Conservatives and Nuclear Power
November 10, 2009 6 Comments
From the FrumForum (say that three times fast):
First Brad Plumer in the New Republic, then Matt Yglesias on his site have marveled at the supposedly strange enthusiasm of conservatives for nuclear power. What’s strange about it? It’s pure cold economic rationality. If you wish to move away from carbon-emitting electricity sources, nuclear is far and away the cheapest choice. If we’re not going to rely more on nuclear power, then the reduction in carbon emissions will have to imply some dramatic reductions in standards of living.
I think that France has certainly demonstrated the wisdom of nuclear power from an economic perspective. The usual worries remain (waste disposal, Chernobyl, etc) but obviously coal doesn’t jive with liberal environmental goals and other types of energy just aren’t capable of delivering the same amounts of power. I think the conservative perspective is certainly to go with the most efficient form of power. Our natural inclination towards caution should also have us working hard on solutions about how to address the associated concerns.
Mike,
Your natural inclination towards caution should also have you rethinking the economics of this as a solution. Sure, from a kilowatts generated standpoint, nuclear is the only game on town that can immediately replace coal. Problem is, there ar eno plants under construction, no plants in planning – in short nothing in the economic pipeline. And since we have taken a 30 or so year hiatus from building them, construction costs are likely to be huge. Not to mention the projected 20 to 30 years it will take to get to operation.
Bottom line is that nuclear energy, like clean coal, is a red herring. It is being put forth to delay real meaningful action, and to allow energy companies who already have nuclear plants to extend the life of those plants – thus realizing huge profits because of accounting rules that allow full amortization at the end of initial operating life.
Philip H, “it will take a while for them to be done” is a reason to start building new plants now. Not a reason to delay longer. There are building plans that are much cheaper and easier to build than the ones we started with. Turns out, technology advanced during the 30 years we were freaking out about nuclei.
On an unrelated note: heh. David Frum, of course. I thought that the FrumForum might have something to do with this frum. No, totally different.
Z,
In a day and age when we keep killing transit projects because the construction cost is “too high” compared to several decades ago, I think its reasonable to look at initial construction costs and time lines. Nuclear will not be a viable option for 2 to 3 decades, and the science on climate change says that we need to start doing things now. A repsons ethat takes decades will not, in and of itself, be enough.
Philip,
It will indeed “not be enough” but it could reasonably be a part of the overall “big picture”. I think there are current applications such as combined heat and power that will serve us immediate benefits. Oak Ridge National Laboratories recently put out a report where they state in their executive summary:
It’s also hugely underutilized.
ORNL report on Combined Heat and Power
Thomas, I agree that nuclear power (Wheter as CHP or stand alone) is underutilized. But I maintain that the reliance on nuclear power by many conservatives as “the only solution” to the climate crisis is more about delaying action then finding solutions. Again, eveyrthing I’ve read says that, since the US did not continue building nuclear plants in the last three decades (unlike the French), we will have to wait at least 15 years for a new plant to come on line, assuming one can be financed and permitted. 20 years is a more reasonable time frame.
By the same token, climate scientists are nearly unanimous that we need to act now. Sure, nuclear can help down the road, but when a conservative dismisses ALL other solutions in favor of nuclear, they are punting. And our planet deserves better.
Philip,
I think you misread me. I was speaking more as a “diversified portfolio” point of view, so nuclear may be a part of the solution, but it’s obviously a long range option. In the meantime, we should tap our ability to use CHP technologies (which are not nuclear) to bridge the gap and give us almost immediate energy independence and help reduce emissions. I put up a blog entry on it today. It’s not as fleshed out as I’d like it to be, but it’s a start in the right direction I think.