are the longer-term social issues?

The Quiz

I, personally, think that nuclear power ought to be: _________________________.

I recommend as my top priority that the following policy be adopted by the government of the United States:

Nukes in U.S. (our backyard)

Timeline:

1951: small breeder reactor built

1953: first U.S. Navy nuclear sub (Therman)

1957: first U.S. commercial reactor: Shippingport, PA (60 MW)

Now: 104 nukes operating in U.S.

• 66%: pressurized water

• 34%: boiling water

But:

124 nuclear units cancelled

28 nuclear units permanently shut down

Date last reactor actually built was ordered: October 1973

Most recent new reactor operational: May 1996 (Watts Bar 1, TN)

Wind = 2.3%

Nukes in the World

Total operating nukes: ~ 440

• 7% of world primary energy

• 17% of world electricity generation

• 14% of world electricity capacity

Nuclear energy nations: 31

National concentrations:

• U.S., France, Japan = 57% of total

• Affluent nations = 85% of total

• Expansion = mostly in Asia (China, India, South Korea)

Growth:

• 1970: ~ 20 GW

• 2007: ~ 370 GW

• 2020: ~ 500 GW (?)

Nation nuclear capacity (MW) % nuclear France 63,236 75.2% Ukraine 13,168 48.6% South Korea (ROK) 18,716 31.1% Japan 47,348 28.9% Germany 20,339 26.1% United Kingdom 10,962 17.9% Russia 23,084 17.8% Canada 12,679 14.8% United States 101,229 20.2% China 10,234 1.9% World Nuclear Association, 2010

National Dependency: Nuclear Capacity

Socolow and Pacala, 2006

If 80% of world electricity was nuclear, like France, then this 7 Gt would be cut in half, to 3.5 Gt

America’s Secret Nuclear Program

The Means:

1. License extension (20 years) 2. Higher capacity factor 3. Uprating

The Math:

1. 80 units (@ 800 MW) X .5 = 30+ units 2. 60% 90% + = 40 units 3. 10% higher MW = 2 units

The Result:

75 new nukes (i.e., 3/4 of current U.S. inventory)

Which Future?

Nuclear

Cost

Operational risk

Terrorism

Waste

Available now, feasible, new designs, high energy density, Asia will do it anyway

Non-Nuclear

Feasibility

Reliability

Timing

Not all is GHG-free

Land use

Less risk, lower cost, no waste, distributed benefits

Sources Keystone Center, Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding

(Keystone, Colo.: The Keystone Center for Science and Public Policy, 2007), at: www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NJFF6_12_2007(1).pdf.

Richter, Burton, Beyond Smoke and Mirrors; Climate Change and Energy in the 21st Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010).

Smil, Vaclav, Energy Myths and Realities: Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 2010).

Socolow, Robert H. and Stephen W. Pacala, “A Plan to Keep Carbon in Check,” Scientific American, September 2006, pp. 50-57.