RSS Feed MenuFortunately, the US has experienced only a few black-outs and regional power outages in the last three decades. The biggest happened on August 14, 2003 Ñapparently the result of a tree branch falling in Ohio–and affected much of the Northeast, the Midwest, and Ontario. Such incidents may not remain rare much longer, however.
Our capacity to generate electricity and to transmit it to where it is needed most will be exhausted within a few years without new power plants and significant upgrades to the vast interconnections of power lines known collectively as “the grid”. Blackouts like the one in 2003 could become more frequent, more long-lasting, and more expensive to individuals and businesses.
Peter Huber and Mark Mills, among others, have shown convincingly that improvements to material well-being are inextricably linked to greater use of electricity. Furthermore, the proportion of our total energy consumption that is electricity has increased steadily and will continue to do so in the Internet Age (those PCs, data warehouses, and servers need a lot of juice).
Not only do powerful, well-established trends show that we will need both more electricity and more reliable delivery of it, but a substantially upgraded electric system may also offer us our best hope of weaning ourselves from petroleum-based transportation fuels like gasoline. The earliest examples of a new automotive world are already running on our highways.
On the whole, our system of investor-owned utilities, government-sponsored entities, and transmission wires have provided the US economy with continuously improved output and service for the last century.
So why should we be concerned about looming blackouts now?
Because we have underinvested in generating capacity and the transmission grid for about three decades. Political obstacles and disincentives have been the primary reasons.
For example, of the 104 nuclear power plants in operation in the US today, all began the arduous process of planning, permitting, construction, and final approval before 1979.
Even without an explicit, official prohibition of nuclear power plant construction since 1979, utilities and other investors could see that a vast array of federal, state, and local bureaucrats, judges, and “public interest” lawyers had the ability to block construction, impose long delays on construction and even prevent operation once constructed—as was the case with the Shoreham reactor that eventually bankrupted the Long Island Lighting Company.
Additionally, the US suspended recycling of spent fuel rods during the mid-1970s and has never resumed the practice even though recycling facilities in France, the UK, Russia, and Japan are all successful in radically reducing the amount (by volume and weight) and radioactivity (in terms of years remaining) of the nuclear waste produced through power generating operations.
Even without an antagonistic government and legal system, construction and operation of nuclear power plants are inherently more complicated than for other types of electric power generation. The “up-front” nature of the investment and relatively small subsequent operating costs meant that investors in nuclear power plants were that much more vulnerable to the depredations of opportunistic politicians.
We still managed to put off the day of reckoning through resourceful “up-rating” of nuclear power plants (i.e. operating them longer than originally envisioned) and by building lots of natural gas burning combined-cycle turbines which were relatively quick to construct and benefited from low natural gas prices during the 1990s. We are approaching the physical limits of existing nuclear power generating capacity though, and the dramatic increase in natural gas fired generation since the early 1990s led to much higher gas prices and to significant imports of liquefied natural gas for the first time in our history.
We have almost eliminated petroleum-based fuels (< 3%) as a source of electric generation since 1973. Ninety-five percent of US power generation is fueled by just four sources and these will remain the important sources for a long time to come:
- Coal (50%)
- Nuclear (20%)
- Natural Gas (18%)
- Hydro (7%)
“Alternative” power sources like wind and solar excite the chattering classes but will never be more than ancillary sources of electricity. It is also a virtual certainty that no new hydroelectric dams will be constructed in the US.
To some extent, expanded and more reliable transmission capacity (more and “smarter” wires) can substitute for generating capacity. Because demand for electricity is different across the country, the ability to wheel electricity from one region to another economizes on generating capacity. Some parts of the Midwest and Southeast do still have unused coal and gas-fired generating capacity.
A grid controlled by state-of-the-art silicon switches is certainly desirable but even an advanced grid cannot substitute indefinitely for new generating capacity.
