Nuclear Energy Needs a Major Re-Branding

June 3rd, 2008 by Max Gladwell · 12 Comments

Nuclear power doesn’t stand a chance without a major overhaul of its image. This is no small task, but neither is solving the climate crisis.

nuketowers Nuclear Energy Needs a Major Re Branding The debate over whether nuclear power can provide a safe, viable, and clean source of energy is currently firing on all cylinders, and people are taking sides. First, the Washington Post publishes an op-ed from Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who makes a case in favor of Going Nuclear. Next, Wired advocates that we Go nuclear in its flawed and somewhat contrived cover story. As a counterpoint, Amory Lovins argues in Newsweek that nuclear can’t work if for no other reason than simple economics. Fortune then makes The case for nukes, and a few days later Grist publishes its own Rebuklear, which is partly inspired by a piece in The Nation that questions this so-called nuclear renaissance. It’s so charged that the venerable EcoGeek blog remains neutral. These, of course, are the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Which, as we all know, is melting.

This could morph into a lengthy post, so you may want to grab a cup of coffee and settle in for the ride. We’ll get into the economic, health, national security, and environmental issues at the heart of this debate by quoting from the above and citing some good research. To start, we’d like to look at nuclear power as a brand. Where does it stand today, how has it been shaped, and how does it stack up against other energy brands? It’s possible that this type of analysis could hold the key to successfully bringing more nuclear power online…or else stopping it in its tracks.

Image Problem

It’s safe to say we wouldn’t be having this discussion if the nuclear brand wasn’t in trouble. It has problems that no other energy brand has to shoulder. First, it’s the only one that made its world debut in the form of a bomb. And not just any bomb. It put the D in WMD. And not just one. The United States dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, annihilating a couple hundred thousand people in an instant. It ended a seemingly endless war and ultimately (probably) saved lives on both sides. But it also made for a serious PR problem.

Unlike coal, oil, or solar, nuclear power came into being as a weapon and marked one of the biggest turning points in human history. It is ingrained in our conscience and perhaps even our collective unconscious as a destructive force to be feared. Americans in particular may harbor some deep-seated guilt. The nuclear bomb defined the Cold War and lead to catchy acronyms like MAD (mutually assured destruction) and alliterative sayings like “more bang for your buck”. As a rule of thumb, any word that can be directly associated with “holocaust” is probably not a good brand.

Nevertheless, mankind succeeded in converting nuclear technology into a power source. Not only does it provide about 10% of the world’s electricity (20% in the U.S.), it also powers warships and submarines. This, too, was not without problems. The accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl sent shock waves of fear about what could happen, even though the former had zero casualties and the latter had relatively few. Today, the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran or an Al Queda attack keep the fear of “nuclear” in the headlines. This is the climate in which we consider nuclear as an alternative to fossil fuels. So we ask: Is there simply too much cognitive dissonance when a form of low-carbon energy shares the same brand with mankind’s most destructive force? Is it possible that many of us, especially the greens, will never be able to reconcile these opposing ideas no matter how compelling or promising nuclear might be?

It appears that if we decide nuclear energy can play a role in the low-carbon economy, it will need a serious image overhaul. This isn’t to advocate deception or some sort of Orwellian double talk. Putting “clean” in front of “coal” does not make it so. But there is potentially much more to nuclear power than clever wording, and if its negative brand image is unjustified, then it warrants repositioning. The first step is to decide whether nuclear merits this consideration.

Energy Problem

Let’s start with some facts and figures. Any discussion of energy should begin with addressing demand. This is the realistic versus idealistic approach. Idealists start with how they’d like our energy future to be i.e. hyper-efficient with 100% renewable, carbon-free sources. Wouldn’t that be ideal? What’s so ironic is that this same mode of thought is what got us (via the neocons) into Iraq. Wouldn’t a free and democratic Iraq be ideal? Two sides of the same coin, really. Realists, on the other hand, look at the facts. Unfortunately, decisions made from facts often end up being less than ideal. They often mean choosing the least bad option…which is where we now stand in Iraq. The realists typically end up dealing with the messes left behind by idealists.

