Political fallout


While disposing of radioactive waste is still highly problematic, nuclear energy has grown in popularity among lawmakers because the reactors do not produce dangerous levels of greenhouse gases, a factor that most scientists believe exacerbates global warming. With Congressional support from both Democrats and Republicans, nuclear energy is set to play a leading role in President Obama’s strategy to minimize the nation’s reliance on high-polluting fossil fuels. $55 billion has been budgeted to support the nuclear energy industry, with twenty new projects currently under review.


Could the Fukushima crisis crush the hopes of a nuclear revival? $55 billion is a substantial gamble on an industry tainted by catastrophe, particularly for a nation already leveraged to an extreme. But perhaps this investment in nuclear energy is necessary to diversify the nation’s energy portfolio. Removing it might expose the nation to greater risks, including greater short-term reliance on traditional, and dirty, energy sources. If the lobbyists are right, and the possibility of a crisis similar to Fukushima’s occurring in the United States is virtually zero, then impeding the nuclear renaissance in the U.S. is tantamount to denying the nation of clean, cheap energy. Right?


Conceivably, but since lobbyists by-and-large have a vested interest in their cause, their claims must be met with a healthy dose of skepticism. Yes, nuclear energy technology has made strides in the decades following the horrific episodes of Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island, but is it enough? There is still no satisfactory way to dispose of radioactive waste and, as the devastation in Japan reminds the world, mankind has little defense against the tremendous and unpredictable power of Mother Nature.



Closing one door to open another


Advocates of nuclear energy also cite its competitive pricing vis-à-vis other alternative energy sources. This advantage is evaporating quickly. Safer, next-generation nuclear facilities are much more expensive to build than their predecessors, and given recent events in Japan the U.S. government will likely delay subsidy of the projects currently under review. These rising capital costs come at a time when the costs of building photovoltaic solar and wind plants are becoming more competitive. Solar thermal, photovoltaic solar and on-shore wind plants are now cheaper to build than nuclear reactors on a $/kW basis, and none of these sources bear the ugly externality of radioactive waste. If current trends persist this spread will likely widen, making the case for nuclear energy increasingly difficult.



























Conclusions


There is no single renewable energy source that will take the place of traditional fossil fuels. Some regions simply do no get enough sun light or wind, or border a body of water suitable for hydroelectric facilities, or sit atop a geothermal reservoir. A diversified portfolio of energy sources is the only feasible strategy. How to weigh each source, however, remains to be seen.


The recent devastation in Japan shows that nuclear power facilities in regions especially prone to natural disasters carry an immense risk. Will the nuclear renaissance in the U.S., then, experience an early death? Definitely not. Nuclear energy is just too valuable as an alternative fuel source in the present day. But the trajectory of the nuclear renaissance is sure to change. Nuclear power’s renewed momentum will be dampened by more vocal opposition, increasingly competitive alternatives, and general reluctance to support future projects.


Ultimately, nuclear plants built near major fault lines will be replaced by alternative energy plants that best suit that particular environment. Forthcoming energy policy ought to facilitate this transition, shifting priority towards safer sources of renewable energy.