That leaves new coal and nuclear plants as our primary hopes for sustaining our standard of living. Unfortunately, coal fired plants emit significant amounts of CO2 (at 2.5 times that of gas-fired turbines for each kilo-watt/hour generated) and the Obama administration and most Democratic Congressional leaders are determined to curtail US emissions of CO2 on the grounds that it leads to global warming.
As nuclear power plants emit no CO2 (or pollutants into the atmosphere) they are the power generating source of choice for a growing number of the environmentally minded.
Indeed, thirty years after the Three Mile Island accident, nuclear power is almost fashionable again. Newspapers and magazines have referred to a “nuclear renaissance.” Even some well-left-of-center, environmental movement luminaries have become nuclear power advocates such as Stewart Brand, founder and editor of the Whole Earth Catalog, James Lovelock, of Gaia hypothesis fame, and Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. The Manhattan Institute’s Max Schulz makes the point that some important liberal Democrats have also revised their previously hostile stances towards nuclear energy.
Private capital seems interested in finding nuclear power opportunities as well. MidAmerican Energy, the utility arm of multi-billionaire (and Democrat-friendly) Warren Buffett has announced its support of nuclear power generally and its willingness to invest in new nuclear power plant construction in particular.
In 2007, NRG Energy filed the first full Nuclear Regulatory Commission application for new nuclear power plants since Three Mile Island. NRG hopes for federal approval for its two proposed units in south Texas in 2010 and to have one unit operational in 2014 and the second in 2015.
The US Nuclear Renaissance may be short-lived
Such developments are encouraging but hardly an occasion to break out the champagne.
The fact that the time from statement of intent to when NRG’s new plants actually generate power is seven to nine years is painfully significant. In fact, the seven to nine year horizon represents the lower bound on the planning, permitting, and construction phase of nuclear power plants.
Resistance to the NRG plans are relatively low because it is a “brown-field” project (there are already two nuclear power plants at the south Texas site with long-distance transmission infrastructure already in place) and because popular attitudes to power plants in Texas are less unfriendly than elsewhereÑsuch as in New York or CaliforniaÑtwo places that are at especially high risk of blackouts and major economic disruption.
And after all, these would only be two plants and many specialists believe we need at least thirty more in the US to satisfy demand over the next fifteen years.
Major Democratic politicians in New York State have not only opposed new nuclear power plant construction but actually also want to shut down the two Indian Point nuclear reactors —the most important power plants serving the New York metropolitan area. The supporters of this inane idea a year ago included then-Governor Eliot Spitzer, and Democratic congressmen John Hall and Nita Lowey.
In his cautiously optimistic piece noted earlier, Max Schulz also notes this about Indian Point:
Closing Indian Point would remove 2,000 megawatts at a time when the operator of the state’s electricity grid says more power is needed in the next few years just to keep the lights on. Renewables are unlikely to pick up the slack. Indian Point’s reactors generate more than five times as much electricity as all 390 of New York’s windmills can on their best day.
That several successful politicians in one of our largest states can still advance such lunatic proposals tells us that we still have a very long way to go.
What Needs to be Done?
GOP candidates and issues activists now have an opportunity to establish themselves in the public mind as the party of environmentally friendly, safe, affordable, and reliable electricity. The political battle must be fought in state capitols as well as in Washington, DC and in legislatures as much as in executive branches.
Part of the good news is that building new nuclear power plants and upgrading the grid will not require handouts. Private capital stands ready to make the necessary investments.
What changes would lead to a real Nuclear Renaissance?
- The regulatory approval process at the federal and state levels for new nuclear power plants needs to be made significantly faster.
- State utility regulators need to assure utilities that investments they make in the transmission capacity and switching controls on power flows will be added to regulated “rate-bases” of those utilities even if out-of-state consumers will also benefit from those grid investments.
- Open the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada as soon as possible. This would significantly reduce the risk that spent fuel rods would have to be stored on the sites of nuclear power plants around the country indefinitely.
- The federal government needs to recognize that methods of recycling spent fuel rods have advanced significantly and that these latest methods should be approved officially.
