CARROLL: Nuclear's new allure
By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published October 10, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
"Mr. Udall, would you work to locate a nuclear power plant in Colorado?"
Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall: "If we meet all the standards, yes."
Even Bob Schaffer, Udall's Republican opponent, gave a more cautious answer to the same question during a 9News debate. "Maybe," Schaffer replied. "It's a hypothetical. If it's a good plan, I'll support it."
Udall's answer was surprising given his longtime alliance with environmentalists who mostly have despised nuclear power. Yet it was not a momentary lapse. A minute earlier, 9News' Adam Schrager had asked the candidates if they favored "expanding nuclear power to help solve the energy crisis." Udall and Schaffer both said, "Yes."
What's up with the congressman from the 2nd District? There are two possibilities. Either he's indulging in election-year rhetoric to neutralize Republican charges that he's indifferent to the energy squeeze, or he's another convert to nuclear power as a practical response to global warming.
Thursday he told the Rocky editorial board that his position on nuclear power had indeed evolved. The reason: as suspected, global warming. Nuclear is carbon-free energy, while its defects - as Udall sees them - are outweighed by the perils of potential climate change.
Still, the Democrat remains a rather grudging fan of nuclear power. He opposes, unfortunately, the Yucca Mountain respository for nuclear waste and waxes with heartfelt passion on energy only when the topic is wind or solar. Maybe we can stoke his enthusiasm for nuclear power (Schaffer doesn't seem to need the same nudge) with a surprising finding from an economist at Tufts University, as reported by John Tierney of The New York Times.
"After estimating the costs and factoring out the hefty tax breaks for different forms of low-carbon energy," Tierney wrote, "[economist Gilbert Metcalf] estimates that new nuclear plants could produce electricity more cheaply than windmills, solar power or 'clean coal' plants."
Construction costs are notoriously hard to estimate, so new nuclear plants could end up being much more costly than Metcalf anticipates. Still, green activists are prone to minimize the costs and subsidies of renewables, too - as well as the environmental impacts.
Federal land managers are already balking at the extravagant requests for acreage on which to locate solar panels. As The Christian Science Monitor said last month, "The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has received some 200 applications to build solar plants on federal land in recent years. In California alone, there are 80 proposals involving 700,000 acres."
Says the BLM's program manager for renewable energy in California: "I don't see us putting 80 solar projects on BLM land, there's no way. I don't see us putting 30. And I hope the solar industry hears me on that."
Clashes over clean energy projects will become ever more common - and are yet one more reason to give nuclear a fresh look, too.
Carbon skepticism
Susan Solomon, a scientist sharing the Nobel Prize for work on global warming, told the Governor's Conference on Managing Drought and Climate Risk this week that she is "optimistic" that international efforts will slash carbon dioxide emissions.
Well, to each her own. Actually, there is a lot of evidence suggesting that skepticism is a much more realistic attitude toward the prospect of slashing greenhouse emissions in the near future - or, for that matter, for many years.
Consider this recent news from The Washington Post: "According to the new report from the Global Carbon Project, an Australian-based international consortium of scientists, 8.47 gigatons of emissions were released in 2007, up 2.9 percent over 2006." And this "buildup of carbon emissions in the atmosphere is outpacing the worst-case scenario outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
Much of the emissions increase of course comes from developing countries such as China and India, who have no intention of slowing their growth to curry Western favor. But even the European Union, allegedly far greener than the U.S., has balked. As The Economist reported this month, "Almost every [EU] country has found reasons why the climate-change promises may be impossible to meet in their current form."
In truth, we haven't nearly turned the corner toward serious carbon-dioxide reductions and probably won't without better technology. No amount of goodwill and green awareness can overcome the political imperative of keeping economies afloat.
Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Denver turns 150
Read about the city's history, look at old photos and see a list of influential Denverites.
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's pregame rant on the Raiders.
-
Season To Share
The Post-News Season To Share campaign provides grants to area nonprofits.
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
The Rocky was there when Colorado became a state in 1876. Read our coverage.
