Solving the Energy Problem Without Nuclear

Suppose we wanted to halt global warming, end oil dependence and protect our environment.

What would be the best way to do it?

Well, in a 1976 book, "Soft Energy Paths", Amory Lovins predicted global warming, recognized the consequences of oil dependence, and proposed a practical solution: (1) use energy much more efficiently; (2) move to renewable energy sources; (3) use each type of energy where it is best suited. (For example, electricity is useful for lighting and electronics, but is a very expensive way to provide heat.)

Those ideas are similar to many being proposed now. Had they been implemented starting in 1976, it is likely that global warming would have been halted, and the problems exacerbated by our Middle East oil dependence (two Iraq wars, the 9/11 tragedy, and soaring energy prices) might have been avoided.

At the time, just like today, the nuclear industry was proposing a vast increase in nuclear power plants – 200 or so, which would have meant one built every month for nearly twenty years.

As it turned out, virtually none of them were ever built.

Using the nuclear industry's own data, and leaving aside the huge problems of nuclear waste, proliferation and terrorism, Amory Lovins showed that nuclear power did not even make economic sense.

Even if the nuclear fuel were free and plentiful, the capital cost of building the complex plants made them economically unattractive. That is why utilities stopped building them.

The existing nuclear power plants were viable only because of huge government subsidies, including protection from radiation damage lawsuits.

Rather than build one large nuclear plant over many years, it is much faster and more cost effective to do many simple things like insulating houses, buying efficient cars, installing solar panels, and implementing other renewable technologies.

Those technologies are also distributed more evenly throughout society, fitting better with our democracy than large, centrally controlled power plants. Think of solar panels (with meters often running in reverse) on ten thousand roofs instead of one far away power plant.

The fascination of governments with nuclear technology is in part because of its dual use for electricity and for the military. Acknowledging the truth of nuclear power's economic failure, along with a commitment to the soft energy path, would lay bare the true motivation for Iran's nuclear program.

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Nuclear power was a mistake economically, environmentally (see Chernobyl), and geopolitically. A much more attractive, practical, economic and democratic energy future is before us, if we have the courage and wisdom to grasp it this time.

The Amory Lovins' program can be found at www.rmi.org.

Disclosure: None

Comments

[Foxinvestor]

Use Thorium for Nuclear Power:
Some of the first nuclear power plants used thorium for its nuclear fuel. The cold war transition most to use uranium for weapons. Thorium has fewer waste problems and is more efficient than uranium. However, coal plants emit 1000 times more radioactivity into the atmosphere and oil plants about 300 times more than the life cycle of a uranium nuclear plant. The life time danger of living near a nuclear power plant is equivalent to sunbathing for a few hours. Many people get more radiation by flying from New York to London than living near a nuclear plant. Most people do not understand background radiation and exposure, so they base their decisions about using nuclear on ignorance and propaganda in the media.Today, nuclear plant construction is far safer than in the past. However, the use of thorium is a great alternative to uranium and should be more widely implemented. Check out the company Thorium Power on the web and learn about the great benefits of using thorium.

[tjfitz01]

And I suppose we are going to have solare powered cars too? so that when the sun goes behind a cloud we have gridlock? Building Nuclear plants is not that much different in cost than any other large project like a conventional coal plant or large hydro dam. There are technolgoies like the French (Breeder Reactors) use to recycle the nuclear fuel and produce much less waste than the old reactors currently in use in the USA. Currently the cost of generating electricity with nuclear is less than coal or oil, and it is almost greenhouse gas emmission free. With more nuclear plants we could persue rechargable cars, have power for de-salianation plants to ease California's fresh water shortage, and have no dependance on foriegn oil. Seems like a win - win situation.

[fxtrader07]

less nuclear waste doesn't solve the problem at all - it will still be far to much radiating waste that nobody so far has offered ANY viable solution for. we simply have no material developed yet being able to store nuclear waste for even a few hundred years safely - not to speak of 5000-10000 years needed! Unless that isn't solved any talk of nuclear energy being viable, cheap or reasonable is absolute nonsense!

[dadlivonia]

A favorite bumper sticker of mine is "More People died at Chappaquiddick than Three Mile Island". There are safe methodologies for storing nuclear waste in areas with no seismic activity occurs. The quantity of waste is a problem, but using breeder reactors, Thorium, and spending the money necessary to develop fusion reactors is far superior to burying our heads in the sand and saying it won't work because of waste is beyond stupid. Just one application would be to use nuclear power to create the temperature necessary for "in situ" processes to release the oils in shale. It is non-polluting and would be a perfect application. Solar, wind, wise biofuels (excludes food crops like corn), conservation, intelligent building, smaller houses, more efficient transportation are just part of the solution. Ignoring the potential of nuclear is an ostrich that should be killed.

[Cicero]

I had to rub the sleep out of my eyes and check my calendar to be sure it's still 2008. This author must be biased and working to ignore the truth. Nuclear plants are being stopped by wacko environmental groups, not costs or facts. Here's a snippet from a politically incorrect magazine, The New American. The link below it has the complete article with all the details, but it's worth buying a hard copy just for the pictures of the results of the safety tests.

