Story originally printed in the La Crosse Tribune or online at www.lacrossetribune.com
Published - Thursday, July 26, 2007
Fight climate change with nuclear power
The cost of reducing the emission of global warming gases is high only because the price of coal remains so low. America’s future is still tied to coal for most of our electricity production — not because cleaner alternatives aren’t available, but because burning carbon-emitting coal is so easy and cheap that it’s risky to invest capital in environmentally benign nuclear power.
Nuclear power plants emit no carbon dioxide, whereas coal plants in the United States load the atmosphere each year with more than 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide, accounting for about one-third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power are clean but of limited use because they’re intermittent.
Considering the dimensions of the global warming problem, the continuing increase in carbon emissions from coal plants in the United States and other countries is a time bomb, with potentially devastating effects on the climate. If present trends continue unabated, scientists warn that the buildup of global warming gases could be irreversible.
What can we do about this? Coal plants currently provide 52 percent of America’s electricity, and because the construction of nuclear plants has been at a virtual standstill, we use three times as much coal as we did in the early 1980s.
In Wisconsin, coal plants supply 70 percent of our electricity. What’s more, coal use nationally is expected to increase by 50 percent, since about 150 new coal plants are planned or under construction.
Despite all the talk about “clean coal” technology, the idea of storing carbon dioxide in salt formations and old oil and gas wells is still in the experimental stage.
Instead of building more coal plants, utilities need to move forward with nuclear power. Although the cost of producing electricity from existing U.S. nuclear plants is fully competitive with coal plants, new nuclear power is more expensive. But this higher price tag is deceptive.
Nuclear power plants require larger capital investments only because nuclear utilities are required to build and maintain costly systems to keep their radioactivity from the environment. If coal plants were similarly required to capture and safely dispose of the carbon emissions they generate, they would cost significantly more than nuclear power plants do.
Congress can help establish a level playing field by directing the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency to regulate carbon emissions from fossil-fuel burning. It also should impose a moratorium on the construction of new coal plants.
Most astounding, an energy bill moving through Congress would subsidize the construction of plants that convert coal into a diesel-like fuel for automobiles. These coal-to-liquid plants produce more than twice the greenhouse gas emissions as gasoline and nearly twice the emissions of ordinary diesel.
To be sure, the United States is not alone in encouraging the use of coal. But as the world’s largest coal consumer, the United States is in no position to persuade countries with fast-growing economies such as China and India to burn less coal.
It’s time to stop thinking that we can invest in a fuel that will leave us at best not losing any ground in the battle on global warming. That makes little sense at a time when evidence shows that nuclear power is environmentally safe, practical and affordable.
L. Del Butterfield is a retired nuclear engineer.
All stories copyright 2000 - 2006 La Crosse Tribune and other attributed sources.