Going Nuclear?

The industry produces hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste that will remain hazardous for centuries.

Nuclear energy is both a threat and an opportunity.

Those are the tradeoffs that will need to be balanced.

Many peopl e tend to think that nuclear power plants are inherently dangerous, citing Chernobyl.

Many peopl e tend to think that nuclear power plants are inherently dangerous, citing Chernobyl.

Wind and solar are not “round-the-clock” – at least until there’s cost-effective energy storage for the power grid (don’t hold your breath).

But, with improvements in battery technologies, we can (and likely will) see more electrification of transportation – through plug-in hybrids and ever pure-electric vehicles.

Wind and solar are not “round-the-clock” – at least until there’s cost-effective energy storage for the power grid (don’t hold your breath).

But, with improvements in battery technologies, we can (and likely will) see more electrification of transportation – through plug-in hybrids and ever pure-electric vehicles.

As for the costs of a new generation of nuclear reactors, they are completely unknown.

New designs are on the drawing board, but none have been implemented.

Wind and solar are not “round-the-clock” – at least until there’s cost-effective energy storage for the power grid (don’t hold your breath).

Still, for the time being, the economics of new wind and solar energy (indeed, any new power plants) are considerably higher than the costs of running existing nuclear plants, so electricity prices would go up if nuclear were to go away.

The US taxpayer has long subsidized, and continues to subsidize, nuclear energy.

Many peopl e tend to think that nuclear power plants are inherently dangerous, citing Chernobyl.

Clearly, we won’t see nuclear powered vehicles.

Three Mile Island was a more plausible worst-case scenario – and its environmental impact was small relative to the long-term impact of coal mining and burning, or petroleum extraction and refining.

One of the greatest challenges facing the US is deciding how to power our economy in a way that provides the standards of living we’re accustomed to, at the costs we’re accustomed to paying, while avoiding the bad future to which continued status quo will drive us.

When opponents of renewable energy discredit it due to subsidies (which they admittedly do receive), it’s pretty hypocritical: nuclear (and fossil) energy has gotten and still gets far more subsidy dollars than renewable energy has and does.

The US taxpayer has long subsidized, and continues to subsidize, nuclear energy.

One of the greatest challenges facing the US is deciding how to power our economy in a way that provides the standards of living we’re accustomed to, at the costs we’re accustomed to paying, while avoiding the bad future to which continued status quo will drive us.

Chernobyl was truly an aberration – all safety systems were intentionally disabled and the plant was pushed to its limits as an experiment (Hey, that’s a really good idea!).

Using conventional technology and ignoring greenhouse gas emissions, the cost of energy from new coal power plants is probably in the order of 6-8 cents/kwh.

Nuclear energy can be a major part of the total solution, but only if we’re willing to accept the costs and risks.

However, if the US ever becomes serious about dealing with climate change via a carbon policy, then the economics of coal power will deteriorate significantly.

Shutting down the current generation of nuclear plants doesn’t seem like a promising strategy from either an economic or environmental perspective.

New coal power plants would be an even riskier bet.

There hasn’t been a new nuclear plant completed in the US since the 1980s, and no new orders since the late 1970s.

Costs could be as low as 8 cents/kwh or as high as 15 cents/kwh.

But, with improvements in battery technologies, we can (and likely will) see more electrification of transportation – through plug-in hybrids and ever pure-electric vehicles.

There hasn’t been a new nuclear plant completed in the US since the 1980s, and no new orders since the late 1970s.

Still, for the time being, the economics of new wind and solar energy (indeed, any new power plants) are considerably higher than the costs of running existing nuclear plants, so electricity prices would go up if nuclear were to go away.

New gas-fired power plants have fairly low emissions and can be approved and built quickly, but the price and supply of natural gas in uncertain and highly volatile.

Shutting down the current generation of nuclear plants doesn’t seem like a promising strategy from either an economic or environmental perspective.

Still, for the time being, the economics of new wind and solar energy (indeed, any new power plants) are considerably higher than the costs of running existing nuclear plants, so electricity prices would go up if nuclear were to go away.