The question is not only how much energy we need today but how much we’ll need over the next 50 years. Turns out we need a lot. Professor Nate Lewis and his team from Cal Tech produced a thorough body of work on this topic. Most everything is considered: current demand/capacity, population growth, rates of increasing efficiency, non-renewable energy reserves, CO2 levels, and cost. They also calculate the total, theoretical potential of each form of low-carbon energy, such as the total roof area of every American home and all of the raw, accessible geothermal power. Let’s start with current energy consumption:

consumption Nuclear Energy Needs a Major Re Branding

Lewis reduces all energy to terawatts (TW). The world consumed 13.2 TW annually in 2001. By and large, this is the same energy that’s caused global warming, since only a fraction of it came from low-carbon sources (nuclear being one of them). We’re optimistic that renewables will increase significantly, but they are also subject to so many physical limitations. So consider that a carbon-free energy future means not only replacing (or scrubbing) all of this high-carbon energy but also simultaneously building new capacity to accommodate growth. How much growth? An additional 14.8 TW over the next 50 years. More than double what we had in 2001. This slide illustrates that scale:

nuke power Nuclear Energy Needs a Major Re Branding

Even if there were enough terrestrial uranium reserves, 10 TW would mean bringing a new nuclear reactor online every other day for the next 50 years. It is difficult to comprehend that much energy. Unfortunately, there are plenty of coal reserves to meet this demand. Again, this is energy that we know exists…not a source that we hope will be developed or improved.

One of the primary takeaways from Lewis’ presentation is that we cannot allow cost to dictate our energy future. If we do that, coal wins. It can be liquefied for transportation fuel and provide all the electricity we’ll need. This necessitates policy that puts a price on carbon in order to make cleaner sources more viable. One of these could be nuclear.

cost Nuclear Energy Needs a Major Re Branding

Though this data is few years old, these rates have not changed much relative to one another with adjustments for inflation (oil could be the exception). Clearly, a carbon tax would make nuclear competitive.

Here is the harsh reality:

primary power Nuclear Energy Needs a Major Re Branding

This slide shows the ramp-up from 12 TW in 1990 to 28 TW in 2050. It shows oil and natural gas leveling off and then declining (according to its reserves). It shows coal expanding in both directions, providing new capacity and accounting for the loss of oil and natural gas. It shows nuclear growing modestly and renewables growing dramatically, based on highly optimistic assumptions. It’s obvious that factoring nuclear out of this picture means one of two things: more coal, which we know we have, or more renewables, which are much less certain. Lewis shows pretty clearly that the latter is not possible. Therefore, in denying nuclear power one is, by process of elimination, supporting coal.

In terms of the sources of this data, these are professors at the top of their field who acknowledge that we have both a carbon and an energy problem. They certainly aren’t “shills” of the nuclear industry, which is the method by which Grist dismisses several arguments in favor of nuclear power. That’s called an ad hominem attack…the rhetorical equivalent of calling someone a dummy.

The Arguments

We urge you to read each of the articles. Here is the essence of each argument:

Moore: Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can’t replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It’s that simple.

Wired: The reality is that every serious effort at carbon accounting reaches the same conclusion: Nukes win. Only wind comes close — and that’s when it’s blowing. A UK government white paper last year factored in everything from uranium mining to plant decommissioning and determined that nuclear power emits 2 to 6 percent of the carbon per kilowatt-hour as natural gas, the cleanest of the fossil fuels.

Fortune: It may not be fashionable to suggest that the French know what they’re doing with regard to anything but wine and cheese, but spend some time in Provence and note the remarkably clean air and cheap electricity, 75% of which is produced by nuclear power plants. Most of the plants were built after the 1970s oil shocks that sent France’s economy into a tailspin because it was almost completely dependent on foreign oil, as we are now. Nuclear energy doesn’t produce the air pollution that burning coal does, and even waste products are recyclable, though it hasn’t been done thanks to an also potentially shortsighted Carter-era decision to ban it over fears of nuclear terrorism.

Lovins: In 2007, decentralized renewables worldwide attracted $71 billion in private capital. Nuclear got zero. Why? Economics. The nuclear construction costs that Moore omits are astronomical and soaring; low fuel costs will soon rise two-to fivefold. “Negawatts”—saved electricity—cost five to 10 times less and are getting cheaper. So are most renewables. Negawatts and “micro-power”— renewables other than big hydro, and cogenerating electricity together with useful heat—are also at or near customers, avoiding grid costs, losses and failures (which cause 98 to 99 percent of blackouts).

