Nice debate, let me republish a recent article i came accross. As investors, I hope it will add some depth to our thinking on this issue. Cheers Zackman
"Climate Change & Global Warming"
"Want Clean? Go Atomic!'
by Max Borders
Nuclear power has gotten a bad rap. If there were ever a realistic alternative to burning coal and other fossil fuels, it’s atomic. And that is why it is time for us to start de-clouding some of the myths surrounding a mature, viable energy source that already produces nearly twenty percent of US electricity*.
One of the first blows against nuclear's image occurred during the Cold War era. Indeed, since most US power plants were built during the 60s and 70s, people who built fallout shelters during the Cuban Missile Crisis were understandably suspicious of atomic power-sources. Then came Chernobyl. The Ukrainian city, then part of the Soviet Union, will forever be remembered for the meltdown that occurred there in 1986, harming (and killing) thousands, with incidents of radiation poisoning, birth defects, and other unpleasant aftereffects.
Safe Energy
So, when someone mentions nuclear power, people often think of disasters. But the real risks of meltdown are remote, especially as new technology develops. (Today's advanced power plant designs will negate “accidental overheating or escape of radioactivity.”) American and western European nuclear facilities are safe, clean, and reliable, particularly when compared with other resources like coal and fossil fuel.
The United States currently operates 103 nuclear power plants, which averaged 91.2 percent capacity in 2002. Not only do these plants achieve outstanding rates of energy production, but nuclear power is able to produce electricity reliably and cheaply. Recently, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) endorsed nuclear power stating that, "Nuclear power has proven to be a safe, reliable, and reasonably priced source of electricity." With overwhelming evidence supporting nuclear power, we need to evaluate what is holding nuclear power back.
Expensive Investment, but Environmentally Friendly
While start-up costs present a major obstacle to nuclear facilities, perhaps the most contentious problem is safe, permanent disposal of nuclear waste. Environmentalists generally oppose the necessity of burying radioactive materials in underground storage facilities, since the substances can remain dangerous for thousands of years. However, when one compares the issue of nuclear waste storage against the pollution created by fossil fuels and the prospects of climate change, nuclear increasingly seems like a far superior alternative to carbon-based fuels.
As new technologies develop, we will be able to improve nuclear power production even more. For example, Pebble Bed Modular Reactors (PBMR) may offer a new alternative. PBMRs do not use water for coolants, but use helium. Instead of the disposal problem that the fuel rod presents, these reactors use “thousands of ceramic covered uranium ‘pebbles’ encased in graphite spheres to feed the reactor.” This technology could reduce nuclear generated electricity costs by 50 percent, negate the need for massive water sources close to a plant, and ease any remaining tensions regarding potential plant malfunctions. (Read more about this new technology and others.)
Although there is some difficulty in mining uranium safely and cleanly, methods for mining uranium will improve as nuclear energy becomes a more popular alternative. Uranium extraction since the 70s has improved, as well, and some argue that dangers in mining uranium are small when compared with benefits associated with diminished use of fossil fuels, (especially as we wean ourselves from Middle Eastern oil).
Nuclear power releases no pollution (whether particulates or CO2) into the atmosphere. Furthermore, nuclear reactors do not damage surrounding wildlife, groundwater, or soil, unlike many other sustainable options. In short, nuclear is comparatively speaking very clean. And nuclear energy doesn’t deplete our natural resources, excluding small amounts of uranium.
Obstacles
Despite all of these benefits, no nuclear power plants have been built since 1973 in the US. Capital costs pose another problem. It takes a massive infusion of capital to build a nuclear facility—not least of which is due to regulations and government licensure for a new plant. However, as people begin to trust nuclear power again, federal and local governments will have to adjust to make it viable.
Nuclear power facilities are a costly and risky initial investment for many power companies, even though maintenance and operating costs are comparatively low. (The power just keeps flowing once a facility is built). Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) estimates that, “the price tag for a new light water reactor (LWR) power plant, like those currently in use in the US, would range anywhere from $2 to $6 billion.” Formidable capital costs have encouraged governments to back investments for nuclear plants in many countries. For now, it seems, fossil fuels may still be the cheapest way to start an energy company.
The Nuclear Solution The US government is currently considering placing renewed emphasis on nuclear energy—both as a means to satisfy constituents’ desires to become less dependent on foreign fuels, as well as to quell fears of global warming. Recent reports by the US Secretary of Energy Advisory Board detail some of the measures governments are reviewing to move back towards nuclear energy, including removing some of the regulatory costs and impediments to start-up. And recent technologies may bode well for the advent of smaller, cleaner facilities.
New technologies for nuclear power are making disposal and storage far less cost-prohibitive and a lot safer since the nuclear plant building boom of the 60s and 70s. Indeed, if nuclear can again become a popular energy alternative to fossil fuels, related technologies will become even better. Those who loudly decry our continued dependence on carbon-based resources must take a hard look at the nuclear energy option. Failure to do so will be a default vote for more coal-burning pollution, ineffectual solar and windpower, or greater dependency on filthy fossil fuels.
(Max Borders is the Senior Editor of aBetterEarth.org.)
(20min delay)