generating failure

8/14/2019 Generating Failure

1/52

GENERATING FAILUREHow Building Nuclear Power Plants Would Set

America Back in the Race Against Global Warming


2/52

Generating FailureHow Building Nuclear Power Plants Would

Set America Back in the Race Against Global Warming

ravis Madsen and ony Dutzik

Frontier Group

Bernadette Del Chiaro and Rob SargentEnvironment America Research & Policy Center

November 2009


3/52

he authors wish to thank Peter Bradord, Adjunct Proessor at Vermont Law School; Dr. NathanHultman at the University o Maryland School o Public Policy and the Joint Global ChangeResearch Institute at Pacic Northwest National Laboratory; Matthew Freedman at URN; and

Bill Marcus at JBS Energy, Inc., or their insightul comments on drats o this report. Tanks also toSahil Kapur and Elizabeth Ridlington at Frontier Group or research and editorial support.

Environment Oregon Research & Policy Center is grateul to the Educational Foundation o Americaor making this report possible.

Te authors bear responsibility or any actual errors. Te recommendations are those o EnvironmentOregon Research & Policy Center. Te views expressed in this report are those o the authors and donot necessarily refect the views o our unders or those who provided review.

2009 Environment Oregon Research & Policy Center

Environment Oregon Research & Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization. We are dedicated to protectingOregons air, water and open spaces. We investigate problems, crat solutions, educate the public anddecision makers, and help Oregonians make their voices heard in local, state and national debates overthe quality o our environment and our lives. For more inormation about Environment Oregon Research& Policy Center or or additional copies o this report, please visit www.environmentoregon.org.

Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, healthier andmore democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate inormation and compelling ideas into publicpolicy debates at the local, state and ederal levels. For more inormation about Frontier Group, pleasevisit www.rontiergroup.org.

Acknowledgments

Cover photo: iStockPhoto/Anthony Clausen

Layout: Alec Meltzer, meltzerdesign.net


4/52

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................1

Introduction............................................................................................................................6

America Must Act Quickly to Limit

the Consequences o Global Warming........................................................8

Global Warming Threatens the Healthand Well-Being o All Americans ........................................................................................9

To Limit the Consequences o Global Warming,America Must Switly and Substantially CutEmissions o Global Warming Pollution ........................................................................10

Nuclear Power Is Not a Solution to Global Warming ................15

Nuclear Power Is Too Slow to ReduceGlobal Warming Pollution in the Near-Term ...............................................................15

Choosing to Build New Reactors Would DivertResources rom More Cost-Efective Strategies .........................................................24

Nuclear Power Is Not Needed to ProvideReliable, Low-Carbon Electricity or the Future..........................................................31

Policy Recommendations ......................................................................................37

Methodology ......................................................................................................................39

Notes ...........................................................................................................................................42

Table of Contents


5/52

1How Building Nuclear Power Plants Would Set America Back in the Race Against Global Warming

Far rom being a solution to global warming,nuclear power will actually set America backin the race to reduce pollution. Nuclear power

is too slow and too expensive to make enough oa dierence in the next two decades. Moreover,nuclear power is not necessary to provide clean,carbon-ree electricity or the long haul.

Te up-ront capital investment required to build

100 new nuclear reactors could prevent twice asmuch pollution over the next 20 years i investedin energy eciency and clean, renewable energyinstead. aking into account the ongoing costs orunning the nuclear plants, a clean energy pathwould deliver as much as ve times more progressor the money.

Early action matters in the ight against

global warming.

Te more total carbon dioxide pollution thathumanity emits into the atmosphere, thegreater the warming and consequent damage.Earlier action allows us more fexibility torespond to an evolving understanding ohumanitys role in shaping the climate.

According to current science, humanity as awhole can emit no more than 1 trillion metrictons o carbon dioxide rom 2000 through2050 in order to have a 75 percent chance olimiting the global temperature increase to3.6 F above the pre-industrial era a targetthe international community has set to limitthe severity o global warming impacts. Tis 1trillion metric tons is our carbon budget.

o acilitate keeping total emissions within thisbudget, a panel o distinguished Nobel Prize-winning scientists have called on developednations to reduce their emissions o global

warming pollution by 25 to 40 percent below1990 levels by 2020.

Reducing emissions rom power plants holdslarge potential or early progress. Te share othe U.S. emissions budget available to electricpower plants could be as little as 34 billionmetric tons o carbon dioxide (CO

2) rom

2010 cumulatively through 2050.

New nuclear reactors would be built too slowly

to reduce global warming pollution in the near

term, and would actually increase the scale o

action required in the uture.

No new reactors are now under constructionin the United States. Te nuclear industry willnot complete the rst new reactor until at least2016, optimistically assuming constructionwill take our years ater regulatory approval.

However, it is likely that no new nuclear

reactors could be online until 2018 or later.During the last wave o nuclear constructionin the United States, the average reactor tooknine years to build. New reactors are likely toexperience similar delays. For example, a newreactor now under construction in Finlandis at least three years behind schedule ater aseries o quality control ailures.