Without these changes, we can look forward to black-outs, brown-outs, and serious interruption of commercial and industrial enterprises.
If that comes to pass, it won’t be fun but let’s be sure that we will have been on the right side of this issue when public opinion begins to shiftÑand shift quickly.
senorlechero // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:02 pm
GO NUKES is right. Great post. It’s nice to see some liberals come around to see that conservatives were right all along on nuclear power plants, though not enough of them agree yet. Now, if we can only get them to hold off on drastic anti global warming measures long enough to see they are wrong about that too we’ll be in good shape
gospelance // Jan 31, 2009 at 7:19 am
it is quite ironic indeed–that the very liberals who are at the highest risk of blackout and subsequent economic disruption–are the NO NUKES crowd. I’ve studied Yucca Mountain (as a native Nevadan), and am always amazed at how Sen. Reid continually keeps Yucca Mountain delayed. And that’s despite the countless billions that have already been spent developing the place. Good old Harry Reid: he loves the jobs at Yucca Mountain–afterall, they contribute to the so-called “major industries” of Nevada; but then he won’t let it go on-line (sounds like some of the projects coming up!). It’s pretty clear that–that’s why they keep him around.
gospelance // Jan 31, 2009 at 7:26 am
It’s time for Nevadans to WAKE UP! …and return to the conservative values you had before the influx of California Liberals and their ideas; Replace Harry. Yucca Mountain will get that spent fuel away from our cities. All that spent fuel being stored “locally” -sounds like an accident waiting to happen to me. I know that nuclear power seems scary and all, but it is a necessary evil–especially if you want to cut emissions.
gblittle // Jan 31, 2009 at 7:56 am
Excellent piece. It is also refreshing to see an author of an article state the facts, the problems and SOLUTIONS instead of just pointing out problems. As the lone sheep in a family of nuclear construction employees I can remember my father saying as he left to overseas nuke construction projects “this country is going to be hurting in about 25 years”. The advances we could have make in contruction, reactor vessel designs, etc., if we would have just kept building would be amazing. However most of what was make for the contruction of such plants was (reactor vessel even the turbines) were sold off many years ago. Just getting back in the business, if the nation agressively started such projects, would in itself be a major project. Sad but true, the US does not have enough people skill sets at present (nuke plant construction). And you hit the nail right on the head, the regulator process would need to be streamlines. From first shovel in the ground to flipping the switch could take five years. Add the current regulatory process, environmental lawsuits you just added 7 to 10 more years. And talk about employment, the numbers it takes to build would put any road or bridge project to shame.
suey // Jan 31, 2009 at 8:43 am
lech you are wrong! 12 minutes and counting. Well here is one Liberal who agrees with this article 110%. We should have built many more Nukular ((TM Bush-Palin Inc)) plants in the past 20 years or so and should be building them today. Could some of the reasons why be tied to the Bush Inc big oil ties? We need a fast track approach to this, identify sites, get the things built and get the reprocessing industry started. Do way with stupid regulations that stand in the way apart from safety considerations. This is proven clean technology which is well tested and proven. The dreaded French are way ahead of us in this.
sinz54 // Jan 31, 2009 at 8:57 am
The most important thing that pro-nuclear folks (and that’s not limited to conservatives) need to do is start consciousness-raising and changing the culture at the grass roots, through a massive public-relations campaign. The Left has gotten too many ordinary Americans convinced that nuclear power is: a) dangerous; b) somehow connected to those big bad nuclear weapons; c) a producer of nuclear waste for which no solution has allegedly been found. (All of which are false.) As long as that is the case, the public will continue to both elect anti-nuclear representatives, and support local NIMBY crusades to litigate against any proposed new nuclear plant. Remember, the anti-nuclear movement began in the late 1970s as a bunch of nuclear weapons disarmament activists, who brilliantly figured out that protesting against nuclear power would allow them to capitalize on NIMBY concerns.
