If nuclear is the answer,
Then unclear is the question.
With the desire to cut CO2 emissions has come a re-appearance of the "nuclear genie", who had been trapped in his lamp for some time.
Alas, the same economics that kept him there is still at work. Does it really make sense to build nuclear reactors to cut emissions when it is far cheaper (in the short and long term) and far easier and quicker to achieve such cuts through energy efficiency improvements?
In the case of the reactors, it costs a lot of money (billions) and in the case of efficiency improvements, the net "cost" is often negative --ie, savings.
Take the example of replacing all the wasteful (less than 10% efficient) incandescent bulbs in homes across America with high efficiency compact fluorescent bulbs (which use 1/3 the energy or less for the same light output), which could
reduce total US CO2 emissions by about 4%.
How many 1000 MW nuclear reactors would have to be built to achieve the same result?
First, a few relevant facts for the US:
- Nuclear reactors supply about 20% of US electricity.
- There are currently 103 nuclear rectors operating in the US, with the average generating capacity being about 1000 MW.
- Fossil fuel electrical generating plants account for about 40% of all US CO2 emissions and produce about 70% of the total electricity.
To reduce emissions by the same 4% that would be accomplished through bulb replacements, enough additional nuclear reactors would have to be brought on line to produce (ie, replace) 1/10th the electricity currently generated by fossil fuel power plants. In other words, nuclear reactors would have to account for an additional 7% of electricity. Since 103 reactors currently account for 20% of the total US electricity, an additional 36 (1000 MW) nuclear reactors would have to be brought on line.
At about $1.5 billion dollars for a 1000 MW nuclear reactor, that would mean an initial capital investment of $54 billion dollars to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by the same amount as the emissions reduction accomplished through the above bulb replacement.
But how much would the complete bulb replacement cost? There are about 100 million homes in the US and if one assumes that each home has about 45 bulbs to be replaced (average number for the US), that means we are talking about replacing about 4.5 billion bulbs. If the cost is about $5
(for 100W incandescent equivalent that uses about 25% of the energy) that means an upfront investment of $22.5 billion dollars -- good for about 5 years (possibly more depending on bulb use).
So, over the life of the reactors (50 years), we would have to replace our bulbs about 10 times. Ten times $22.5 billion is $225 billion.
Now, you might say, "Wow, it costs much more to go the fluorescent route than the nuclear power route to reduce emissions by the same amount."
But that's
not the whole story. Not even close.
First the above $54 billion figure assumes that the utility just breaks even on their initial capital investment* (ie, that the utility simply passes only the capital cost on to the consumer with no additional charge -- a highly artificial assumption, to say the least) .
Second, the $54 billion does not include the cost to decommission the reactors or to dispose of the radioactive waste.**
Third, and here's the real clincher: Bulb replacement actually saves something like $30 in electricity per compact fluorescent bulb over the life of each bulb, and with something like 4.5 billion bulbs in households in the US, that means a complete bulb change will yield a total savings to consumers of something like $135 billion dollars every five years!
Over the 50 year life of a nuclear reactor, the total energy savings to be had from the bulb replacement will be $1.35 trillion!Even if we subtract from this $1.35 trillion the cost of the complete bulb replacement in homes across the US for the total 50 years -- $225 billion (ten complete bulb replacements at a cost of $22.5 billion each time)-- ,
we are still left with a net savings of $1.1 trillion over 50 years.***
So the numbers we really need to compare are the cost of the 36 new nuclear plants required to reduce emissions by 4% (+$54 billion) with the savings (negative cost) from the complete bulb replacement over the 50 year life of the reactors ( -$1.1 trillion).The choice to consumers (you, me) -- "nuclear VS efficiency improvements" -- for reducing emissions is no choice at all. There is simply no contest.
Efficiency wins hands down: At least $54 billion paid (for nuclear reactors) vs $1.1 trillion saved (for bulbs).
If the cost/savings were distributed evenly over the roughly 100 million US households
1. and we chose the "nuclear reactor route" to reduce CO2 emissions by 4%,
each household would pay a total of $540 over 50 years ($11 per year paid out) 2. and we chose the "fluorescent bulb route" to reduce CO2 emissions by 4%,
each household would save a total of about $11,000 over 50 years ($220 per year saved)Given the choice as a consumer, which would you rather do -- pay or save?
You have the choice, you know -- or at least you should have.
The argument against the nuclear option was made here by comparing the cost of reducing emissions through nuclear reactors to the "cost" -- huge savings, actually -- associated with complete bulb replacement. But the same argument can be made by comparing the cost of the nuclear option to the potential savings of other efficiency improvements and alternative, renewable energy sources as well.
It simply makes the most sense to take the tens (if not hundreds) of billions of dollars that could be spent on nuclear reactors worldwide and spend it instead on research, development and implementation of energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy production that will move the world toward not only a carbon-emission-free but a truly sustainable energy economy.The economic argument against "going the nuclear route" to address the CO2 emissions problem stands on its own. We will not even consider the other issues associated with the nuclear option: increased potential for proliferation of nuclear material, increased risk of catastrophic accidents, risk of transporting waste over the nation's highways, problems with containing waste safely for thousands of years, increased number of potential high value terrorist targets, etc.
So, next time someone tells you, without evidence, that "Nuclear power is the answer to the CO2 emissions problem", that "People who support conservation are out of touch with reality" and/or that "Conservation usually hurts the poor", ask them to prove their assertions -- and tell them they need to do a little research.
*****************************************
*The above $54 billion figure assumes that the utility just breaks even on their initial capital investment -- hardly realistic! Say they only made 10% back on their initial capital investment and that they charged nothing to cover operating expenses, that would still mean an additional $5.4 billion. So we are now at $59.4 billion. If the return on the investment were greater, the end cost to the consumer would be more, of course.
**That also does not include the cost to decommission the reactors (estimated at $100 million per 1000MW
reactor) or the cost to dispose of the waste -- estimated at $50 billion for a high level waste repository, shipping the waste, etc (though no one knows for sure because no such repository has yet been built). But assume the $50 billion estimate is correct and that this covers 200 reactors (double the current number). That would be another $250 million per reactor that the public will have to pay for. So we are up to about $72 billion to cut emissions by the same amount as the bulb replacement ($59.4 billion investment plus return + $12.6 billion to dispose of waste and decommission the additional 36 reactors).
***Even if you assume that bulbs cost $10 apiece instead of the $5 that I assumed above, it makes little difference to the above argument for efficiency. That is because the savings to be had from each bulb ($30 or more) over the life of the bulb is much more than the initial cost of the bulb: 3x even if the bulbs were $10 apiece. So it would reduce the net savings from $1.1 trillion to $900 billion -- still a huge savings. This is one of the great things about efficiency improvements. They're like the Energizer Bunny: they keep going and going -- and paying and paying.