Te American nuclear industry is notready to move quickly. No American power

company has ordered a new nuclear powerplant since 1978, and all reactors orderedater the all o 1973 ended up cancelled. Asa result, domestic manuacturing capabilityor nuclear reactor parts has withered andtrained personnel are scarce.

Even i the nuclear industry managed tocomplete 100 new reactors in the United

Executive Summary


6/52

2 Generating Failure

States by 2030 the level o constructionadvocated by supporters o nuclear power new nuclear power plants could still only

reduce cumulative power plant emissions by12 percent over the next two decades, leadingto a higher and later peak in pollution. As aresult, America would burn through its 40-year electric sector carbon budget in just 15years. (See Figure ES-1.)

In contrast, energy eciency and renewable

energy sources can make an immediate

contribution toward reducing global warming

pollution.

Clean energy can begin cutting emissionsimmediately. Energy eciency programs arealready reducing electricity consumption by1-2 percent below orecast levels annuallyin leading states, and the U.S. wind industryis already building the equivalent o threenuclear reactors per year in wind arms, andgrowing rapidly.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

ProjectedCumulativ

e

Emis

sionsafter2010(MM

TCO2

) Reference Case(AEO 2009)

100 Nuclear

Reactors by 2030

Equivalent CapitalInvestment inClean Energy(Midpoint)

Emissions Budget ( 2010-2050)

Figure ES-1: Projected Cumulative Electric Sector Emissions o Global Warming

Pollution ater 2010 with No Action, 100 New Reactors Built by 2030, or an

Equivalent Capital Investment in Clean Energy

Nuclear reactors are too slow to cut enough pollution in the next two decades. With the up-ront capitalinvestment required to build 100 new nuclear reactors, America could achieve twice as much by investing inclean energy instead.


7/52


With the up-ront capital investment requiredto build 100 new nuclear reactors, Americacould prevent twice as much pollution in the

next 20 years by investing in clean energyinstead. (Midpoint estimate, see Figure ES-1and page 21 or more details.)

However, even this level o investment inclean energy would not be enough to keepU.S. power plant emissions within budget.(See Figure ES-1.) America should cut powerplant emissions on the order o 50 percentwithin the next decade to limit the worstconsequences o global warming.

Nuclear power is expensive and will divertresources rom more cost-eective energy

strategies.

Building 100 new nuclear reactors wouldrequire an up-ront capital investment on theorder o $600 billion (with a possible range o$250 billion to $1 trillion), diverting moneyaway rom cleaner and cheaper solutions.

Any up-ront investment in nuclear powerwould lock in additional expenditures over

time. Over the lie o a new reactor, theelectricity it produces could cost in the rangeo 12 to 20 cents per kilowatt-hour, or more.In contrast, a capital investment in energyeciency actuallypays us backseveral timesover with ongoing savings on electricity bills,and an investment in renewable power candeliver electricity or much less cost.

Per dollar spent over the lietime o thetechnology, energy eciency and biomassco-ring are ve times more eective at

preventing carbon dioxide pollution, andcombined heat and power (in which a powerplant generates both electricity and heat ora building or industrial application) is greaterthan three times more eective. In 2018,biomass and land-based wind energy will bemore than twice as eective, and oshorewind power will be on the order o 30 percent

more eective per dollar o investment, evenwithout the benet o the renewable energyproduction tax credit. (See Figure ES-2.)

By 2018, and possibly sooner, solarphotovoltaic power should be comparableto a new nuclear reactor in terms o its per-dollar ability to prevent global warmingpollution. Some analyses imply that thin lmsolar photovoltaic power is already more cost-eective than a new reactor. And solar poweris rapidly growing cheaper, while nuclearcosts are not likely to decline.

Nuclear power is not needed to provide reliable,

low-carbon electricity or the uture.

Nuclear power proponents argue that nuclearplants are needed to produce low-carbonbase-load power. However, the need orbase-load power is exaggerated and small-scale clean energy solutions can actuallyenhance the reliability o the electric grid.

Many clean power sources includingenergy eciency improvements, combinedheat-and-power technologies and renewable

energy sources such as biomass, geothermalenergy and solar thermal power with heatstorage are available at any time, just likenuclear power. Others, including wind andsolar photovoltaic power, are predictable withabout 80-90 percent accuracy a day in advance.With proper planning and investments in asmart grid to acilitate wise use o resources,clean energy solutions could supply the vastbulk o Americas electricity needs.