-
A Dozen on Denver
And the winner is... Robert Ziegler! See the whole fiction series by clicking here.
October 10, 2008
1:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
LockeRobster writes:
""After estimating the costs and factoring out the hefty tax breaks for different forms of low-carbon energy," Tierney wrote, "[economist Gilbert Metcalf] estimates that new nuclear plants could produce electricity more cheaply than windmills, solar power or 'clean coal' plants.""
Without a doubt. Over the long-haul, nuclear power is the least-expensive manner of mass-producing electricity. The largest drawback is the ENORMOUS up-front cost of getting a plant built, which the government is going to have to underwrite in order for any company to be willing to make the effort.
October 10, 2008
7 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
Politicians will say anything to get elected. They promptly drop it before dusting off the senate seat. Obama is going to get elected, and he has bought into the Al Gore insanity. It takes 10 years at least to permit and build a nuclear power plant, more time than Al Gore can spare if his heavy investments in wind and solar are going to double his net worth. The democrats have no intention of including nuclear power in the huge government subsidies we can expect from them for solar and wind.
If the democrats control congress, the checks and balances that keep your tax dollars and energy bills safe from looters like Gore and T. Boone Pickens will be hastily removed. They will trade imported oil for imported natural gas from the exact same countries. They will install massively subsidized wind farms but oppose transmission lines and pumped hydro energy storage, so the grid will flicker like a candle (get a UPS for your computer). They will have no regard for your financial situation, and no understanding of the difference between reliable nuclear power and iffy wind and solar, and we will end up paying twice. First for their grand scheme, and second to fix it with realistic solutions. Impatience, litigation, and confrontation are not ways to improve our country. The energy industry is willing to cooperate, stymied only by the indicision that congress, the supreme court, and the EPA have created (or failed to stop). Nuclear plant license applications are rapidly increasing. But politicians are more interested in rewarding their supporters and friends than creating a workable solution based on reasonable technology that is well established and safe. Declaring defeat after trying nothing more than standing on a soapbox promising the moon is just another ploy to separate the gullable from their money.
October 10, 2008
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
bxwatso writes:
I am surprised and impressed that Udall even gave lip service to nuclear.
If the US began today we could have 200 new nuclear reactors built within 20 years at a total cost of around $2trillion, eliminating our coal consumption (even factoring in demand growth). Wind and solar can NEVER achieve this.
Any "green" person who ignores nuclear as a part of his solution (Al) is just a phony scam artist who isn't serious about a real solution.
October 10, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
Democrats have no intention of supporting nuclear power. They are talking nice just to get elected. The Democrats are firmly aligned with the green obstructionists.
Over the last 30 years, there are structural barriers to nuclear plant development. Waste handling is a major barrier. The Democrats are firmly opposed to Yucca Mountain. They are also firmly opposed to reprocessing of nuclear waste. I believe that the US is the only country that does not reprocess nuclear waste. Another major barrier is the endless litigation to delay and deny permits. The Democrats can claim to support nuclear power knowing their green allies will delay, stop, and hamper nuclear power permits.
If Democrats are serious about power generation and greenhouse gases, they need to take positive actions on nuclear power especially on waste and permit delays. Otherwise, Democrats are just continuing in their usual obstructionist ways.
October 10, 2008
9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Carroll brought up a good point about wind and solar....... the environmentalists love them, but we're not hearing about the additional costs that will be heaped on the American taxpayer for those ideas, and I'm surprised the environmentalists support projects that take up so much land or disrupt wildlife habitat.
The costs for wind and solar will end up including upgrading the transmission grid system across the country. How many billions or trillions of dollars will it take to do that just to deliver wind or solar power? The piece mentioned in California there are proposals for 80 solar projects on BLM land. How is it people get enraged at the idea of oil rigs sitting on BLM land and don't get upset at 700,000 acres in California alone that would be disturbed just to put solar panels in? Solar panels and wind turbines would take up space just like oil rigs........ and in my opinion, solar panels of that magnitude would devastate wildlife on public land in those areas proposed in California. Both could likely use more land than if it was being drilled for oil.
