The US Should Subsidize Nuclear Power

NP = nuclear powerWWS = power from wind, water, and sunlight --If the US wants to reduce global warming, air pollution, and energy instability, it should invest only in the best energy options. NP isn't one of them. WWS is cheaper, cleaner, safer, and faster to deploy (a critical factor given the tight timeframe re: global warming). And WWS has better impacts on global warming, human health, energy security, national security, water supply, wildlife, water pollution, reliability, and sustainability than NP.Most importantly, WWS is technologically and economically feasible. Lowering greenhouse gas emissions doesn't require building a global network of NP. Researchers at Stanford have shown how the US can provide 100% of its energy with WWS by 2030. [1] Why should the US invest in NP, the more expensive, less efficient, and more harmful energy source? Pro offers no answer to this question. And Pro offers no answer because there isn't one.NP is fraught with unsolvable infrastructural, economic, social, and environmental problems. These problems include immense capital costs, slow deployment, reactor safety issues, waste storage issues, vulnerability to the effects of climate change, weaponization of uranium, vulnerability to terrorist attack, and even reliability issues (since it depends on foreign sources of uranium). WWS is better on every front.--UrgencyGlobal warming requires quick reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Pro agrees that greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced. In fact, Pro's entire argument focuses on impacts from global warming and emission reductions. But Pro doesn't seem to recognize the urgency or scale of the problem. If greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate, we'll soon reach a tipping point, after which runaway climate change will make the planet uninhabitable to humans. [2] The high-albedo Arctic ice is disappearing, and when it does, it'll trigger rapid positive feedbacks to warmer temperatures by uncovering the low-albedo ocean below. Time is of the essence. Emissions need to be reduced very quickly if we are to avoid a planetary ecological catastrophe. It takes about 11-19 years to build a new NP plant. [3] WWS, on the other hand, only takes 2-5 years. That means the US can lower greenhouse gas emissions much faster by investing in WWS instead of NP. This is why it's possible for the US to provide all its energy with WWS by 2030. [1] The same cannot be said about NP. Moreover, because WWS is rolled out more quickly, the cumulative greenhouse gas savings from WWS far outweigh those from NP. [3] As Mark Jacobson, a researcher and professor at Stanford, notes: "if we invest in nuclear versus true renewables, you can bet that the glaciers and polar ice caps will keep melting while we wait, and wait, for the nuclear age to arrive. We will also guarantee a riskier future for us all." [4] These are powerful words. I urge Pro, voters, and anyone else reading this to heed Jacobson's warning.CostsNP is expensive. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) says the average cost of electricity produced by a next-generation nuclear plant (which is cheaper than current plants) is $0.1084 per kilowatt-hour ("kWh"). [5] Comparatively, WWS is much cheaper. Solar, which is more expensive than wind or water, is already as low as $0.0508/kWh. [6] That's half the cost of NP. And costs of WWS are decreasing, whereas costs of NP are going up as uranium is depleted. Moreover, EIA's estimate is lower than it should be because it doesn't take into account the costs of building, insuring, and decommissioning plants, as well as storing radioactive waste. Decommission costs $3 billion per plant. [7] Waste management was $96 billion 2008 -- and that cost is ongoing and rising, because nuclear waste keeps building up, and it lasts thousands of years. [8] Finally, there's the costs of cleanup after a meltdown (e.g. costs of Fukushima were estimated at $100 billion). [9]Former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Peter Bradford put it best: "If asked whether we should increase our reliance on caviar to fight world hunger, most people would laugh. Relying on an overly expensive commodity to perform an essential task spends too much money for too little benefit, while foreclosing more-promising approaches. That is nuclear power's fundamental flaw in the search for plentiful energy without climate repercussions, though reactors are also more dangerous than caviar unless you're a sturgeon." Bradford continues: "nuclear power is so much more expensive than alternative ways of providing energy that the world can only increase its nuclear reliance through massive government subsidies like the $8 billion loan guarantee offered by the federal government to a two-reactor project in Georgia approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission earlier this year." [10]TerrorismThe more NP expands, the more opportunities that become available for using (or diverting) nuclear material for non-peaceful uses. These risks must be taken into account. And they're not entirely speculative. Historically, the growth of NP has increased the ability of nations to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. "The historic link between energy facilities and weapons is evidenced by the development or attempted development of weapons capabilities secretly in nuclear energy facilities in Pakistan, India, Iraq (prior to 1981), Iran, and to some extent North Korea." In fact, "one of the factors leading several countries now without nuclear power programs to express interest in nuclear power is the foundation that such programs could give them to develop weapons." [3] Moreover, NP plants are a major target for terrorists. If a plane were flown into a nuclear plant, the disaster would be immeasurably worse than Chernobyl. 9/11 would be tiny by comparison. Terrorists could also target waste sites, for a similar effect.ReliabilityExtreme weather, flooding, and storm surge have increasingly made NP unsafe to operate (e.g. three plants were shut down in the wake of Hurricane Sandy). [15] Anticipated effects from global warming will interfere with NP, making NP an unreliable source of power. Moreover, rising seas and flooding don't just create a risk of shutdown, but also a risk of releasing hazardous materials, like what happened at Fukushima. Global warming increases the risk and uncertainty associated with NP. Given the high upfront costs of building new NP plants, and the difficulty of adapting them to climate change, WWS is a better option going forward. WWS sources are decentralized, small, and easier to move, making them more reliable in the case of extreme weather. MeltdownsShould failure occur, the consequences are probably the worst of any high risk activity that humans engage in. There have already been four nuclear accidents: Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Each accident was unique, and each was supposed to have been impossible. Yet each happened. Failures like these can and will continue to happen. The risks and costs are too high.--Rebuttal(1) EnvironmentPro is wrong that NP doesn't produce any greenhouse gas emissions. Vast amounts of fossil fuels are burned to mill, mine, leech, transport, and enrich uranium, and to build and decommission nuclear plants. [3] In fact, many NP plants are nearly as carbon-intensive as a coal plant. [11] For instance, "in 2002, the Paducah [uranium] enrichment plant [in Kentucky] released over 197.3 metric tons of Freon, [a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide]." [12] And the emissions produced by NP are only increasing because the deposits of rich ores with the highest uranium content are depleting, leaving only lower-quality deposits. [13] As ore quality degrades, more energy is required to mine and mill it, leading to greater greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, by 2050, NP will produce as much greenhouse gas emissions as today's fossil fuel plants. [14]Compared to WWS, NP results in 25 times more carbon emissions, due to emissions from uranium refining and transport and reactor construction, the longer time required to site, permit, and construct a NP plant, and due to greater loss of soil carbon due to the greater loss in vegetation resulting from covering the ground with NP plants. [3] (2) Re: Pro's C2: All energy needs can be met through WWS. [1](3) Re: Pro's C3: Addressed above. NP is extremely expensive. If it were cheap, the market would choose NP. The government wouldn't need to subsidize it. But as is, NP requires billions in subsidies per plant. WWS is cheaper.(4)FusionThe US shouldn't subsidize the building of thorium or fusion. There's no indication that thorium or fusion is even possible. To date, no thorium or fusion power exists. And most physicists don't think controlled fusion will ever be possible. [16] [17]We're facing serious problems from global warming, air pollution, and energy instability. The US needs to invest in solutions to these problems before it throws away money on a wild goose chase. The US needs to focus on today's pressing issues, not on building a power plant that might never be built. The urgency of today's problems require that we invest in WWS. That's the first thing we need to do. Investment in fusion may come after we solve today's problems. But first, the US needs to focus on ensuring our species survives a looming catastrophe.--[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...[10] http://tinyurl.com...[11] http://tinyurl.com...[12] http://tinyurl.com...[13] http://tinyurl.com...[14] http://tinyurl.com...[15] http://tinyurl.com...[16] http://tinyurl.com...[17] http://tinyurl.com...