Does Nuclear Power Fit into a Green Energy Future?
A nuclear power plant in Germany. (image: Aerial Photography via flickr.com)
To some, nuclear power is the answer to our energy needs. To others, nuclear power is a giant no-no.
The topic of the role nuclear could play in the nation’s energy debate was discussed in an article published Tuesday on Reason.com. Here’s the run-down of what each side of the issue says:
• People opposed to nuclear power cite safety as a primary concern. A nuclear meltdown, similar to what happened in Chernobyl, would be disastrous. However, nuclear energy supporters boast that not one American has ever died from radiation released from a nuclear power plant, and that it has been years since any major incidents have occurred at any of the world’s 443 nuclear plants.
• Critics say that nuclear waste is dangerous and that it could be turned into a weapon of mass destruction. In addition, no permanent space to store nuclear waste currently exists. But supporters argue that a way to store nuclear energy does not have to be permanent; instead, finding a place to store waste for a few hundred years would be more efficient. And a nuclear “fuel bank” where countries could rent their fuel and return it for reprocessing would prevent any nefarious individuals or nations from taking this waste and turning it into a weapon.
• Proponents say that nuclear power does not produce any amount of greenhouse gasses while running on a relatively small parcel of land; in order to run efficiently, wind and solar farms can take up hundreds of square miles worth of space. Opponents note that nuclear power is extremely costly; estimates say that new plants cost billions of dollars to construct, and that the only way this could be paid for is with government subsidies.
Nuclear power is a topic that has faded from public discourse over the past few decades; no new plants have been built since the Three Mile Island incident in the late 1970s and no plans to build a new reactor have come close to being finalized.
But, as Congress moves closer to passing climate control legislation, nuclear energy has emerged as a major issue. Many Republicans have supported an expansion of nuclear energy as a way to decrease the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels. Democrats have, for the most part, favored renewable energy sources like wind and solar over nuclear power, but Leading Democrats have dangled support of nuclear energy in an effort to entice Republican support for climate control legislation.
Currently, nuclear power supplies about 20% of the nation’s electricity, a staggering total when one considers that there are only about 100 nuclear power plants dotted around the country. More nuclear plants, and renovations to the aging fleet of reactors that already exist, could satisfy an even larger percentage of America’s electrical needs. And this, in turn, could reduce the demand for oil, which could reduce the price of oil, which could cut the costs of heating oil.
Greg - interesting analysis. I concur with the supply-demand equation that you point out; significantly increased use of nuclear energy would filter down into a reduced use of competitive fuel sources like oil, natural gas and coal. That reduction in demand could lead to significantly lower prices. Reduced sales volume and reduced overall price level would have a major effect on the total revenues collected by major fuel extractors.
How would this scenario affect heating oil dealers? Would they benefit because they are able to purchase their oil at lower prices and perhaps increase their margins?
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Thanks for reading, Rod. I think your perception is correct–as new energy sources (like nuclear power and renewable sources) gradually reduce demand for crude oil and end products like diesel and heating oil, retailers like heating oil dealers will see more stable and slowly declining prices. This will allow dealers to budget more efficiently while they pay lower wholesale prices for their product, and would result in dealers passing at least some of the savings on the consumers in the form of lower retail prices. The rest of the cost savings would likely translate into higher profit margins.