I can't understand why there's opposition to nuclear energy. Aircraft carriers can be out to sea for years and not have to refuel by using nuclear power. I'm a big believer in nuclear energy over nuclear weapons, and this could be another way to keep uranium out of the hands of terrorists or countries looking to acquire nuclear weapons. Udall is groveling at the voters' feet by saying he's for nuclear power. In my opinion, it's to get the vote from outside his party.
I've seen over the years how Udall is, and I can't vote for him.
October 10, 2008
10 a.m.
Suggest removal
radagan writes:
Udall talks out of both sides of his mouth. No nuclear plan would ever "meet all the standards" for him. Their going to end up waiting until were all in such dire straights that it won't much matter anymore. They'll be trying to shut down coal in the next several years and disallow add'l oil drilling. And one day oil will go over $200/bbl and gas will be unaffordable.
Strange how up in Minn. they have nuclear plants and thats a very democratic state.
October 10, 2008
10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
I don't buy Udall's support for nuclear power in Colorado for a second. Not with his pedigree.
The enviros who have propelled his career and are so in bed with him in all areas of his staff and campaign will never let him even if he was sincere. The first specific nuclear power plant proposal will be met with fierce opposition, despite all the platitudes politicians are giving nuclear these days.
Environment Colorado, Earth First, Colorado Progressives, Colorado Matters, all those guys are heavy in to Udall's team, always have been, always will be. They'll be the first to howl and scream "No" and cite St. Vrain, Colorado's only prior experience with nuclear power.
For those uneducated about St. Vrain, or who have only heard the anti-nuke spin here's the deal. St. Vrain was a nuclear research facility in the area it's named for. It was originally built to experiment with different types of systems for nuclear power, with the results to be applied on a large scale at actual facility design and engineering.
Then, some Colorado politicians, bureaucrats and industry types got the bright idea they could take this little research facility and turn it into an operational nuclear power facility. All the money they thought they could save, and far fewer permits they'd need to get drove their decision.
And, so, we Public Service (Xcel) ratepayers payed. And payed. And payed for a facility to get transformed. Except they never really could figure out how to transform the facility. Everything they did didn't work. Cost and time overruns galore. It was an unworkable solution from the start, ill-conceived, though I'm sure it made some politician's and bureaucrat's friends very wealthy. Ratepayers may very well still be paying since they rolled the debt into our rates.
Explaining this to voters is difficult, though. The enviros will point to St. Vrain and persuade a lot of voters that nuclear is the problem. Reality is St. Vrain was an impossible contortion, a mistake that will never be made again. Do you think Udall's willing to take on his enviro team and staff and explain this to them? Do you think Udall will get out there in the "Yes on Colorado Nuclear" campaign and be in an advertisement supporting it?
I know the answer to those questions, which is why I don't buy Udall's support for nuclear power for a second.
October 10, 2008
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
What does Udall mean by "If we meet all the standards, yes." ?
Does this mean reasonable standards set by the industry? The same industry that biggest disaster was Three Mile Island that killed exactly zero people. Or Does that mean the Sierra Club’s standards (Build nothing, nowhere, at no time)? You know the same standard that says Yucca Mountain needs to prove that it can store waste for 10,000 years. If the pyramids in Egypt had the same standard, they would only be half way thru their warranty period.
Reasonable (by Sierra Club standards) drilling means no drilling. Clean Coal (by Sierra Club standards) means no coal. Safe nuclear by (Sierra Club standards) means no nuclear. Udall, the Boulder environmental attorney, has the same standards.
Sorry I'm not buying it.
October 10, 2008
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
jhous1490 writes:
I will consider nuclear power when we can store the poisonous by-products on the south lawn of the White House. Once they get the technology that good, go for it. Otherwise we're just killing ourselves and our world by fooling ourselves into thinking that we can handle it.
October 10, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Woogford writes:
We need nuclear energy. It's a clean reliable source of energy that will go a long way in reducing our dependence on foreign oil. While we have to handle the waste products responsibly, I personally would much rather have a nuclear power plant in my back yard than an ammonia plant. Yet we have ammonia plants all across this country.