Over-reliance on base-load power plants such

as nuclear reactors can harm the reliability othe grid. Because nuclear reactors providepower in massive, infexible, all-or-nothingblocks, they oten produce large amountso power at times when ew people need it.Moreover, when a reactor ails, it can havedramatic and widespread consequences orthe availability o electricity. For example,


8/52


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

GlobalWarmingPollu

tionPrevention

Capacity(kgCO2pe

r2018Dollar)

Figure ES-2: Comparative Ability o Electricity Technologies to Prevent Global

Warming Pollution, per 2018 Dollar Spent over Technology Lietime Online in

2018, Merchant Financing Terms

By 2018, a reasonable estimate or the rst date a new reactor could be online, nuclear power will be amongthe least cost-eective options or reducing global warming pollution. Source: see discussion on page 29 and

Methodology on page 39.


9/52


when a power line ailure triggered theshutdown o two nuclear reactors at urkeyPoint in southern Florida in February 2008,

more than 3 million customers in the Miamiarea lost power or up to ve hours causingtrac jams, stranding people in elevators,and widely disrupting business.

o address global warming, U.S. policy should

ocus on improving energy eciency and

generating electricity rom clean sources that

never run out such as wind, solar, biomass

and geothermal power. State and ederal

leaders should:

Oppose additional subsidies or nuclearpower. Nuclear power has already benetedrom more than $140 billion in ederal subsidiesover the last hal-century, rom liabilityprotection to loan guarantees. Te ederalgovernment should not urther subsidize newnuclear power plants. Any subsidies or low-carbon energy alternatives must be judgedbased on their relative short-term and long-term costs and environmental advantages.

Reduce the nations emissions deeply

enough to prevent dangerous impacts

rom global warming, guided by the latest

scientifc understanding. Te United Statesshould reduce its emissions o global warmingpollution 35 percent below 2005 levels,

with the vast majority o emissions comingdomestically, and reduce emissions by morethan 80 percent by 2050. Polluters should pay

or any right to use the atmosphere, and anyrevenues should support investments in cleanenergy and benet consumers. Te UnitedStates should also work with other nationsto achieve an international agreement to dowhat it takes to prevent the worst impacts oglobal warming.

Require the nation to reduce overall

electricity use by 15 percent by 2020 and to

obtain at least 25 percent o its electricity

rom clean, renewable sources o energy

that never run out, such as wind and solarpower, by 2025. States should also enactsimilar policies or expand existing targets.

Strengthen energy eciency standards and

codes or appliances and buildings with thegoal o reducing energy consumption in newbuildings by 50 percent by 2020 and ensuringthat all new buildings use zero net energyby 2030. Advanced states should go urther,aiming or all new buildings to achieve net-zero energy perormance by 2020.

Invest in electric grid modernization tomaximize our potential to take advantageo a diverse range o energy eciencyopportunities and clean power sources.


10/52


People around the world are growingincreasingly alarmed about global warming and or good reason. Every day, it seems,

scientists announce a new nding that pointstoward grave peril or our civilization.1

Te damaging impacts o warming rom theacidication o the worlds oceans to meltingglaciers and rising sea levels are happening even

aster than the most eye-opening predictionsmade by the United Nations IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change just two years ago.2Scientists are becoming increasingly concernedthat critical thresholds are a matter o years or aew decades away beyond which lay dramaticand irreversible changes to our world and ourway o lie.3

Given the pollution that humans have alreadyproduced, some impacts, such as the melting omountain glaciers and the resulting disruption

o water supplies, will be unavoidable andirreversible.4 However, with immediate, swit anddecisive action at all levels o government local,state, national and international we still have achance to avoid many o the most catastrophicimpacts o global warming.

Given the scale o the threat, we should put everypossible solution on the table, except or the statusquo. We should careully consider all sources ocarbon-ree energy even nuclear power to

make sure that we choose the approach mostlikely to deliver success.

Te nuclear industry has worked tirelessly overthe last decade to position itsel as a solution toglobal warming.5 On the surace, the case looksreasonable. Nuclear power is capable o producinglarge amounts o electricity while emitting littleto none o the heat-trapping gases that cause

global warming.6 Nuclear power advocates havecoalesced around a vision o building 100 newreactors in the United States by 2030, doublingthe current feet o reactors and moving Americaseconomy away rom its dependence on pollutingossil uels.7

Tis report takes a closer look at how newnuclear power could contribute to the ght

against global warming. Te report ocuses onthe need or solutions that deliver rapid andsubstantial progress in reducing Americasemissions o global warming pollution withinthe next 10 to 20 years; cut pollution in a cost-eective way compared to other strategies; andmaintain reliable electricity service.

By these measures, nuclear power simply isntup to the job. Putting aside the unresolvedproblem o how to saely dispose o nuclearwaste, the environmental impacts o mining and

processing uranium, the risk o nuclear weaponsprolieration, and the potential consequences oan accident or terrorist attack at a nuclear powerplant, the nuclear industry simply cannot buildnew reactors ast enough to deliver the progresswe need on a time scale that will make enough oa dierence. Moreover, new nuclear reactors arear more expensive than other orms o emission-ree electricity. Investing in a new generation onuclear reactors would actually delay neededprogress and divert critical investment dollars

away rom better solutions.

