I2M Associates's Web Portal for Geoscientists
About this Portal 
  Search 
Index / Uranium (Nuclear Minerals) / Nuclear Power - Economics, Design, and Industry

 New
7/17/2017 by mdc
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/nuclear-power-is-worth-sav...
Bloomberg Editorial Board opines that if market forces are allowed to shut down nuclear power plants in the U.S., the climate and public health will suffer. The bankruptcy of Westinghouse Electric Co. is yet more evidence, if anyone needed any, that the economics of nuclear power are not good with cheap natural gas, a fossil fuel.

Unlike coal, however, nuclear energy is a crucial tool in the fight against climate change. So the public subsidies that benefit the nuclear industry in the U.S. are justified, whereas efforts to prop up the coal industry are not.

And states are offering or proposing enormous subsidies. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo wants to spend $500 million a year to keep three plants going. Illinois will pay $235 million a year to rescue two more. Nuclear plant owners in other states are looking for similar bailouts.

There is no getting around the costs to ratepayers of these handouts, and there is no guarantee they will work. But they are worth trying as a way to keep nuclear in the energy mix as long as possible, and they are cheaper for the consumer than having nuclear plants shut down. There are 99 reactors in the U.S., and nuclear still provides 20% of U.S. electric power. When nuclear plants close, their output is largely replaced with coal and natural gas.

That is a backward step not only for climate but also for public health. In the 1980s, when the Tennessee Valley Authority temporarily closed two nuclear plants and replaced them with coal-fired power, pollution increased enough in some counties to lower average birth weight significantly, according to a new study.

The right way to account for this cost, as well as for the damage that burning fossil fuels does to the atmosphere, is to put a price on greenhouse-gas emissions, in the form of a substantial carbon tax. Until federal and state lawmakers see the wisdom of enacting one, states should at least include nuclear power in their definitions of what counts as clean energy.

Resource thumbnail
Open Resource  |  2017/07/17  |  8 Report Broken   Tell Friend

About this Portal