October 10, 2008
11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
HankRearden writes:
jhous1490,
Can you offer any proof that we are killing ourselves and our world ? You know how many people have died as a result of nuclear power. How about comparing the life expectancy in France (80% nuclear) vs some third world county that has a totally natural environment (read no electricity). We as a society want and need power.
The USA uses 3.965 billion Megawatt hours of electricity per year. That is the equivalent of running 5.5 million Prius cars (82 kWs) 24 x 7 just to make power. I'm done trying to guess how to deliver it. What would you suggest Sparky?
October 10, 2008
11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
mikeyg writes:
jhous: how about the poisonous by-products of oil - want that on your front lawn?
Welcome to reality. You can't will every energy source, everything to be perfect. It's all about trade-offs.
Unless you, jhous, are willing to stay in your house, never travel by car/truck/jet/bus/rail, never buy any products with plastic in it, never buy any products that had to be transported by car/truck/jet/bus/rail to get to your door, grow your own food, use your own waste as fertilizer, communicate by smoke signals or drums, long, mill and work your own wood for housing and furnishings, AND never reproduce, unless you're willing to do all that and more then shut up with your sanctimonious idiotic ramblings.
"No" is not a solution. Imagining that clean, inexpensive and abundant energy sources are available to us and will appear in our hands in the blink of an eye does not mean that world exists. We can dream, dreamers are responsible for all of the blessings modern society provides mankind today. But the time it takes to turn a dream into a reality is not merely a blink of an eye. First you gotta make it, make it work, then you gotta build the infrastructure to most efficiently use it, then you gotta get the new technology in the hands of ever single soul. That takes time.
Nuclear power's trade-offs are worth it. It allows us to transition to new technologies more quickly and less expensively than anything else we know how to do today. The waste is an unfortunate by-product that can be safely handled at Yucca.
October 10, 2008
2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
I love the alliteration in the title.
October 10, 2008
6:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
hunterman writes:
"I love the alliteration in the title."
I'd like to hear how stupidly Sarah Palin could read that line.
October 11, 2008
4:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
anderson writes:
It's a line that could trip up a lot of tongues.
October 11, 2008
7:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
"Nuclear," sounds like "diaper."
October 12, 2008
10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
Is it really something we want to give to the lowest bidder?
October 15, 2008
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
jhous1490 writes:
Amazing how people who hate France love France's nuclear policies...just not their socialism, cuisine, or position on Iraq and Iran.
Spain has passed into law that all public buildings must have solar incorporated in their design. Want to follow Spain?
The Netherlands is a model of wind and recycyling. Want to follow the Dutch?
The European Union is also a model of public transportation. High velocity trains criss-cross the continent, and metro lines make public transportation easy. Think of all the gas we'd save if we gave up our addiction to cars? Want to follow that model?
It is time for the dinosaur age to go...and the dinosaur idea that coal or nuclear is in any way clean or inexpensive.
Try using the BBC for your information instead of Fox.
October 15, 2008
9:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Frank25 writes:
You do realize that all power plants are basically the same except for the fuel used to produce super steam. Nuclear power plant does this in the containment building, but from there plant is like the others. Navy has been using nuclear power for over 60 years in submarines and ships, with few incidents. Operator error most prevalent. No one died at 3 mile Island, and if Russia had a containment building they would not have lost lives. Coal, Gas plants kill more, and produce waste that lasts longer than the nuclear fuel. Also realize GE and Westinghouse developed this energy production, but with hearings, delays, trials, building a plant in this country became excessive. French companies bought the rights, and have been building plants all over the world. Why are environmentalists, leftists, liberals so stubborn. Jimmy Carter put our country in this bind in 1973, and it has continued ever since. It is time for us to join the rest of the world in energy production. Just because Jimmy carried Admiral Rickover's attache case, does not mean he knew nuclear. Know that was his college study, but I am not thrilled with his knowledge or management ability.