In Copenhagen, go nuclear

Governments are ignominiously incompetent at framing problems before they propose solutions.  Put many governments, each with a different objective, together in a single conference with the implied pressure to agree on a world solution to an ill-defined problem, and you have a formula for doing more harm than good.  Thus describes the situation at the Copenhagen summit on climate change.

The meeting has as its premise the theory that economic development produces effluents that cause the earth’s atmosphere to trap a larger portion of the sun’s radiation, as a greenhouse does.  These greenhouse gases (GHG), the theory goes, must be reduced in order to prevent the earth from overheating, typically defined as an increase of two degrees Celsius.  The gases and their relatively contributions to the greenhouse effect are: carbon dioxide, CO₂ (85.4%), methane (8.2%), nitrous oxide (4.4%), and other gases that deplete ozone (2.1%).¹  The first three occur naturally in the atmosphere and can be absorbed by “sinks” such as forests and oceans.  Most of the focus on GHG reduction is obviously on CO₂; the atmospheric concentration of which increased 36% since the Industrial Revolution in 1750.  Therefore, the theory says, decreasing these “carbon emissions” will prevent global warming.

As last week’s revelation of attempts to squash the views of scientists who disagree with this theory showed, the science is far from perfect.  Perhaps the leading scientist who does not view carbon emissions as a problem is John Cristy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Early this year, he testified before Congress² that, “… the actions being considered to ‘stop global warming’ will have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will do, while making energy more expensive, and thus have a negative impact on the economy as a whole.  We have found that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstate the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming.”  Cristy relies on satellite data to more accurately measure the earth’s temperature than the traditional ground based stations that are affected by urbanization and that are provenance of the data used by global warming proponents.

Even if, in spite of the contentious science, one concedes the postulate of climate change, the cost of reducing carbon emissions is high, estimated at $150 billion annually through 2020.³  The Heritage Foundation estimates that the annual burden on the economy of “cap and trade”—the proposed mechanism allowing an industrial plant violating an emission standard to buy credits from another entity that is below the limit, such that the net effect between the two companies matches the standard—will be between $400 and $700 billion⁴, between 3% and 5% of GDP.  Furthermore, the proposals floating around Copenhagen obligate developed countries to offer reparations to developing countries to help the latter with any remediation resulting from climate change—essentially a new global tax on all products and services.

The solution is simple and within our reach, but evidently beyond the vision of governments.  In his testimony, Cristy further stated, “And, if the Congress deems it necessary to reduce CO₂ emissions, the single most effective way to do so by a small, but at least detectable, amount is through the massive implementation of a nuclear power program.  Other currently available alternatives simply cannot produce enough energy to be significantly noticed at a price and geographic scale that is affordable.”

Nuclear power produces no CO₂.  Yet, the United States produces only 19% of its power from nuclear energy as compared to France producing 86%⁵.  By contrast, the U.S. generates 49% of its electricity from coal⁶—the worst offender of GHG, whereas France produces only 4.1%.  What did the French do right?  Steve Kidd, Director of Strategy & Research at the World Nuclear Association, answers that question succinctly with two things lacking in the U.S.: a unified national energy policy and a standard power plant design that increases safety while cutting costs.⁷  It takes years to license and commission a plant in the U.S., each one with a unique design.⁸  The last plant to be brought on line in 1996 took 24 years to build.⁹  One plant, in Shoreham, Long Island, was built but never commissioned for political reasons.  Standard plant designs and streamlined licensing would alleviate these problems.

Perhaps the main objection to nuclear power is the management of spent fuel.  The severity of this is dubious when one considers that, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, “Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced about 60,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuel.  If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep.” ¹⁰

Reaching the same percentage of electricity production as France would cut 2.4 billion tons of CO₂ from our emissions, 129% of entire amount emitted by all of transportation.  It would reduce total CO₂ emissions by nearly 40%, without burdening our economy with new costs and regulations.

 ________

[1] 2009 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report, Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads09/GHG2007-ES-508.pdf

[2] Christy, John R., University of Alabama in Huntsville. Written Testimony, House Ways and Means Committee, 25 Feb. 2009 http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/ctest.pdf

[3] “Big Costs Are Hurdle to Climate Pact.”  The Wall Street Journal, 4 Dec. 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125988268007875549.html?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Heritage%2BHotsheet&mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

[4] “The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.” The Heritage Foundation, 6 Aug. 2009 http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda0904.cfm?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

[5] Électricité de France, http://energy.edf.com/edf-fr-accueil/edf-and-power-generation/nuclear-power-122172.html

[6] “Coal Statistics.” World Coal Institute http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/

[7] Kidd, Steve. “Nuclear in France - what did they get right?” Nuclear Engineering International 22 Jun. 2009 http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2053355

[8] “Licensing New Nuclear Power Plants.” Nuclear Energy Institute http://www.nei.org/keyissues/newnuclearplants/factsheets/licensingnewnuclearpowerplantspage2/

[9] “Nuclear Power: 12 percent of America’s Generating Capacity, 20 percent of the Electricity.” U.S. Energy Information Administration http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html

[10] “Nuclear Waste: Amounts and On-Site Storage” Nuclear Energy Institute http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/nuclearwasteamountsandonsitestorage/