One of the greatest challenges facing the US is deciding how to power our economy in a way that provides the standards of living we’re accustomed to, at the costs we’re accustomed to paying, while avoiding the bad future to which continued status quo will drive us.

The industry produces hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste that will remain hazardous for centuries.

Chernobyl was truly an aberration – all safety systems were intentionally disabled and the plant was pushed to its limits as an experiment (Hey, that’s a really good idea!).

We still need better technologies for dealing with nuclear waste in order to avoid potential contamination.

However, if the US ever becomes serious about dealing with climate change via a carbon policy, then the economics of coal power will deteriorate significantly.

Still, for the time being, the economics of new wind and solar energy (indeed, any new power plants) are considerably higher than the costs of running existing nuclear plants, so electricity prices would go up if nuclear were to go away.

The BP Gulf oil spill was far worse of an ecological catastrophe than Three Mile Island.

Three Mile Island was a more plausible worst-case scenario – and its environmental impact was small relative to the long-term impact of coal mining and burning, or petroleum extraction and refining.

There are huge advantages and substantial risks associated with it, and while it’s easy to see one side of the coin or the other, it’s hard to see and accept both sides of the coin at the same time.

Still, for the time being, the economics of new wind and solar energy (indeed, any new power plants) are considerably higher than the costs of running existing nuclear plants, so electricity prices would go up if nuclear were to go away.

One of the greatest challenges facing the US is deciding how to power our economy in a way that provides the standards of living we’re accustomed to, at the costs we’re accustomed to paying, while avoiding the bad future to which continued status quo will drive us.

Still, for the time being, the economics of new wind and solar energy (indeed, any new power plants) are considerably higher than the costs of running existing nuclear plants, so electricity prices would go up if nuclear were to go away.

Three Mile Island was a more plausible worst-case scenario – and its environmental impact was small relative to the long-term impact of coal mining and burning, or petroleum extraction and refining.

Environmentalists are torn: many oppose nuclear on philosophical grounds based on their perceived risks, while other thought-leaders are nuclear proponents based on the practical realities.

Still, for the time being, the economics of new wind and solar energy (indeed, any new power plants) are considerably higher than the costs of running existing nuclear plants, so electricity prices would go up if nuclear were to go away.

Still, for the time being, the economics of new wind and solar energy (indeed, any new power plants) are considerably higher than the costs of running existing nuclear plants, so electricity prices would go up if nuclear were to go away.

The industry produces hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste that will remain hazardous for centuries.

Still, for the time being, the economics of new wind and solar energy (indeed, any new power plants) are considerably higher than the costs of running existing nuclear plants, so electricity prices would go up if nuclear were to go away.

New gas-fired power plants have fairly low emissions and can be approved and built quickly, but the price and supply of natural gas in uncertain and highly volatile.

However, if the US ever becomes serious about dealing with climate change via a carbon policy, then the economics of coal power will deteriorate significantly.

New designs are on the drawing board, but none have been implemented.

Wind and solar are not “round-the-clock” – at least until there’s cost-effective energy storage for the power grid (don’t hold your breath).

One of the greatest challenges facing the US is deciding how to power our economy in a way that provides the standards of living we’re accustomed to, at the costs we’re accustomed to paying, while avoiding the bad future to which continued status quo will drive us.

New gas-fired power plants have fairly low emissions and can be approved and built quickly, but the price and supply of natural gas in uncertain and highly volatile.

Chernobyl was truly an aberration – all safety systems were intentionally disabled and the plant was pushed to its limits as an experiment (Hey, that’s a really good idea!).

Environmentalists are torn: many oppose nuclear on philosophical grounds based on their perceived risks, while other thought-leaders are nuclear proponents based on the practical realities.

Still, for the time being, the economics of new wind and solar energy (indeed, any new power plants) are considerably higher than the costs of running existing nuclear plants, so electricity prices would go up if nuclear were to go away.

One of the greatest challenges facing the US is deciding how to power our economy in a way that provides the standards of living we’re accustomed to, at the costs we’re accustomed to paying, while avoiding the bad future to which continued status quo will drive us.

Environmentalists are torn: many oppose nuclear on philosophical grounds based on their perceived risks, while other thought-leaders are nuclear proponents based on the practical realities.

