Some Friendly Economics For The Nuclear Energy Booster Club
I would like to begin this brief exposition with a bizarre fairy tale that was confected by two well known energy experts, Amory Lovins and Joseph Romm, and published in Foreign Affairs (1992-93), which is the prestigious journal of the (United States) Council on Foreign Relations. It goes like this:
"For example, the Swedish State Power Board found that doubling electric efficiency, switching generators to natural gas and biomass fuels and relying upon the cleanest power plants would support a 54 per cent increase in real GNP from l987 to 2010 - while phasing out all nuclear power. Additionally, the heat and power sector's carbon dioxide output would fall by one-third, and the costs of electrical services by nearly $1 billion per year. Sweden is already among the world's most energy-efficient countries, even though it is cold, cloudy and heavily industrialized. Other countries should be able to do better.
I called that statement completely wrong the first time I saw it, while in my new energy economics textbook (2007) I suggest that it and similar contributions are misleading bunkum. For example, there are a number of questions that must be answered in detail before biomass can unambiguously be classified a large- scale fuel of choice for the near or distant future. As for renewables such as solar and wind, and probably hydrogen, they will undoubtedly increase in quality and quantity, but it will not be at the expense of nuclear.
As David Schlageter pointed out in the important forum EnergyPulse (2008), "Renewable energy sources only supplement the electric grid with intermittent power that rarely matches the daily electrical demand." He continues by saying that "In order for an electric system to remain stable, it needs large generators running 24/7 to create voltage stability. Wind and solar generation are not on-line when needed to meet energy demand, and therefore to help decrease system losses." In the promised land of wind energy, Denmark, voltage stability is attained by drawing on the energy resources of Sweden and Germany (and perhaps Norway). The Danes pay for the imported electricity, but not for the stability.
Every member of the nuclear booster club, to include myself, should make it his or her business to memorize the quotations in the previous paragraph, because they provide an excellent contradiction to the tiresome delusion that it is economically feasible to largely supplant nuclear energy with 'renewables'. They also suggest why - with electric demand on the verge of increasing faster than supply in many parts of the world - more nuclear capacity is now scheduled for introduction than at any time during the past 3 decades.
Deeper Meanings
For those readers who have been exposed to secondary school algebra, the above reference to things like voltage stability is superfluous. Sweden and Norway produce, on the average, the lowest cost electricity in the world. Norway, however, generates almost all its electricity with hydro, which is generally recognized as the lowest-cost power source, while Swedish electricity is produced in almost equal amounts by hydro and nuclear. As I show in a forthcoming paper (2008), with this as a background, elementary algebra indicates that the unit cost of Swedish nuclear power is equal to the unit cost of Norwegian (and Swedish) hydro. This is not a welcome conclusion for many pseudo-scholars.
But what about nuclear waste, which is repeatedly portrayed as a malicious and unavoidable cost of nuclear based electricity because, ostensibly, it will have to be locked up for hundreds of thousands of years? An argument that is sometimes presented however is that the costbenefit of no carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions from nuclear facilities. For instance, the International Energy Agency has calculated that for France - the country with the largest production of nuclear energy (as a per cent of the total output of electric power) - the average person is responsible for 6.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide, which e.g. is one-third of the U.S. average. of disposing of nuclear waste is balanced by the
The cost-benefit trade-off mentioned just above is probably worth remembering, however I prefer for students (and anybody else) to inform me that France intends to treat its 'waste' as a potential fuel, and to explain why. (A similar strategy has been proposed in the UK by their energy minister.) For that reason a law has been passed in France stipulating that toxic waste is to be stored in such a way that it can be comparatively easily accessed and recycled if, at some point in the future, "new" technologies appear which will allow it to be used as a satisfactory input in the nuclear fuel cycle.
The latter provision is, as the reader might guess, partially intended to appease or possibly bewilder nuclear sceptics, because technology is already available for recycling this 'd