Nuclear Energy x3: A Realistic Strategy to Reduce CO2 that the US Agreed to Do

Details

By Professor Victoria Sutton

September 29, 2024

Guest Opinion. At the last global climate change meeting (the COP 28), in November 2023, the U.S. committed to triple nuclear energy by 2050, but then they did nothing.

Nuclear energy is the most efficient energy source that emits the lowest level of carbon per unit of any energy source that produces enough energy to run the United States — and the world.

Background

The world addresses climate change commitments through meetings almost each year under the coordination of the intergovernmental organization, the United Nations. These are Conferences of the Parties (COP) and are made up of the nations that signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at a meeting outside Washington, D.C., in 1992. I was a Senior Policy Analyst in the White House Science Office, and assigned the task of putting together language in dispute in the agreement at the end of each day in “bracketed text” which is the part that is debated the next day. It took me most of each night.

At the last COP28 (the 28th meeting of the parties) in Dubai, November 2023, more than 150 heads of state attended, along with non-government organizations (NGOs) and diplomatic staff. One of the highlights was a mid-term review of the 2015 Paris Agreement where they found more progress was needed on renewable energy. But the most productive and encouraging commitment was to increase nuclear energy by three times its current level.

Ten months after the COP28 in Dubai, China has approved 11 new reactors, Russia has proposed 34 new reactors by 2042 and South Korea has approved two new reactors. Poland, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Romania, and Hungary are all planning to expand their nuclear capacity.

The U.S. has approved no new reactors.

The Secretary of Energy announced an addition of 200 more megawatts in May 2023 by 2050 from nuclear energy, there is no plan or strategy to do that.

Consequences of falling behind

When the U.S. is not involved in leadership for building nuclear reactors and networks around the world, we lose touch with nefarious activities, as well. An example is the suspicion that China could be supporting Russia’s nuclear weapons development by the selling of uranium for that purpose. Right now, China has 30 nuclear power plants in development; while the U.S. has none. We know that North Korea has been partnering with Iran in the development of nuclear weapons for both countries, under the guise of nuclear energy development. Having a strong international presence is important to help control these dangerous liaisons.

The Net-zero Goal

Alex Epstein said in Congressional testimony, Sept. 19, 2024, “Net-zero by 2050 is the single most destructive idea human beings have ever come up with.” There is a lot of truth to that, because without a consistent source of energy, we would be without transportation, electricity, communication, currency and food. The drop in the economy that resulted in a drop in CO2 emissions in response to the pandemic shutdown is a snapshot of what would happen without energy. Alternative energy resources (wind, wave, solar, geothermal) cannot replace current energy demands which are dramatically increasing, making it even more difficult to envision alternatives as the answer. For example, a ChatGPT search uses about ten times the energy as a Google search.

There are several types of nuclear reactors. The most common type is the pressurized water reactor, which keeps water at about 325 degrees, pressurized so that it does not boil until it is needed to produce steam. New technology, the AP1000 a reactor patent held by Westinghouse (though in dispute), is the technology that just went online April 2024 at the Vogtle Plant in Waynesboro, Georgia, the largest clean energy resource in America. This reactor can produce 4,638 megawatts of power and power about two million homes. An average wind turbine can produce 1.5 megawatts of power for 415 homes. About 2200 solar panels are needed to produce one megawatt that would power 300 homes.

Time

The need for more energy and less emissions puts nuclear power at the top of the list for achieving these goals. The commitment by the U.S. to triple current nuclear power resources will have to get started if we hope to both keep up with the increasing energy demand as well as reduce carbon emissions.

The time it takes to build a nuclear reactor is cost prohibitive now. It was common wisdom that it takes 30 years from start to finish to build a nuclear reactor. The newest nuclear reactor, the Vogtle Plant, was estimated to take seven years with the new technology. Even at that, it took 14 years—double the estimate. It was estimated to cost and this doubled as well. Nuclear power can be challenged by environmental impact statements (EIS), they can delay development but an EIS cannot stop a project, itself.

The Nuclear Waste

One of the underrated problems with nuclear power is the nuclear waste disposal problem. This led to the unique formation of a nuclear waste compact among seven states with nuclear reactors, whereby seven states agreed to be the depository for nuclear waste on a rotating schedule — each state taking a turn to be the waste depository. In this way, one state did not become the dumping ground and all of the states shared the burden.

But the nuclear waste is still dangerous and with a half-life of thousands of years, the waste will not be eliminated in a big chunk of the history of humankind. Disposal of nuclear waste can be affected by burying it right on the grounds of the nuclear waste plant, which is probably the best solution. Transportation of nuclear waste has generated litigation and put countless communities at risk for a transportation accident just to move it away from the plant site. Yucca Mountain was the federal choice for nuclear waste disposal in Nevada, but Nevada did not want to become the dumping state for the nation, and the beauty and history of Yucca Mountain as well as its sacred status among regional Tribes made it a poor choice that eventually became untenable to pursue. (An entire agency was created to usher the nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, at one time.)

The Navajo Nation has objected to the transport of nuclear waste across the reservation. Counties in states have objected to the same movement through their jurisdictions, but judicial review found that it was a burden on interstate commerce and so they could not restrict the travel of nuclear waste through their roads. Tribal Nations are a separate sovereign and are not subject to the same constitutional test for interstate commerce. The history of nuclear waste contamination from mining uranium on the Navajo Nation makes their objection particularly meaningful.

As the need to find nuclear waste disposal facilities grows with the projected tripling of the amount of nuclear energy, the opportunity to prey on politically powerless populations is a risk that must be guarded against. Environmental justice would call for examining the unequal burden of risk that could end up in the backyards of populations that are not politically loud enough to prevent the destruction and degradation of their communities. The NIMBY syndrome, the “not-in-my-back-yard” trope is effective only for those with political power to stop it.

Conclusion

The commitment to build three times the nuclear power resources we have in the U.S. has been made, and we should take it. Careful siting and planning for the entire nuclear fuel to waste life cycle by having it never leave the nuclear plant is the most cost effective and least controversial approach to achieving this ambitious goal. The surge in electricity demand, the likelihood of rolling blackouts, and the need to reduce carbon emissions can all be achieved with nuclear power and the mindset may be changing in the face of these new factors.

To read more articles by Professor Sutton go to:  https://profvictoria.substack.com/ 

Professor Victoria Sutton (Lumbee) is a law professor on the faculty of Texas Tech University. In 2005, Sutton became a founding member of the National Congress of American Indians, Policy Advisory Board to the NCAI Policy Center, positioning the Native American community to act and lead on policy issues affecting Indigenous communities in the United States.