Despite billions in government subsidies madeavailable through the Energy Policy Act o2005, and a streamlined permitting process atthe Nuclear Regulatory Commission, no newnuclear reactors are yet under construction.Looking at the state o the industry in 2009,nuclear industry experts at the Massachusetts

Introduction


11/52


Institute o echnology warn that without moregovernment action to support the technology,nuclear power will diminish as a practical and

timely option or reducing the odds o catastrophicglobal warming.8

This report concludes that government action toaddress global warming would be better ocused on

the wide range o other technologies that can deliveremission reductions more quickly and cheaply

than nuclear power while also providing reliableelectricity service. Despite decades o generousederal subsidies to the nuclear industry, nuclear

power is not now ready to address the challenge oglobal warming especially on the short timelinerequired or meaningul action. Piling additionalsubsidies or policy preerences upon the previouslargesse extended toward the nuclear industry would

only serve as a dangerous distraction in the fght toprevent the worst impacts o global warming.

Fueled by global warming, a mountain pine beetle inestation has killed 6.5 million acres o orest in the westernUnited States. Preventing the most catastrophic impacts o global warming will require rapid and substantial

cuts in global warming pollution over the next 10 to 20 years. Te nuclear industry simply cannot build newreactors ast enough to deliver the progress we need. Investing in a new era o nuclear power would divert money

rom more eective solutions. And nuclear power is not necessary or reliable electricity service.

Photo: iStockPhoto.


12/52


Global warming is rapidly changingAmericas climate, driven largely bycombustion o ossil uels or energy.9

Te country is becoming hotter.10 Sea level isrising.11 Rainstorms and hurricanes are becomingmore intense.12 Landscapes are changing romWestern orests ravaged by drought, bark beetlesand res, to the degradation o coral rees alongthe Florida Keys, to shits in the timing o seasons

and in the habitable ranges o plant and animalspecies across the country.13

Should our emissions o global warmingpollutants continue unchecked, America and theworld ace catastrophic consequences. Globalaverage temperatures could increase by as muchas 11.5 F by the year 2100 (depending on the paceo the emissions increase).14 Sea level could riseby as much as 6.5 eet by the end o the century,causing extensive coastal fooding.15 Hurricanescould become more severe.16 And America could

experience extended periods o hot weatherand drought, punctuated by heavy downpours,interering with water supplies and agricultureand exacerbating smog pollution.17

o limit the impacts o global warming, Americamust rapidly and substantially reduce itsemissions o global warming pollution. Te moreglobal warming pollution that humanity emitsinto the atmosphere, the greater the warming and the damage that will become unavoidable.

Early action will help prevent the worst impactswhile also allowing greater fexibility to respondto an already changing climate, and help leadthe world toward preserving a livable uture. Itis in this context that we must evaluate potentialapproaches to mitigate global warming andocus on those approaches with the greatestodds o success.

America Must Act Quickly to Limit

the Consequences of Global Warming

We are aced with the act that tomorrow

is today. We are conronted with the

erce urgency o now. In this unolding

conundrum o lie and history, there is such

a thing as being too late. Procrastination

is still the thie o time. Lie oten leaves usstanding bare, naked and dejected with

a lost opportunity. The tide in the aairs

o men does not remain at the food; it

also ebbs. We may cry out desperately or

time to pause in her passage, but time is

dea to every plea and rushes on. Over

the bleached bones and jumbled residueo numerous civilizations are written the

pathetic words: Too late.

Martin Luther King, April, 4, 1967,

at Riverside Church in New York City


13/52


Global Warming Threatens

the Health and Well-Being

o All Americans

Global warming poses a serious threat to the healthand well-being o people across America and aroundthe world. Global warming is already changingAmericas climate. And i we do not act quickly tolimit emissions o global warming pollution, theconsequences could be catastrophic.

Global Warming Is RapidlyChanging Americas Climate

According to the United Nations IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change, the evidence that humansare altering the earths climate is unequivocal.18 Forexample:

Worldwide, temperatures have increased bymore than 1.4 F since pre-industrial times.19

Te oceans have absorbed 80 percent o the extraheat in the climate system, causing the water toexpand.20 Coupled with melting glaciers, this hascaused sea levels to rise by about eight inches with the rate o increase accelerating.21

Hurricanes have become more intense, andthe requency o extreme rain and snowstormshas increased.22

At the same time, droughts in many parts o theworld have become longer and more severe,especially in the tropics and subtropics.23

Tese changes are also aecting the United States.

