No Wonder They’re Pushing Nuclear

It is a constant source of wonderment to me why so many energy proponents and politicians have chosen to highlight nuclear as the energy source answer to our climate change (as well as rising costs in energy production) woes.

Why would they argue for more nuclear reactors to be built when the United States is already dealing with the big problem of storing/depositing the high amount of radioactive waste we already have produced?

Now the story comes out about the proposed costs to build two new reactors in Ontario.  Looks like  price isn’t going to serve as a convincing argument for nuclear power much longer either.  Why?  The price quoted last week ($23 billion dollars to be exact) by the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd to the Ontario provincial government was three times higher than what had been expected.

Will the Ontario  government start considering the use of solar power now, inasmuch as the price quoted for nuclear power averages out to be about $3,500 more per kilowatt of energy produced when compared to solar prices?

The Accidental Deliberations blog sums it up rather well:

“…let’s assume for the moment that the $13 billion per reactor cost presented by AECL roughly reflects what the price would be in Saskatchewan as well. That would mean that off the top, the cost of nuclear construction would shoot far past the range where it would compare to natural gas, wind or solar generation. Instead, the more pertinent comparison might be to purchasing an exercise bike for every Saskatchewan resident with the hope of powering the grid by pedaling.”

So why is there still a huge push for nuclear when the waste disposal question is still on-going and the price for new reactors seemingly is skyrocketing?

Well this leaked memo from Exelon, the world’s largest nuclear power company, may shed some light on this situation.  One of their researchers found that the climate bill, which currently resides in the Senate (and a measure I would also personally say seems to have been hijacked by nuclear, natural gas, and coal energy producers) will:

“… add $700 to $750 million to Exelon’s annual revenues for every $10 per metric ton (MT) increase in the price of CO2 allowances.” Prices will range between $15 and $18 per metric ton, the report estimates, “implying a positive earnings impact of $1 to $1.30 per share.”

So if I was the owner of a nuclear power company (or one of their friends who might profit from it via lobbying for nuclear in a climate bill), I’d definitely see nuclear as profitable and worth pushing.

But that’s not what they should be talking about here (I know this is extreme wishful thinking).  In a time where energy prices are soaring and the climate is only getting worse, shouldn’t they be pushing for both a cleaner, yet also more cost-effective way of producing energy?

From what I’ve recently seen, nuclear power doesn’t live up to either of those standards.

Tags: climate policy, energy policy, nuclear power