The Nation: This much seems clear: a handful of firms might soak up huge federal subsidies and build one or two overpriced plants. While a new administration might tighten regulations, public safety will continue to be menaced by problems at new as well as older plants. But there will be no massive nuclear renaissance. Talk of such a renaissance, however, helps keep people distracted, their minds off the real project of developing wind, solar, geothermal and tidal kinetics to build a green power grid.

Conclusion

We’re afraid that the arguments against nuclear as a safe, viable, and low-carbon energy source don’t hold up.

It’s too expensive: The same can be said for so many renewable forms of energy, so this is a double standard. The presence of a carbon tax or some similar policy measure, in addition to subsidies and carbon offsets that make solar and wind more profitable, will make each form more cost-effective. But there is also a sizable fear premium built into the cost of nuclear, which is not entirely justified. Given the costs of our dependence on fossil fuels (health, financial, security), the fear of nuclear is irrational and amounts to little more than an image problem. We liken it to the fear of guns and terrorism, while swimming pools and cars account for so many more deaths per year. And just because Warren Buffet doesn’t think he can make a 25% return on nuclear has nothing to do with whether we need an additional form of low-carbon energy. That’s a ridiculous argument.

It’s not safe: The facts don’t support this. The nuclear industry has an impressive record of safety. The Nation cites a number of structural incidents at U.S. nuclear power plants, none of which resulted in any injuries or deaths. Meanwhile, we’ve had several refinery fires and coal mine disasters over the same period that have caused plenty. We’ve lost more than 4,000 Americans fighting in Iraq alone.

It’s a threat to public health: See above. Then consider that diesel emissions alone account for 70% of all airborne cancer risk, according to the California Air Resources Board. Oil spills have ravaged thousands of miles of coastline. Greenhouse gases are pushing the climate into uncharted territory, and we’re literally fighting wars over oil. Reducing our dependence on any type of fossil fuel will have a tremendous positive impact for our health, environment, and national security.

We should focus our resources on renewables, micropower, and efficiency: We don’t see how supporting renewable forms of energy amounts to an argument against nuclear. Nevertheless, we agree that developing these forms is paramount and should be a top priority. But given the amount of new capacity the world needs, we’ll be wise to invest in any form of energy that does not contribute to global warming.

Nuclear plants take too long to build: As soon as you see the big picture and get your head around the challenges we’re facing, this is all the more reason to take action sooner rather than later.

The nuclear fuel supply is limited and non-renewable: Nuclear won’t supply a major portion of our energy needs, but every TW supplied by nuclear is one less TW of coal. All of which means less pollution and less carbon to sequester and otherwise deal with. Could that TW come from renewables? No, because all of those TWs are already spoken for. In other words, we’re already at capacity for renewable TWs. The only excess potential is nuclear or coal.

Nuclear is far from perfect or ideal, and it’s no silver bullet. It requires plenty of government regulation precisely because it has the potential for disaster. But this ignores the fact that we are currently living in a disastrous scenario that continues to worsen. Overly optimistic and idealistic sentiments about the potential for renewables to supply all of our energy needs is dangerous. We need to be realistic and check the numbers. They aren’t pretty and make for some very tough decisions.

As for overhauling the nuclear brand, perhaps that we’ll visit that subject in a future post.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Tags: Alternative Energy · Global Warming

12 responses so far ↓

1 Tiffany // Jun 3, 2008 at 10:44 am

Awesome article with a great rundown of the energy sources. I would have to disagree that America’s nuclear assault on Japan was even remotely a good thing though.
2 Meryn Stol // Jun 3, 2008 at 12:10 pm

I think cost is a really important consideration. It might mean that every dollar spend on nuclear subsidies could be better spend on wind and solar. As Lovins is saying: Nuclear does not attract private capital.

You state that there is “a sizable fear premium built into the cost of nuclear,”
It’s good to acknowledge this, but suppose no one would be afraid of it, how much would this lower the costs per reactor? Would it matter much if regulatory procedures where much shorter? Do you have numbers on this?

The core of the question is: Why are private parties not investing?

Personally, I think that even if nuclear would be much more expensive then wind and solar, and unprofitable in current market conditions, then there would still be an argument for nuclear if nuclear would help us off of coal faster: E.g. if wind and solar could not be scaled up fast enough.
3 Max Gladwell // Jun 3, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Tiffany: I agree that the nuclear assault was not a good thing. But “good” can also be a loaded term. The alternative of invading mainland Japan could easily have lead to a million casualties on each side. In that sense, it was probably the right thing, however tragic and regrettable it is.
4 Max Gladwell // Jun 3, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Meryn: If you get a chance to look at Lewis’ whole PPT, they quantify all of the possible, physical capacity of wind, solar, etc. Money is not a factor in their analysis. It’s the physical resource limits. Diverting $$ away from nuclear will not overcome those limits. We need to double an already stretched capacity to produce energy in 50 years. And Lewis has factored every likely negawatt into this equation. That is monumental.