Used-fuel containers must pass rigorous tests by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission including:

A 30-foot free fall onto an unyielding surface, which would be equivalent to a head-on crash at 120 miles per hour into a concrete bridge abutment;
A puncture test allowing the container to fall 40 inches onto a steel rod six inches in diameter;
A 30-minute exposure to fire at 1,475 degrees Fahrenheit that engulfs the entire container; and
Submergence of the same container under three feet of water for eight hours.
If that’s not sufficiently comforting, there are also transportation tests to verify container integrity, consisting of:

Running a flatbed tractor-trailer carrying a container into a concrete wall at 84 miles per hour;
Placing a container on a rail car that was driven into a concrete wall at 81 miles per hour; and
Placing a container on a tractor-trailer that was broadsided by a train locomotive traveling at 80 miles per hour.
In all cases, post-crash assessments showed that the containers — although slightly dented and charred — would not have released their contents. One wonders how the thousands of tanker trucks transporting deadly chlorine and bromine gases would stand up to such conditions.

source: www.thenewamerican.com...

[Costa]

Those interested in knowing more about the economics of nuclear power should take the time to visit the rmi website listed in the article above. It documents how profoundly uneconomic nuclear power is in both reducing foreighn energy dependency and mitigating the effects of global warming. For example, the current posterchild of the nuclear industry (the new reactor being built in Finland by a top French nuclear company) is running 2 years behind schedule after 28 months of construction and $2 billion dollars over budget. Instead of building nuclear reactors which Lovins compares to builing cathedrals (slow to build and very expensive) we should be investing in technology and equipment that is small scale and accessible (think PC's instead of mainframes). These would include firmed wind power and solar power with storage. These types of technologies and ofcourse increased efficieny, offer far quicker and cheaper solutions that nuclear power. For these reasons (greatly expanded on in the rmi website) the safety of nuclear power becomes irrelevant.

Thorium:
Thorium can not be used as a direct replacement for uranium or plutonium in current nuclear reactors. It does not produce as self-sustaining chain reaction and requires an external source of neutrons to maintain a reaction. To the best of my knowledge there is currently a single thorium reactor being built in India, but this is experimental. The technology is therefore unproven and practical large scale application is therefore ,I beleive, too far off to help with our current pressing needs. In any case the economics are likely to be comparable to traditional nulclear power.

Fusion
The ITER (international thermonuclear experimental reactor) currently being built in France is not slated for completion until after 2015. Even if it demonstrates that the technology is successful it will produce no power- it is a proof of technology demonstrator. Another generation of fusion reactors would then need to designed and built. Any way you look at it, even if it proves successful, fusion is still far off.

Cars:
Lovins has written a peer reviewed book titled "Winning the Oil Endgame" which explains how the US ,and the whole world for that matter, can move away from its' addiction to oil by 2040:- with no new taxes, no new federal laws and lead by business for profit. It sounds too good to be true, but it makes a lot of sense. In fact aspects of it are already being implemented by the auto industry and even by some of the provincial governments of Canada (feebates).

My best bet:
Use what we have at hand, that we know works now. Spend some of the billions on efficiency improvements and not on nuclear plants. This could include anything from incentives for the installation of CHP(combined heat and power) plants in major buildings and industrial plants to the support for the double glazing and insulating of buildings during renovations.
Do more research on improving concentrted solar thermal (CST)storage. CST plants are already being built in the deserts of the south west U.S. (eg California, Nevada), Spain and Australia.

These options offer far better solution per dollar spent than nuclear.

[jackn3]

That is all fine and dandy, but it is next to impossible to get 300 million people to reduce the use of energy.. Not only that the 100 million cars on the road, including mine, use substantial amounts of gas and will be on the road for many years to come. Alternative energy is years away from becoming commercially viable. Other countries must know this be cause they are building nuclear and coal power plants as fast as they can

[UniversalHuckleberry]

In the short-term (30-50 years), there is only one way to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil- drill for our own oil!

Unless of course someone can explain to me how we're going to power jet aircraft, ocean liners, heavy equipment and even semi-trucks? Our battery/capacitor technology is barely advanced enough to power lightweight, plastic cars for 100 miles. And speaking of plastic, which is petroleum-based, does anyone know of an economically viable alternative to replace plastic, vinyl or styrofoam? (If you do, please let me know because I'd like to get in on THAT IPO!)

Don't get me wrong, I'm a "green" guy. I think we are moving in the right direction by "going green" (and that includes nuclear). But I also have enough common sense to realize that we are 50+ years from "going green" to "being green", and in the meantime we are going to need oil, and lots of it.

[danno]

What planet have you been living on? Wake up and smell the coffee (or the emissions)!

The large Asian countries are commissioning a few utility-scale coal-fired plants PER WEEK. (not to mention disastrous mega projects like 3 Gorges). If this trajectory goes on for the next decade (as China, India, Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia currently plan), then it's all over in terms of the global warming end-game. There is NO energy source which can satisfy that demand. Of course, you would probably like to have millions die from respiratory illness, mercury poisoning, mining accidents, and global warming. Gee the French don't seem to have too many safety problems with nuclear. Moreover, why the heck does waste have to be stored safely for 100,000 years? That's idiotic. At the rate we're going we won't even have 2 centuries left. Finally, if you don't think that we can develop the technology to safely eliminate the waste in the next 100 years, let alone the next 1000 years, you have no faith in science. We were basically in the dark ages in the year 1000 give or take a century or two (O.K. my mastery of history dates sucks).

Amory is a very smart guy, but only about 1 of 50 of his ideas are worth uttering in public or escaping his ivory tower. The only problem is one can never tell when the brilliant one is coming so you have to put up with a lot of, shall we say, less than impressive thoughts.

[AlexS]

Must be nice to live peacefully up in the mountains. Just to write and think and give presentations. All you have to do is find rich people and big corporations to keep shoveling money at you. They, of course have people like me to man the trenches, so that Amory can go on with his rarefied existence. Please tell me how you install enough solar trackers to power a city of 4 million people. How big an area do you need? You'll have to start thinking beyond your updated Walden Pond.