Cincinnatus BLOG *** Political Commentary - Social Commentary

Only one industrial country in the world has significantly reduced its carbon footprint, and that country is France. France, the sixth largest economy in the world, ranks 15^th in carbon dioxide emissions, behind pre-industrial economies like Iran and Indonesia. France has simultaneously, reduced its dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels, coal, natural gas and oil. While we dither with small-scale experimental intermittent technologies like solar and wind in the United States, France has gone nuclear and clean. In 2008 wind and solar accounted for 1.1% of US energy needs and even if we meet President Obama’s objective of doubling the amount by 2012, its contribution will still be inconsequential.  In the best-case scenario for wind and solar, they might together generate 20%-25% of our clean energy needs 20 years from now.

France generates more than 75% of its electricity from nuclear reactors. In the United States, the 104 commercial nuclear generating units produce 20% of the nation’s 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. One benefit of a nuclear power plant is that it can run at peak capacity 24 hours a day. 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.

At the moment there does 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 clean 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.

If we continue on our current clean energy policy trajectory, wind and solar will at best replace the loss from clean nuclear power in 2030, and our expanded demand will have to be met with traditional dirty fossil fuels.  Should we continue down this road, we will not have reduced our carbon dioxide emissions by a single molecule. It seems almost certain that the 29% of additional electricity needed in 2030 is destined to come from fossil fuels.

Electric cars would only exacerbate this problem. 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. Without increased nuclear power it is virtually impossible 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 is no benefit to investing large sums in electric-drive vehicles.

Our paranoia runs deep. Not only are we “anti nuclear” in the United States, we are also curtailing clean hydroelectric power, the only source that currently makes a real contribution to our clean energy needs at 2.4% in 2008. More dams are being dismantled because of “environmental activism” than built. Since 1999, more than 200 dams in the US have been removed.

The choice could not be more stark. National scale nuclear energy is the only proven path to reducing our carbon footprint. All other solutions are small scale and too unreliable for basic electricity generation.