sinz54 // Jan 31, 2009 at 9:06 am
Suey: It’s certainly possible that political contributions from oil companies to Republicans have biased the GOP toward a “drill drill drill” policy instead of a “nuke nuke nuke” policy. But emphasizing oil over nuclear is also a strategic political move by the GOP, because oil touches more ordinary Americans directly. Most American consumers have no idea how their electricity is generated, or what types and numbers of plants are operated by their local utility. But Americans are made acutely aware of oil, every time they fill up their car’s tank at the gas station. When Republicans emphasize oil, they are implicitly reassuring Americans that they don’t have to give up their Ford Explorers or Dodge Rams or Ford F-150s. So far at least, there is no way to power popular automobiles by electricity from nuclear plants. Nuclear power is a more remote solution to a more remote problem (global warming).
dendup // Jan 31, 2009 at 1:32 pm
So now with the success of supply side economics you advocate supply side energy policy. Calling Huber & Mills “convincing” is a bit of a stretch – but hey, go for it.
Reprocessing nuclear fuel by the US will encourage other nations to so as well, greatly increasing the threat of nuclear weapon proliferaton.
It’s great to see Repulicans put their faith in regulation though.
stlmapman // Jan 31, 2009 at 8:45 pm
dendup, it seems a bit ridiculous to claim that reprocessing will encourage proliferation. France and Japan already do it, and our “bold stand” against it hasn’t really stopped any countries who are trying to build bombs. See North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India…
nealjking // Feb 1, 2009 at 12:22 am
stimapman: From my reading a few decades ago, the biggest single impediment to creation of nuclear weapons is the needed capability to handle and process the fissionable material. The technology is expensive and complicated. Unfortunately, the technology needed for reprocessing of used nuclear fuel is exactly the same technology. The reason we don’t view it as problematic that France and Japan have this technology is that we don’t worry about France and Japan as threats: Indeed, I would be rather worried about North Korea, Pakistan, India or Iran having this technology. Right now, all these countries are at most “bit” players (and they’re still a threat), but if they could do the processing, they would be major-league already.
senorlechero // Feb 1, 2009 at 8:13 am
The world is already looking at the U.S. and saying “if they can have so many NUKES why can’t we”. They already say we have too many and are making more. The idea that if we build more nuclear power plants a new arms race will result is ridiculous.
dendup // Feb 1, 2009 at 8:44 am
The Union of Concerned Scientists on their website say this:
Reprocessing would increase the risk of nuclear proliferation
U.S. reprocessing would encourage other countries to do likewise and undermine the U.S. goal of halting the spread of proliferation-prone fuel cycle technologies, which is why U.S. policy has been to not engage in reprocessing.
Some reprocessing advocates claim that a new generation of so-called “proliferation-resistant” reprocessing technologies now under development would resolve the proliferation concerns of conventional reprocessing. However, there is little evidence that these technologies would be significantly more secure. Moreover, all reprocessing technologies are far more proliferation-prone than direct disposal, and require much greater resources to be safeguarded against diversion and theft of plutonium.
We already have one war because of the threat of proliferation – do we reallywant more than are already in the works. This is the technology that enables Iran to be close to being a nuclear power. We should work to elimate nuclear power from the planet rather than saying to Iran, for example, “Oh as long as the nuclear plants are for peaceful purposes.” It just doesn’t work.
dendup // Feb 1, 2009 at 8:46 am
Just for clarification, the UCS quote ends with the word plutonium. Therest is all me. Sorry for any confusion.
