Cincinnatus BLOG *** Political Commentary - Social Commentary

Coal-fired plants produce approximately 50% of the electricity in the United States and 82% of power generated carbon dioxide emissions.  If electric vehicles are charged exclusively by coal-fired electricity they produce more green house gases than a traditional gasoline-powered combustion engine car. In the future, electricity must be generated cleanly, if we expect automotive electric-drive technologies to reduce our carbon dioxide burden. Wind and solar will probably make a significant contribution to clean energy generation, but realistically, we cannot count on these two sources for more than 20-30% of our electricity needs in the next 20 years. Even reaching these modest goals will require a major investment in energy infrastructure and fundamental advances in technology. Nuclear power may be the only clean alternative.

In the United States we emit over 24 metric tons of carbon dioxide per person; in France they emit a little over 6 metric tons per person. So, let’s do it the French way and cut our emissions by nearly 75%. The centerpiece of France’s green strategy is of course clean nuclear power. France generates more than 75% of its electricity from nuclear reactors. All the power you want 24/7 and no carbon dioxide. The excess energy produced in off-peak times can be used to charge electric vehicles at night or generate hydrogen from water as a means to power the future hydrogen economy.

Nuclear power plants provide about 17% of the worlds electricity. In the United States, the 104 commercial nuclear generating units produce 20% of the nations electricity. It has been 20 years since a new nuclear plant has been proposed in the U.S, but interest has increased recently because nuclear power is one of the few proven ways to produce utility scale electricity without concurrently increasing carbon dioxide emissions. At the moment there doses not appear to be the political will to augment existing nuclear power generation. Fears about nuclear waste transportation and storage have virtually paralyzed the industry. The U.S. however, faces a dilemma; the existing nuclear infrastructure is aging and will ultimately come off line leaving a gap of 20% (>725 billion kilowatt-hours) in our existing energy production. When added to the expected 29% increase from 3,659 billion kilowatts-hours to 4,705 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity needed in 2030 the problem magnifies. If we were to abandon nuclear power we would have to build new clean energy facilities capable of producing an additional 1,800 billion kilowatt-hours by 2030 to fill the gap. Plug-In cars would only exacerbate this problem.

Despite the obvious problems, there are no utility scale alternatives to clean nuclear power and thus, it must be kept on the table if we are to reduce our carbon footprint. Without increased nuclear power it is virtually imposable to achieve the promised reduction of carbon dioxide emissions as electric-drive technologies come on line. If in 10 to 20 years we are still using coal to generate half our electricity, there will be no benefit to investing large sums in electric-drive vehicles.