When opponents of renewable energy discredit it due to subsidies (which they admittedly do receive), it’s pretty hypocritical: nuclear (and fossil) energy has gotten and still gets far more subsidy dollars than renewable energy has and does.

One of the greatest challenges facing the US is deciding how to power our economy in a way that provides the standards of living we’re accustomed to, at the costs we’re accustomed to paying, while avoiding the bad future to which continued status quo will drive us.

There hasn’t been a new nuclear plant completed in the US since the 1980s, and no new orders since the late 1970s.

This role is amplified if we want to deal seriously with the other energy imperative we face: eliminate our reliance on petroleum for transportation.

But, on the other hand, if climate change matters, then there’s a poteltial role for new nuclear in the US.

If that happens, we’ll need much more power generation capability – especially if a lot of old coal plants are retired in response to climate legislation.

New gas-fired power plants have fairly low emissions and can be approved and built quickly, but the price and supply of natural gas in uncertain and highly volatile.

Costs could be as low as 8 cents/kwh or as high as 15 cents/kwh.

New gas-fired power plants have fairly low emissions and can be approved and built quickly, but the price and supply of natural gas in uncertain and highly volatile.

Three Mile Island was a more plausible worst-case scenario – and its environmental impact was small relative to the long-term impact of coal mining and burning, or petroleum extraction and refining.

New designs are on the drawing board, but none have been implemented.

New gas-fired power plants have fairly low emissions and can be approved and built quickly, but the price and supply of natural gas in uncertain and highly volatile.

As for the costs of a new generation of nuclear reactors, they are completely unknown.

Three Mile Island was a more plausible worst-case scenario – and its environmental impact was small relative to the long-term impact of coal mining and burning, or petroleum extraction and refining.

Shutting down the current generation of nuclear plants doesn’t seem like a promising strategy from either an economic or environmental perspective.

Environmentalists are torn: many oppose nuclear on philosophical grounds based on their perceived risks, while other thought-leaders are nuclear proponents based on the practical realities.

Chernobyl was truly an aberration – all safety systems were intentionally disabled and the plant was pushed to its limits as an experiment (Hey, that’s a really good idea!).

Chernobyl was truly an aberration – all safety systems were intentionally disabled and the plant was pushed to its limits as an experiment (Hey, that’s a really good idea!).

Using conventional technology and ignoring greenhouse gas emissions, the cost of energy from new coal power plants is probably in the order of 6-8 cents/kwh.

If that happens, we’ll need much more power generation capability – especially if a lot of old coal plants are retired in response to climate legislation.

Nuclear energy can be a major part of the total solution, but only if we’re willing to accept the costs and risks.

One crucial factor that needs addressing is the question of cost.

There are huge advantages and substantial risks associated with it, and while it’s easy to see one side of the coin or the other, it’s hard to see and accept both sides of the coin at the same time.

There is no easy, cheap, one-size-fits-all answer to this problem.

But, with improvements in battery technologies, we can (and likely will) see more electrification of transportation – through plug-in hybrids and ever pure-electric vehicles.

Shutting down the current generation of nuclear plants doesn’t seem like a promising strategy from either an economic or environmental perspective.

There is no easy, cheap, one-size-fits-all answer to this problem.

If that happens, we’ll need much more power generation capability – especially if a lot of old coal plants are retired in response to climate legislation.

There are huge advantages and substantial risks associated with it, and while it’s easy to see one side of the coin or the other, it’s hard to see and accept both sides of the coin at the same time.

Wind and solar are not “round-the-clock” – at least until there’s cost-effective energy storage for the power grid (don’t hold your breath).

There are huge advantages and substantial risks associated with it, and while it’s easy to see one side of the coin or the other, it’s hard to see and accept both sides of the coin at the same time.

The cost of new nuclear is generally more than new wind, and while less than new solar today, the costs of new solar should become competitive as a result of technological advancements in the coming years.

The BP Gulf oil spill was far worse of an ecological catastrophe than Three Mile Island.

Shutting down the current generation of nuclear plants doesn’t seem like a promising strategy from either an economic or environmental perspective.

