The US Should Subsidize Nuclear Power

R1-UrgencyI agree with Con that global warming is an urgent matter. However, it is impossible to know how long it will take to reach this tipping point. For example, the UN predicted in 2014 that over the next 15 years we must cut emissions dramatically. However, they also said back in 1982 that we’d reach the tipping point by the turn of the century; despite this, emissions haven’t went down, but we still haven’t reached the tipping point. (1) Some scientists even have the prediction as early as 2020. (2) So it’s obviously impossible to predict the tipping point, and it could be much longer than anyone expects. Let’s look at the 2020 prediction. Pro shows how WWS could only take 2-5 years to setup. I agree with that (remember I’m not arguing that only nuclear power should be subsidized). However, his numbers for the 11-19 years for a NP plant are far off. There are 5 power plants currently under construction in the US (although one of them saw its construction shut down decades ago and just recently is being started up again, so I’ll omit that one in the analysis.) Southern Nuclear’s Vogtle plant is getting a 3rd and 4th unit. They first applied for permits in 2006. Construction then began in 2013 for both of them and Vogtle 3 is expected to be done by 2016 and Vogtle 4 by 2017. (3) SCE&G’s VC summer plant is getting a 2nd and 3rd unit as well. They applied for a permit in 2008, construction began in 2013 and are said to be done by 2017 and 2018 respectively. (4) So that’s 9-11 years including the permit. Construction itself only takes 3-5 years. Permits are necessary, however, the US government could step in and try to speed up the permit process or even construction. Either way, if needed the government could speed it up. They could also be sped up by converting carbon plants to nuclear plants. Taking a quick look at the designs: (5, 6) In fact, the opposite has happened before. A nuclear plant which almost completely done production ended up being converted to a coal plant. (7) Obviously they were internally similar enough, so this could be another way to save time, while also reducing carbon emissions directly. Overall, Con admits that it wouldn’t even be until 2030 when the country can be fully powered by WWS, so even if nuclear reactors don’t start popping up in the 2020s it could greatly speed up the process of phasing out of coal, oil, and natural gas. If a coal plant is shutdown to be replaced by a nuclear one there will be a net reduction in emissions, so it would only be a net positive, so it makes the whole contention useless. R2-Costs Con says that a solar plant costs about 5 cents per kWh. However, I’m going to quote Con’s own source here, “That 5.79 cents per kilowatt-hour is a low number...seemingly half of what has typically been paid for projects of this nature.” (7) So in that case a solar power cost about the same as nuclear power. Not to mention, it’s in New Mexico which is one of the sunniest areas in the country. As I’ve already shown last round the French pay little for electricity because of their nuclear power plants. Also, a nuclear power plant would produce more power. A 1GW nuclear plant could produce 7889GW of electricity per year. However, a 3.6GW solar plant would be needed to produce the same amount of power, because nuclear is much more efficient (sun’s not always shining). (8) In fact, Tracey Durning of the Energy Options Network said ““In 2014, one of the cheapest utility scale solar plants in the US had an expected installed price of $2,000 per kilowatt. But since US solar plants operate at only about 25 per cent capacity factor, the cost per capacity-adjusted kilowatt is $8,000.” (8) However, the average initial capital cost of plants setup in the US is $6500 per kW. (8) When you consider nuclear power is much more efficient, it really is the cheapest option. In fact, the amount of power nuclear plants generate is why as I mentioned last round France makes billions of Euros exporting electricity. Also, the cost for enriching uranium could be avoided with CANDU style reactors (which doesn’t use enriched uranium), which are also more efficient and safe. (11, 12) R3-Terrorism The first part of Con’s argument has nothing to do with terrorism. He’s merely talking about countries wanting to develop nuclear weapons with them. Of course, this has nothing to do with the US as they already have a huge military, including a large nuclear weapon arsenal. However, he does talk about the risk of a plane being flown into a nuclear plant (like during 9/11). The chances of that happening are extremely low. First of all, that’s never happened. Also, ever since 9/11 the US has increased airport security and has never had a plane hijacking since. R4-Reliability Even if a NP plant had to be shutdown due to environmental concerns, it still would generate more electricity for a long time than WWS, as certain areas may not get enough exposure to sunlight or wind. Plus, global warming affects hydropower in the same way it does nuclear. (9) As for storage of hazardous materials be released, we can learn from the mistakes in Japan. We can store them in better ways. We can’t stop doing something all together, because one thing was not done well enough in the past. R5-MeltdownsThe chances of another major meltdown are happening is low. Not counting Fukushima it has been decades since one has happened. People are obviously being safer and increasing precautions. Also, many countries which use a lot of nuclear power (e.g. France) have never had a major nuclear meltdown. So why did Fukushima happen? The regulators were reluctant to adapt global safety standards. (10) Nuclear meltdowns are in reality very rare and assuming the US sets up safe reactors the chances of a reactor causing a total meltdown is low. Also if Japan had used the safer CANDU reactors it may have been avoided less severe. (13) C1-Environment As mentioned CANDU reactors don’t need to be enriched. However, even light water reactors are good for the environment. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found the lifecycle emissions for many energy sources. Using the median values, nuclear power generated 12 gCO2eq/kWh (grams of equivalent carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour), which was tied with offshore wind and less than solar (which depending on the type varied from 27-48 gCO2eq/kWh & hydropower which was at 24 gCO2eq/kWh). (14) Also, in fact, they found that nuclear power generated less infrastructure & supply chain emissions than all of the WWS sources except wind. (14) C2-Large Source I indirectly addressed this above. C3-Cost The reason the free market doesn’t adapt it is because it’s expensive to start compared to coal and other sources. I didn’t deny this, but said once generated it is cheap and potentially a profit maker. C4-Thorium & Fusion Con’s main argument is that it could take a long time to develop and that WWS sources should get the money right now due to the urgency. However, putting some money in fusion & thorium could be useful. We may be a lot closer than previously thought as I already said last round a fusion reactor is being made in France (produced by the US, EU, China, India, Japan, Korea and Russia) and thorium reactors (produced by China & Canada) are currently being produced. Sources:1-http://canadafreepress.com... 2-http://www.smithsonianmag.com... 3-https://en.wikipedia.org... 4-https://en.wikipedia.org... 5-https://upload.wikimedia.org... 6-http://nuclear-energy.net... 7-http://www.greentechmedia.com... 8-https://cna.ca... 9-http://www.slate.com... 10-http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 11-http://www.candu.org... 12-https://cna.ca... 13-http://rationalwiki.org... 14-https://www.ipcc.ch...