Pros and cons of nuclear energy
Nuclear power plants emit neither carbon dioxide, nor sulphur or mercury. Currently, the 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S. generate about a fifth of the nation’s energy. Wind accounts for about 1% and solar even less. Nuclear can meet power demand 24 hours a day, in contrast with solar and wind.
Nuclear power can help, even if it won’t solve the whole problem. In the short to medium term, it is probably too late for nuclear power to make a material difference in carbon emission, given nuclear power's slow political, legal and technological development cycle.
Critics argue that nuclear energy has significant capital and decommissioning costs. Those capital costs have risen significantly lately, and there is a debate as to whether nuclear energy is still economic.
The high cost of nuclear power may be ascribed to two factors: a lack of experience in building plants as well as shortage of parts and skills, both due to the fact that no new plant has been started in the U.S. since 1977. But if new plants are started, construction timing will become more predictable, bringing financing costs down as lenders become more comfortable. At the same time, the number of companies supplying parts and providing engineering will increase to meet the demand, lowering the price.
Most important, nuclear power appears economically uncompetitive primarily because the price of fossil fuels doesn’t reflect the high cost that carbon emissions pose for the environment. Should the price of environmental degradation be taken into account either through a direct tax based on the carbon content of a fuel or a so-called cap-and-trade system, fossil-fuel would look much less competitive compared with low-carbon sources, such as nuclear, wind and hydropower. It is estimated that a carbon price of between $25 and $50 a ton makes nuclear power economically competitive with coal.
By far the greatest risk it the possibility that an expansion of nuclear power will contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Plants that enrich uranium for power plants can also be used to enrich it for bombs. The dangers of nuclear proliferation would be heightened if a nuclear revival turned to reprocessing of spent fuel to reduce the amount of high-level waste that builds up and to maintain adequate fuel supplies. Reprocessing is a problem because it can produce separated plutonium – which is easier to steal or divert for weapons production, than plutonium contained in highly radioactive fuel.
Source: WSJ, 30/06/08