senorlechero // Feb 1, 2009 at 10:05 am
I wonder what the Union of Unconcerned Scientists would say about it. If ever there was a group whose agenda was written into their name it is the UCS. If only such “concern” over the effect of “new…. technologies” was likewise applied to AGW ideology these scientists concern may be deemed credible. But I don’t hear them calling for a halt to the push for ridding the world of carbon emmiting energy sources, though everyone knows that existing technologies cannot take the place of fossil fuels withing the next 50 years or so. Agenda driven science should be a capital crime
dendup // Feb 1, 2009 at 1:13 pm
The Union of concerned Scintists does notcallfor the elimination of nuclear power. tThat was me. I apologize for not making the quoted portion of my 8:44 post clear. This is what they have to say about the fuuure of nuclear power. Judge for yourself if this is agenda driven science. “The NRC must require all new U.S. reactors to be significantly safer than ones currently in operation, otherwise safer reactors will not be economically competitive. Of the new designs under consideration in the United States, only oneknown as the European Power Reactor or EPRappears to have the potential to be significantly safer and more secure against terrorist attack.
Minimizing the risks of nuclear power is simply pragmatic. Nothing would undermine public acceptance of a new generation of nuclear power plants as much as a serious accident, a terrorist strike on a reactor or spent fuel pool, or the detonation of a nuclear weapon made from stolen reactor materials.”
sinz54 // Feb 1, 2009 at 5:31 pm
dendup: Nuclear weapon proliferation is already well underway, before the U.S. reprocesses anything. It’s due to the failure to enforce the current nonproliferation regime. If Iran gets nukes, Saudi Arabia will want them for deterrence. If North Korea gets nukes, several Pacific nations will want them for deterrence. Instead of worrying about how to restrain the U.S., perhaps the UCS liberals ought to figure out how to restrain Iran and North Korea–it’s their pursuit of nuclear weapons that is sparking arms races in their parts of the world. No Administration was more anxious about proliferation via reprocessing than the Carter Administration, which terminated U.S. work on breeder reactors. Carter’s reward was the test-firing of India’s first nuclear bomb during his administration. He protested. India basically told him to stuff it. They weren’t impressed by unilateral U.S. restraint. The UCS is just being disingenuous when they don’t call for the outright elimination of nuclear power. By putting every possible obstacle in the way of construction of new nuclear plants, they only have to wait till the old ones become obsolete and are phased out. And so far, what is “undermining public acceptance of a new generation of nuclear power plants” is hysteria coming from GreenPeace and their ilk.
senorlechero // Feb 1, 2009 at 6:53 pm
great post sinz….every point you make is right on
dragonlady // Feb 1, 2009 at 9:57 pm
I think the idea that if we use nuclear power for generating electricity that it will lead automatically to proliferation is a futile argument against the advancement of science. That’s looking at the symptoms (nuke plants) vs the actual cause of why countries get nuclear weapons (Hobbesian world). True, we have to tackle nuclear non-proliferation agressively but the technology for nuclear weapons is much more complex than having the ability to reprocess nuclear fuel. Yes, there are concerns with countries like NK and Iran having this technology since it can be applied for dual use purposes (civilian vs military), but to weaponize the enriched uranium or plutonimum takes quite a bit of expertise sponsored by a gov’t infrastructure that isn’t just laying around with ordinary engineers. Nuclear power is safe. The US Navy has been running it for years on their subs and carriers. I don’t understand why we wouldn’t invest in nuclear technology that would be proliferation resistant. The new micro nuclear reactors have no moving parts so there can’t be a meltdown, no weapons grade material, and can be encased in concrete underground. We need to educate the public why nuclear power is the way to go.
nealjking // Feb 2, 2009 at 4:41 am
dragonlady,
The issue of proliferation is not with nuclear power generation by itself, but nuclear power generation when you are doing reprocessing of spent fuel. If you don’t do reprocessing, you don’t need weapons-grade technology; but if you do, you do.
Unfortunately, if you do nuclear power without spent-fuel reprocessing, the amount of uranium we have available won’t last so long: maybe 1,000 years instead of the 20,000 years we would get by doing the reprocessing.
