The atomic headache.

So it seems that nuclear has become entangled in the debate over America’s energy future with senate republicans calling for nuclear power to play a much larger role in the energy and climate bill. John Rowe, chief executive of Exelon—the biggest operator of nuclear plants in the country – has called for an inclusion of nuclear power in renewable-energy standards, which right now apply only to things like wind, solar, hydro-power, and biomass. This has set off a firestorm of debate on the role of nuclear in the American energy landscape. Some of the more interesting articles, and tit for tat bloguments that have shown up are as follows;

1) Nuclear Option: An atomic bargin with the GOP? Bradford Plummer – The New Republic

Basically an overview of the history of republican relationship with the nuclear industry and the distinct conundrum that the ’small government’ party faces in regards to the huge subsidies that nuclear plants call for.

The party’s [GOP] energy plan, released in July, calls for a whopping 100 new reactors built by 2030. That’s twice as many as even the most optimistic industry forecasts envision, and, given that the plants are estimated to cost at least $6-$10 billion a pop and have difficulty attracting private investment, they would likely need hefty subsidies–something the right is supposed to frown at

2) Nuclear Socialism – Matthew Yglesias – yglesias.thinkprogress.org

Yglesias basically points out the stark irony that Republicans find nuclear to be a sustainable option for future energy needs yet the only Nuclear success stories come in the form of heavily government intervention into the marketplace. Yglesias goes on to explain the rise of the greatest nuclear powered state, France, and their use of social business structure to build a seamless nuclear industry through state owned corporations.

But in a larger sense the issue is that the big example one can find of a country living the nuclear dream is . . . France. And it’s not just an irony or a funny coincidence, nuclear power in France is deeply tied to the genuinely socialistic (i.e., not just high taxes and a generous welfare state) aspects of the French economy.

3) Conservatives Heart Nuclear power – David Frum – Frum Forum

David Frum takes on Yglesias’ position that only an active state can have a successful nuclear industry by suggesting that as carbon becomes a liability for coal power, investment will turn to less harmful sources of energy i.e nuclear.

It’s a simple formula. Reduced carbon = either radically more expensive electricity or else more nukes. More nukes = bigger utilities. No mystery at all!

4) Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power? – David Roberts – Grist

In this article Roberts basically rips apart the idea that we need more nuclear and coal plants to supliment renewable energy sources. Instead he suggests that;

The alternative will be Resilience Through Diversity: just-in-time, just-enough power from multiple, redundant, diverse sources spread over large geographical areas, managed by a reliable, intelligent power grid incorporating distributed storage. Peak load will be shaved by load spreading and efficiency; failures will be localized and self-healing rather than cascading and catastrophic; intelligence will replace brute power.

And now my

The idea that Republicans liking nuclear power – because of massive subsidies – as being ironic is completely misleading. If anything American elected officials, Republicans and Democrats alike have shown that without state intervention into private industry many American industries wouldn’t exist today. From 2002-2008 under a Republican administration the fossil fuel industry benefited from 72 billion dollars in government subsidy, the renewable industry received 29 billion with the majority of that going to the ethanol industry , which as it turns out isn’t a viable option for reducing our Co2 emissions.

Just because the U.S. has horribly mis-managed its energy sectors, believing that the free market would inevitably lower overall costs doesn’t mean that nuclear and renewable subsides should be abandoned. If you were to examine the amount of investment that the U.S. government has put into GE or Westinghouse (two of the largest nuclear reactor manufacturers in the US) it would probably rival the overall investment that France made into its publicly owned nuclear reactor manufacturer Areva. The major difference is that France realizes that government should work as a business and not a corporate piggy bank, the U.S. obviously does not.

Nuclear is needed in any future energy mix if a nation is trying to reduce its carbon output. Also the suggestion that ‘resilience thorough diversity’ will solve our impending energy nightmare is completely misguided. Replacing brute power with intelligence is very, very expensive and it seems that the wet dream of a Totally renewable energy grid by 2030 has been experienced by some. Some very interesting assertions to that hypothesis can be found here.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• economics
• Why nuclear power still sucks