Private parties aren’t investing b/c the returns aren’t there, and that capital is better spent on not only renewables but coal. Something is wrong about the that. High-carbon energy should be less economic than low-carbon energy. A carbon tax and/or cap-and-trade should do the trick.

We need a rational approach to safety and regulation of nuclear power. We should respect it as opposed to fearing it. Rational vs. irrational. Liberals complain about Bush’s scare tactics with terrorism and Iraq and then turn around and use the same playbook for nuclear and global warming. We’re over it.
5 Kim // Jun 4, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Wow, great round-up of stories. My basic feeling is that, since humans are (ridiculously) fallible, messing around with nuclear technology–and nuclear waste–is not the best idea. But I’m going to do my best to read these pieces with an open mind …
6 Max Gladwell // Jun 10, 2008 at 7:48 pm

From AvangionQ on StumbleUpon: Converting coal to liquid fuel oil would likely greatly raise fuel costs, perhaps to double or more — otherwise, such a solution would have already been implemented … a much cheaper alternative would be to start harvesting the oceans for methane hydrates, but that isn’t much of a solution as it would only exacerbate global warming …
7 Max Gladwell // Jun 10, 2008 at 7:49 pm

AvangionQ: The military is already getting ready to convert coal to liquid on a massive scale: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_154.html. The Montana governor is lobbying hard for investment. The reason it’s not been done yet is that it’s only been economically viable until recently. I could be off by a bit, but I’ve heard it can be done at a rate of about $60/barrel. The Nazis did it during WWII, so it’s not technical. It’s called Fisher Tropsch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch. The Montana governor claims diesel can be produced for $1/gallon: http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003199.html. So with oil at $130/barrel, it’s not about cost. As the Saudi Arabia of coal, it’s not about supply. The only thing standing in the way will be carbon policy that makes it uneconomic…and that, in turn, makes low-carbon alternatives like wind, solar, and nuclear more economic.
8 AvangionQ // Jun 10, 2008 at 11:55 pm

Thanks for bringing our conversation to where it could have some impact … its always good to have additional options for the future available, but as far as I see it, here’s the rub — the United States and Kazakhstan are the only nations to have not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocols … that means that for the moment, carbon policies don’t matter for coal producers — correction, doesn’t matter from an economic standpoint, does matter for an environmental standpoint … and yes, the low-carbon alternatives (solar, wind, water, tidal) would still be preferable — if only enough people would create the political pressure to ensure that the investment into creating their infrastructure would be made … regardless, that means that there has to be another reason that the option for converting coal into a liquid fuel replacement for gasoline hasn’t been implemented …
-
[Apologies -- will read your linked articles in a day or two and get back to you, following some research]
9 Max Gladwell // Jun 11, 2008 at 12:04 am

AvangionQ: There was a fear from investors that oil would go back down to $30 or $40/barrel, which would swamp any coal-to-liquid venture. This was back when oil was in the $60 – $70 range. Here’s the NYT blog about it: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/100-oil-liquid-coal/
10 Energy Complex | Max Gladwell // Jun 23, 2008 at 6:35 pm

[...] we argued in Nuclear Re-Branding, environmentalists need to get realistic and look at the numbers. If we’re going to solve [...]
11 off grid power hydro // Aug 1, 2008 at 6:02 am

[...] over whether nuclear power can provide a safe, viable, and clean source of energy is currently firihttp://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/06/nuclear-energy-needs-a-major-re-branding/Radiant Solar Technology – PV/WIND/Micro Hydro OFF-GRID PowerRadiant Solar Technology – Solar [...]
12 Congress Considers Offshore Drilling, Broader Energy Policy | Max Gladwell // Sep 8, 2008 at 10:10 pm

[...] if only to balance out the centuries of taxpayer subsidies paid to oil companies. We believe that nuclear power is the only reliable form of low-carbon, baseload energy. And as we’ve said repeatedly, [...]

Social Media and Green Living

Polls

Categories

What Say You?

Status Symbols

Archives

The Legend

Recommended Reading

Categories