And I don’t agree that the technology for nuclear weapons generally is more complex than the reprocessing technology: based on the studies I looked at before, the processing is the hard part. The rocket-science part is only rocket science (and you know how many countries are sending up rockets these days?); and anyway, you can deliver a nuclear weapon without rockets. The part of the problem that is tough is purifying and working the stuff.
dendup // Feb 2, 2009 at 7:29 am
dragonlady: “True, we have to tackle nuclear non-proliferation agressively” Could you be more specific? This sounds like a throwaway line to me without much behind it. As long as reprocessing is acceptable countries whose intent is nuclear programs will be able to get heir programs well underway under the guise of “peaceful nuclear energy”. The experience of the last 8 yrs suggest Republicans are not committed to non proliferation since it conflicts with thier military doctrine.
senorlechero // Feb 2, 2009 at 10:18 am
dendup….I’m not dragonlady, but here’s what I’d do to “tackle nuclear non-proliferation agressively”. Starting with Iran (then repeating the proceedure with any terrorist supporting dictatorial regime), I would bomb the beegeebers out of any nuke plant that is providing material that is being used in weapon production. I would use a NUKE to completely destroy it and render it useless for the next few decades. N. Korea and other despotic regimes would get a clue pretty darned fast. NUKES in the hands of the greatest force for good on this planet (the U.S. of A.) are a tool that should be used for good. It’s good to rid the world of an Iranian nuclear weapons threat.
sinz54 // Feb 2, 2009 at 1:24 pm
dendup: The way to tackle proliferation is to go after the proliferators. And the number one proliferator is North Korea, which was supplying nuclear technology to Syria until Israel bombed it there. America is NOT the proliferator, and our actions are NOT leading to more proliferators. What is leading to more proliferators is the world seeing that the existing proliferators, especially North Korea, are not facing any serious consequences for their behavior. I don’t go as far as SenorLechero in demanding war (let alone nuclear war), but I do believe that our goal (using diplomacy at first) must be to disarm North Korea and Iran. If that is not done, the inevitable result will be a nuclear arms race in both parts of the world. Saudi Arabia will get their own bomb. So will South Korea. Because they know that the U.S. won’t risk nuclear war to defend their states. This is something that starry-eyed Obama and his starry-eyed left-wing supporters are just going to have to find out for themselves.
dendup // Feb 2, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Of course N Korea and Iran are the immediate problemand we have to find a way to deal with them without making matters worse. Then what? We are in a hole and we have to stop digging. When Saudia Arabia announces it wants to devlop nuclea power, will we say, “oh of course, as long as it’s for just power.” And then when they say, “oh we wethink reprossing the fuel is the way to go.” Do we say “of couse, nothing wrong with reprossessing.”? Even if we disarm NK and Iran, SA will still want nuclear weapons. I did not say we are proliferators, I did say the Bush admin was not committed to non-proliferation. Tying down our military in Iraq has cost us dearly in our ability to use the threat of military action in dealing with NK and Iran. But that is where we are and we have to devlop both a short and long term strategy. My remarks are aimed at the longer term.
senorlechero // Feb 2, 2009 at 4:21 pm
If we “Drill here and Drill now” we won’t have to worry about dealing with S.A. The war in Iraq has not dented our ability to deal with N.K. or Iran. Any military activity we would launch against either of them would be conventional hard hitting bombings, which would leave them unable to attack anyone.
dragonlady // Feb 2, 2009 at 10:02 pm
dendup, I don’t know why you characterize Republicans as not caring about nuclear proliferation. Bush aggressively pursued the Proliferation Security Initiative that has already been signed by many nations which enforces nonproliferation through interdiction. His admin also wanted to restrict nuclear supplies for civilian purposes only to countries who signed the additional protocol to the NPT, and countries who renounced encrichment and reprocessing. Enrichment and reprocessing would be limited to only countries with an established nuclear infrastructure. He also strengthened the IAEA. That, and the beefup in intel resources going after proliferators like the AQ Khan network seems to me like he took pretty robust measures. So the proliferation concerns can and should continued to be addressed through international regimes with controls on the nuclear fuel cycle. There are several other proposals by Germany and the IAEA as alternatives that should be considered.