Rising temperatures are changing the timingo the seasons and shiting the habitable areaor plant and animal species northward andhigher in altitude across the country.24

Levels o carbon dioxide are increasing in theair as well as the ocean, causing ocean watersto become more acidic and contributing tothe decline o ocean ecosystems, including

a 50 to 80 percent decline in coral on reesalong the Florida Keys.25

Western orests are being ravaged by

drought and pine beetles. From the Rockiesto the Cascades, the pine beetle has killed6.5 million acres o orest.26 Milder winterslinked to global warming have increasedwinter beetle survival rom 10 percent to 80percent, allowing the beetle population torise dramatically.27 Simultaneously, hottersummers have weakened the trees ability toght o beetles.28

I Emissions Continue to Increase, the

Consequences Will Be CatastrophicTe more global warming pollution that humanityemits, the more serious the consequences. And thechanges will be largely irreversible or a thousandyears ater emissions stop.29

On our current emissions path, humanity risksincreasing the average global temperature by 10F or more (above the pre-industrial era) by theend o this century.30 Warming on this scale wouldhave catastrophic consequences, including: 31

Extinction o as much as 70 percent o allspecies on earth.32

Acidic dead zones in the ocean that couldendure or thousands o years.33

Te loss o unique ecosystems such as theAmazon rainorest.34

Sea level rise o as much as 6.5 eet in the nextcentury, causing extensive coastal inundationin areas such as south Florida and Louisianaand increasing the risk o storm surge foodingin major coastal cities.35

Continuing sea level rise marching on orthousands o years. Te Greenland and WestAntarctic ice sheets could melt, raising sealevel by 30-40 eet.36 Ultimately, sea level couldincrease 250 eet, reaching levels associated


14/52


with the climate at the end o the Eocene era,34 million years ago.37

Widespread drought across as much as a

third o the globe, straining water suppliesand agriculture.38 By mid-century, theU.S. southwest could all into permanentdrought exceeding even the severity o theDust Bowl era.39

Extreme heat waves. Peak temperaturesgreater than 120 F could threaten most o thecentral, southern, and western United Statesby the end o the century.40

More intense hurricanes, driven by warming

seas. Te number o severe category 4 and5 hurricanes could increase rom 13 to 17worldwide per year by 2050.41

More intense wildires. By the end o thecentury, wildires in the West could be ivetimes as severe as they are today.42 Eachdegree in temperature rise could increasethe area burned in a typical ire by 300percent, and more than double the costs oprotecting homes.43

Additionally, the more pollution humanity emits,the greater the risk that we will cross a criticaltipping point, accelerating climate changebeyond human control. For example, meltingpermarost threatens to release massive quantitieso methane, a potent global warming gas, romdecaying material now rozen underground.Or, changes such as the current pine beetleinestation in Western orests could transorm anecosystem rom one that absorbs carbon rom theatmosphere to one that emits carbon.44 In other

words, the risk that global warming will causesevere, unoreseen and uncontrollable impactsincreases with every pound o coal or gallon ogas that humans burn.

To Limit the Consequences

o Global Warming,

America Must Switly and

Substantially Cut Emissions

o Global Warming Pollution

In order to minimize the impacts o globalwarming, America must quickly and dramaticallycut its emissions o global warming pollution.

Te international community has agreed to workto limit global warming to 3.6 F (or 2 C) above

temperatures in the pre-industrial era.45 Accordingto current scientic understanding, to have evenodds o meeting this target, the concentrationo carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must notrise above roughly 450 parts per million (ppm) and perhaps substantially less.46 (Currentconcentrations are already greater than 380ppm.47) Additional limits must be placed on othertypes o heat-trapping gases.

Tis means that humanity can only emit so much

global warming pollution into the atmospherebeore the odds o limiting the temperatureincrease to 3.6 F become increasingly unlikely.Tis amount is our carbon budget, or ultimatelimit on allowable pollution.

Science makes two critical points clear. Te asterwe cut our emissions, the easier it will be to staywithin our carbon budget and the less risk we ace.Early action allows more fexibility to respond toan evolving understanding o humanitys role inshaping the climate, making a wider variety o

options available. Correspondingly, the higherand later the peak in emissions, the harder we willhave to work to keep emissions within budget, thehigher the potential costs, and the greater the riskthat our options will run out.


15/52


Figure 1: Limiting Total Global Emissions o Carbon Dioxide to 1 Trillion Metric

Tons From 2000 to 2050 Would Yield a 75 Percent Chance o Limiting Warming

to 3.6 F (2 C) or Below51


16/52


Total Emissions Must NotExceed Our Carbon Budget

According to current scientic understanding,humanity as a whole can emit no more than a totalo 3.7 trillion metric tons o carbon dioxide romthe beginning o our history onward through thenext 500 years in order to have a 50-50 chance atlimiting global warming to an average temperatureincrease o no more than 3.6 F (2 C) above thepre-industrial era.48

Humanity has already emitted more than 1.8trillion metric tons o carbon dioxide pollution soar. From now (2009) through 2050, we must emit

less than that same amount again in order to haveeven odds at meeting the international target ormitigating climate change. At current emissionrates, the world is on pace to exceed this carbonbudget in less than our decades at which timewe will have committed the world to a uture odangerous global warming.49

o increase the odds to 75 percent that we will beable to limit warming to 3.6 F or below, we willhave to accept a global carbon budget o 1 trillionmetric tons o carbon dioxide emissions duringthe rst hal o this century.50 (See Figure 1.)

