[p2p-research] economic case against going nuclear is overwhelming

[Michel Bauwens]

http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/NuclearPower_wastes_and_CO2_cost_reduction_considerations.pdf

very detailed study showing why using nuclear option is counter-productive

E. Conclusions
This analysis shows that the common assumption in many circles that nuclear
is essential for
reducing CO2 emissions is incorrect. On the contrary, emissions can be more
effectively reduced
at much lower risk if existing coal-fired power plants are replaced by wind
and combined cycle
power plants. In the long run, natural gas can be replaced by biogas derived
from biomass for
instance to eliminate the CO2 emissions associated with it and also to
eliminate the risk of natural
gas price increases over the long-term. Even when compressed air energy
storage is added to
wind to make it dispatchable, the costs of CO2 reduction are slightly higher
for the central
estimate of nuclear than for wind with storage.
It does not appear desirable to take the risks associated with nuclear power
both in regard to waste
and money in order to reduce CO2 emissions. Moreover, given that the lead
time for building
nuclear power plants is 8 to 10 years (perhaps more in case of long delays),
CO2 reductions can be
carried out much more rapidly if renewable energy is deployed, since
renewable projects typically
take two to three years or less. Therefore, there could be a substantial CO2
cost penalty associated
with using nuclear power due to its long lead time. The nuclear industry
will also take time to
ramp up. In the United States, it is anticipated that less than ten plants
and possibly less than half
that will be built in the next ten years. The amount of equivalent renewable
capacity, in terms of
generation and hence CO2 reductions, that can be brought on line in that
time could be many times
that. When combined with large efficiency investments and investments in
storage, the overall
share of the cost of electricity in the Gross Domestic Product can be
maintained even if renewable
electricity remains somewhat more expensive than conventional fossil fuel
generation (in the
absence of CO2 charges).
Nuclear power is a distraction from the real task at hand – transitioning to
an efficient, smart-grid
electricity system based entirely on renewables. John Wellinghof, the
Chairman of the U.S.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, has recently noted that there may be
no need for new
nuclear or coal plants ever.55 My research indicates that he is right.
Policies in regard to existing
nuclear plants can safely be based on the assumption that we will be able to
phase them out and
that we will not need new nuclear power plants to address climate change
concerns.

-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091202/ae56de99/attachment.html>