The cost of new nuclear is generally more than new wind, and while less than new solar today, the costs of new solar should become competitive as a result of technological advancements in the coming years.

The BP Gulf oil spill was far worse of an ecological catastrophe than Three Mile Island.

New gas-fired power plants have fairly low emissions and can be approved and built quickly, but the price and supply of natural gas in uncertain and highly volatile.

There are huge advantages and substantial risks associated with it, and while it’s easy to see one side of the coin or the other, it’s hard to see and accept both sides of the coin at the same time.

One of the greatest challenges facing the US is deciding how to power our economy in a way that provides the standards of living we’re accustomed to, at the costs we’re accustomed to paying, while avoiding the bad future to which continued status quo will drive us.

Still, for the time being, the economics of new wind and solar energy (indeed, any new power plants) are considerably higher than the costs of running existing nuclear plants, so electricity prices would go up if nuclear were to go away.

When opponents of renewable energy discredit it due to subsidies (which they admittedly do receive), it’s pretty hypocritical: nuclear (and fossil) energy has gotten and still gets far more subsidy dollars than renewable energy has and does.

One of the greatest challenges facing the US is deciding how to power our economy in a way that provides the standards of living we’re accustomed to, at the costs we’re accustomed to paying, while avoiding the bad future to which continued status quo will drive us.

Still, for the time being, the economics of new wind and solar energy (indeed, any new power plants) are considerably higher than the costs of running existing nuclear plants, so electricity prices would go up if nuclear were to go away.

Three Mile Island was a more plausible worst-case scenario – and its environmental impact was small relative to the long-term impact of coal mining and burning, or petroleum extraction and refining.

Still, for the time being, the economics of new wind and solar energy (indeed, any new power plants) are considerably higher than the costs of running existing nuclear plants, so electricity prices would go up if nuclear were to go away.

New gas-fired power plants have fairly low emissions and can be approved and built quickly, but the price and supply of natural gas in uncertain and highly volatile.

There are huge advantages and substantial risks associated with it, and while it’s easy to see one side of the coin or the other, it’s hard to see and accept both sides of the coin at the same time.

We still need better technologies for dealing with nuclear waste in order to avoid potential contamination.

If that happens, we’ll need much more power generation capability – especially if a lot of old coal plants are retired in response to climate legislation.

We still need better technologies for dealing with nuclear waste in order to avoid potential contamination.

The BP Gulf oil spill was far worse of an ecological catastrophe than Three Mile Island.

There are huge advantages and substantial risks associated with it, and while it’s easy to see one side of the coin or the other, it’s hard to see and accept both sides of the coin at the same time.

There are huge advantages and substantial risks associated with it, and while it’s easy to see one side of the coin or the other, it’s hard to see and accept both sides of the coin at the same time.

Instead of environmental risks, the real risks of nuclear energy are about fuel security adn fuel disposal.

This role is amplified if we want to deal seriously with the other energy imperative we face: eliminate our reliance on petroleum for transportation.

Nuclear energy can be a major part of the total solution, but only if we’re willing to accept the costs and risks.

When opponents of renewable energy discredit it due to subsidies (which they admittedly do receive), it’s pretty hypocritical: nuclear (and fossil) energy has gotten and still gets far more subsidy dollars than renewable energy has and does.

One of the greatest challenges facing the US is deciding how to power our economy in a way that provides the standards of living we’re accustomed to, at the costs we’re accustomed to paying, while avoiding the bad future to which continued status quo will drive us.

One of the greatest challenges facing the US is deciding how to power our economy in a way that provides the standards of living we’re accustomed to, at the costs we’re accustomed to paying, while avoiding the bad future to which continued status quo will drive us.

One of the greatest challenges facing the US is deciding how to power our economy in a way that provides the standards of living we’re accustomed to, at the costs we’re accustomed to paying, while avoiding the bad future to which continued status quo will drive us.

New designs are on the drawing board, but none have been implemented.

Nuclear energy is both a threat and an opportunity.

The industry produces hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste that will remain hazardous for centuries.

One of the greatest challenges facing the US is deciding how to power our economy in a way that provides the standards of living we’re accustomed to, at the costs we’re accustomed to paying, while avoiding the bad future to which continued status quo will drive us.