Scientists note that the target may need to besubstantially lower, given the likelihood that ourunderstanding o human infuence on the climatewill continue to evolve. And even warming o3.6 F carries signicant consequences and majorrisks or human civilization.52 Leading climatescientists, including Dr. James Hansen o NASA,have called or reducing atmospheric carbondioxide below current levels, which would require

reducing our ossil uel emissions to zero as quicklyas possible. Ten, we would have to develop anddeploy methods o removing pollution romthe atmosphere.53 In this view, we have alreadyexceeded our carbon budget and must act witheven greater speed.

Early Action Matters

Te most important thing we can do to addressglobal warming, then, is to cut our emissionso global warming pollution as quickly andsharply as we can, while laying the groundworkor uture reductions in the years to come. Temore rapidly we reduce emissions, the less riskwe assume, and the more room we leave tomaneuver in later years.

Recognizing the necessity o swit action, thechie o the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, Rajendra Pachauri, has called ondeveloped nations to ensure that global emissions

peak no later than 2015.54 Emissions must thenall rapidly thereater. A large panel o top UnitedNations scientists and Nobel Prize winners hascalled on developed nations to reduce emissionso global warming pollution by 25 to 40 percentbelow 1990 levels by 2020.55

Te world must then continue to slash emissionsrapidly, achieving cuts o at least 50 percent bymid-century, and perhaps substantially more.56Developed countries with the largest capacityto act will need to reduce emissions by 80 tomore than 95 percent.57 Aterwards, the worldmust then embark on a program to zero out allemissions o global warming pollution, and verypossibly deploy technologies to remove carbondioxide rom the atmosphere.58

Because carbon dioxide can persist in theatmosphere or well over 100 years, the timingo emissions is less important than keepingoverall emissions within the carbon budget.59 Asa consequence, i the world is unable to achieve

deep cuts in global warming emissions by 2020,then the world will have to work harder and makedeeper and aster cuts in emissions beore 2050.

Early action increases the odds that keepingemissions within the overall budget will bepolitically and technologically easible.


17/52


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

CumulativeEmissionsafter

2010

(BillionMTCO2)

Current Trend

35 PercentBelow 2005Levels by 2020;80 Percent

Reduction by2050

Emissions Budget (2010 -2050)

Setting a carbon budget or the world, andallocating responsibility or emission reductionsamong the worlds countries, is a dicult political

decision that the international community willhave to grapple with.

For the purposes o elucidating the argument inthis report, we assume a world carbon budget o1 trillion metric tons o carbon dioxide rom 2000through 2050. Limiting emissions to this amountwill give the world about a 3 in 4 chance o keepingthe global average temperature rom rising higherthan 3.6 F above the pre-industrial era.66

We assign 20 percent o this budget, or 200billion metric tons, to the United States, which is

approximately our share o cumulative emissions bymid-century under a simplied scenario in whichall countries work toward equalizing per-capitaemissions o global warming pollution at about

800 kilograms per person per year.67 By the end o2009, we will have already used up 30 percent othis budget, leaving just 140 billion metric tons o

allowable emissions or the next 40 years.

68

Keeping emissions below this overall limit wouldrequire reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by35 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 80 percentby 2050, while having the United States make asignicant contribution to emission reductions inother nations. (See Figure 2.)

Most early progress is likely to come throughreducing emissions rom electricity generation.As a result, the United States may need to limitemissions rom electricity generation to 34 billion

metric tons o CO2 rom 2010 cumulatively through2050, or less.69 Tis gure is a rough guide to whatthe U.S. electric sector must accomplish to do itspart to limit the consequences o global warming.

Figure 2: Keeping Cumulative Emissions Below Our 2050 Carbon Budget

Will Require Cutting Annual Emissions 35 Percent by 2020 and 80 Percent

in Four Decades

Setting a Carbon Budget for the United States


18/52


The United States Plays a Critical Role

Because the U.S. is responsible or ar more o theglobal warming pollution now in the atmospherethan any other country, the degree o emissionreductions required here will be greater than inless-developed countries.60

Early Progress Is Most Likely to

Come rom the U.S. Electricity System

o meet our goals or limiting the consequenceso global warming, we must achieve rapid, deepand sustained cuts in emissions rom the U.S.electricity system. For this reason ormer VicePresident Al Gore has challenged the United

States to switch its entire electricity system to runon clean energy instead o ossil uels by 2018, and

to ultimately reduce emissions o global warmingpollution 90 percent by mid-century.61

Te U.S. electricity system is one o the mostlikely sources o early cuts in global warmingpollution. About 40 percent o total U.S. carbondioxide emissions come rom the generation oelectricity.62 About 80 percent o these emissionscome rom coal despite the act that coal provides just under hal o U.S. electricity.63 Preventingthe construction o any new coal-red powerplants and phasing out the use o coal in existingpower plants would cut emissions substantially.Furthermore, relative to the transportation sectorwith its millions o gasoline-powered engines,cuts in the electricity sector will be easier andcheaper to obtain in the near term, and may setthe stage or transitions such as shiting vehicleuel rom gasoline to electricity.64

Tere are many low-carbon options or electricitygeneration and broad public consensus onshiting America away rom its dependence onossil uels.65 Resources with the potential todeliver emission cuts span the spectrum romnuclear power to energy eciency and rom

carbon capture and sequestration to clean energysources that never run out, such as wind, solarand geothermal power.

Given the importance o quick and eective actionto reduce Americas emissions o global warmingpollution, it is crucial that we invest in the optionslikely to deliver the best results.

Displacing coal-red power rom the U.S. electricity system is one o

the most likely sources o early cuts in global warming pollution.

Photo: Kenn Kiser.


19/52


Nuclear power is not necessary to providereliable, low-carbon electricity or theuture. Far rom being a solution to

global warming, a major national investment innuclear power would actually set America backin its eorts to reduce pollution. Even building100 nuclear reactors by 2030 would be too slowto make enough o a dierence, and too expensivecompared to other sources o clean, emission-ree

electricity. And that investment which wouldlikely run into the trillions o dollars wouldoreclose opportunities to invest in other cleantechnologies with the potential to deliver greateremission reductions, aster.

Nuclear Power Is Too Slow

to Reduce Global Warming

Pollution in the Near-Term

Building 100 new nuclear reactors would happentoo slowly to reduce global warming pollution inthe near-term, and would actually increase thescale o emission cuts required in the uture.

At best, the nuclear industry could have a newreactor up and running by 2016, assuming thatconstruction could be completed in our years.Tis pace would be aster than 80 to 95 percento all reactors completed during the last waveo reactor construction in the United States.70 Iconstruction ollows historical patterns, it couldtake nine years ater a license is issued beore therst reactor is up and running into the 2020s.

Under this very plausible scenario, new nuclearpower could make no contribution towardreducing U.S. emissions o global warmingpollution by 2020 despite the investmento hundreds o billions o dollars or the

construction o nuclear power plants. And eveni the industry completed 100 new reactors by2030, which is highly unlikely, these reactorswould reduce cumulative power plant emissionso carbon dioxide over the next two decades byonly 12 percent below business as usual, when areduction o more than 70 percent is called or. Inother words, 100 new nuclear reactors would betoo little, too late to successully meet our goals

or limiting the severity o global warming.

At Best, No New ReactorsCould Be Completed Until 2016

No new reactors are now under constructionin the United States. Te nuclear industry willnot complete the rst new reactor until 2016,optimistically assuming construction will takeour years ater regulatory approval.

From application development to operation,

the nuclear industry expects that a new nuclearreactor would take 10 years to build.71

Construction cannot begin on any newreactors until the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) approves a reactordesign and issues a license. Tis is not likelyto happen beore 2011 or 2012.

o date, reactor manuacturers have submittedplans or three new types o nuclear reactordesigns or certication. Te NRC expects

ocial hearings around the suitability othese designs to begin in 2010 or 2011, withdecisions arriving later.72 One type o reactoris already certied through 2012, but thenmust be re-certied.73

Power companies have submitted applicationsto build and operate 26 new reactors, withas many as eight more expected.74 As o

Nuclear Power Is Not a

Solution to Global Warming


20/52


October 2009, the NRC is actively reviewingapplications or 22 o these reactors.75 Te

nuclear industry expects this process to takeup to our years or the rst reactors, ollowedby public hearings and a rulemaking.76 Laterreactors may take two to three years.77

Te nuclear industry estimates that constructionwork on a new reactor could be completed in

our years.78 I the NRC begins to issue licenses in2012, that would imply that as many as three new

reactors could be online by 2016, with two moreby 2018.79

However, this schedule could very well be toooptimistic.

The Nuclear Industry HasConsistently Overestimated HowFast Reactors Can Be Built

During the last wave o nuclear power plantconstruction in the United States (rom the late

1960s into the early 1990s), the nuclear industrypredicted that reactors could be built in 4-6 years.However, the average reactor ended up takingnine years to complete.83 In other words, actualconstruction times were almost double projections consistently across several decades o reactorconstruction work. (See Figure 3.)

Also notable is the act that later reactors tendedto take longer to complete than the rst reactors.(See Figure 4.) Tis pattern is the opposite o a

typical learning curve, where later units otencan be completed aster and or less cost as anindustry gains eciency and economies o scale especially with simple products manuactured inhigh volumes.84 Nuclear reactors are big, complex,and dicult to manuacture in high volumes. Inaddition, many reactor projects suered romunanticipated quality control problems duringconstruction.85

Companies seeking to build new nuclear powerplants are already suering delays. In October2009, the NRC rejected the certication o a newreactor design over concerns that a key componentcould not survive an earthquake a setback oras many as 14 planned reactors.80 Since the endo 2008, nine reactor license applications havebeen canceled or indenitely suspended, and theennessee Valley Authority has canceled plans to

nish a partially-built reactor.81

Plans or another10 to 12 reactors have been delayed or are ailing tond adequate business partners to share the risk.82Such developments increase the odds that thenuclear industry will not achieve much expansion,i any, over the next decade and underscore thedanger o depending on nuclear power to deliverurgently needed progress in reducing globalwarming emissions.