There hasn’t been a new nuclear plant completed in the US since the 1980s, and no new orders since the late 1970s.

Chernobyl was truly an aberration – all safety systems were intentionally disabled and the plant was pushed to its limits as an experiment (Hey, that’s a really good idea!).

Wind and solar are not “round-the-clock” – at least until there’s cost-effective energy storage for the power grid (don’t hold your breath).

However, if the US ever becomes serious about dealing with climate change via a carbon policy, then the economics of coal power will deteriorate significantly.

Still, for the time being, the economics of new wind and solar energy (indeed, any new power plants) are considerably higher than the costs of running existing nuclear plants, so electricity prices would go up if nuclear were to go away.

Wind and solar are not “round-the-clock” – at least until there’s cost-effective energy storage for the power grid (don’t hold your breath).

Instead of environmental risks, the real risks of nuclear energy are about fuel security adn fuel disposal.

One of the greatest challenges facing the US is deciding how to power our economy in a way that provides the standards of living we’re accustomed to, at the costs we’re accustomed to paying, while avoiding the bad future to which continued status quo will drive us.

So, if we don’t care about climate change, coal is likely to be the dominant answer, not nuclear.

Environmentalists are torn: many oppose nuclear on philosophical grounds based on their perceived risks, while other thought-leaders are nuclear proponents based on the practical realities.

Three Mile Island was a more plausible worst-case scenario – and its environmental impact was small relative to the long-term impact of coal mining and burning, or petroleum extraction and refining.

There are huge advantages and substantial risks associated with it, and while it’s easy to see one side of the coin or the other, it’s hard to see and accept both sides of the coin at the same time.

When opponents of renewable energy discredit it due to subsidies (which they admittedly do receive), it’s pretty hypocritical: nuclear (and fossil) energy has gotten and still gets far more subsidy dollars than renewable energy has and does.

The cost of new nuclear is generally more than new wind, and while less than new solar today, the costs of new solar should become competitive as a result of technological advancements in the coming years.

One crucial factor that needs addressing is the question of cost.

The industry produces hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste that will remain hazardous for centuries.

There are huge advantages and substantial risks associated with it, and while it’s easy to see one side of the coin or the other, it’s hard to see and accept both sides of the coin at the same time.

Many peopl e tend to think that nuclear power plants are inherently dangerous, citing Chernobyl.

New gas-fired power plants have fairly low emissions and can be approved and built quickly, but the price and supply of natural gas in uncertain and highly volatile.

Chernobyl was truly an aberration – all safety systems were intentionally disabled and the plant was pushed to its limits as an experiment (Hey, that’s a really good idea!).

Wind and solar are not “round-the-clock” – at least until there’s cost-effective energy storage for the power grid (don’t hold your breath).

Still, for the time being, the economics of new wind and solar energy (indeed, any new power plants) are considerably higher than the costs of running existing nuclear plants, so electricity prices would go up if nuclear were to go away.

Three Mile Island was a more plausible worst-case scenario – and its environmental impact was small relative to the long-term impact of coal mining and burning, or petroleum extraction and refining.

Three Mile Island was a more plausible worst-case scenario – and its environmental impact was small relative to the long-term impact of coal mining and burning, or petroleum extraction and refining.

Instead of environmental risks, the real risks of nuclear energy are about fuel security adn fuel disposal.

Many peopl e tend to think that nuclear power plants are inherently dangerous, citing Chernobyl.

So, it would seem that this argues for massive wind and solar installation, rather than new nuclear.

Using conventional technology and ignoring greenhouse gas emissions, the cost of energy from new coal power plants is probably in the order of 6-8 cents/kwh.

The cost of new nuclear is generally more than new wind, and while less than new solar today, the costs of new solar should become competitive as a result of technological advancements in the coming years.

Chernobyl was truly an aberration – all safety systems were intentionally disabled and the plant was pushed to its limits as an experiment (Hey, that’s a really good idea!).

The cost of new nuclear is generally more than new wind, and while less than new solar today, the costs of new solar should become competitive as a result of technological advancements in the coming years.