Delays are Already Mounting in the Nuclear Renaissance

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 966 -1 96 7 1 968 -19 69 1 97 0- 19 71 1 97 2- 19 73 1 97 4- 19 75 1 97 6- 19 77

AverageConstructionTime

(Years)

Year of Construction Start

Actual Construction Time

Initial Industry Estimate

Figure 3: Construction Times Were Consistently

Underestimated During the Last Wave o U.S.Nuclear Reactor Deployment 87


21/52


oday, the nuclear industry promises thatnew, standardized designs and technologicaladvances will enable reactor construction to

proceed quickly, without the mistakes o thepast.86 However, recent experience with reactorconstruction in Finland and France two o theonly active nuclear construction projects in theWestern world raise the very real possibilitythat nothing has undamentally changed.

A New Generation o U.S. NuclearReactors Would Likely ExperienceConstruction Delays

A new generation o nuclear reactors in the

United States would likely ace delays that couldpush construction times well beyond our years.

A reactor now under construction in Finlandexemplies this risk. Te reactor is now at leastthree years behind schedule ater a series oquality control ailures, and its builder, a Frenchgovernment-owned nuclear developer calledAreva, is no longer committing to a specic targetdate or completion.89

Te reactor is the rst o its kind in the world,incorporating advanced design eatures the industryhad hoped would acilitate rapid completion andkeep costs in check.90 However, the project hassuered rom delays and cost overruns, much likepast nuclear reactor projects.

Areva and its contractors have made a variety ocostly mistakes during construction. Welds orthe reactors steel liner were fawed, and had tobe redone. Water coolant pipes were revealed asunusable. And concrete poured in the oundation

was suspect, with too much moisture content tomeet saety requirements.91

While the project was initially scheduledor completion in summer 2009 (a our-yearconstruction time), Areva has scrapped thetimeline.92 0

5

10

15

20

25

1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979

Construction

Time(Years)

Date of Construction Start

Figure 4: During the Last Wave o U.S. ReactorDeployment, Construction Duration Tended to

Escalate Over Time88

As o September 2009, the project is $3.3 billionover budget.93 Areva and the Finnish utility VO arelocked in a dispute over who will be responsible or

the cost overruns.94 Meanwhile, a coalition o Finnishindustries estimates that the delays will indirectly costelectricity users $4 billion in higher power bills.95

Te Finnish reactor is not the only nuclear projectbehind schedule. A second Areva reactor beingbuilt in France is at least nine months behindschedule.96 Project coordinators admitted inlate 2008 that the project was 20 percent overbudget.97 Te last our reactors built in Francetook an average o 10.5 years to complete.98

I a new generation o U.S. nuclear reactors acesdelays approaching this scale, it is possible that nonew reactors could be up and running beore 2020.While new reactors are under construction, theUnited States would continue to operate existingdirty power plants, making it impossible or thenation to meet near-term targets or reducingglobal warming pollution.


22/52


Even Without Delays, the NuclearPath Is Too Slow to Keep GlobalWarming Emissions Within Budget

Even with generous assumptions about speedand eectiveness, building 100 new reactors inthe United States by 2030 will not reduce globalwarming pollution ast enough to keep ourcarbon emissions within budget and thereore

not ast enough to meet our goals or limiting theconsequences o global warming.

First, assume that the nuclear industry candeliver on its ambitious timelines and successullycomplete 100 new reactors (about 100 gigawattso generation capacity) in two decades. Ten,assume that every kilowatt-hour o nuclear powerwould displace coal, the largest source o carbon-intensive power generation. Finally, assumethat next-generation nuclear reactors operate

at an average o 90 percent o ull capacity anupper-bound estimate rom a group o nucleartechnology experts.106 Under these best-caseconditions, building 100 active nuclear reactorscould prevent more than 750 million metrictons o carbon dioxide (MMCO

2) pollution in

2030. Overall power plant emissions would be 20percent below 2005 levels.

No American power company has ordered a newnuclear power plant since 1978, and all reactorsordered ater the all o 1973 ended up cancelled.99As a result, domestic manuacturing capability ornuclear reactor parts has withered and trainedpersonnel are scarce.100 While the United Stateshad 900 certied nuclear component suppliers twodecades ago, today there are ewer than 200.101 Inaddition, only two metal oundries in the worldtoday are capable o orging heavy nuclear reactorvessels and they are located in Japan and France.102Only the acility in Japan has the capability to orgevessels larger than 500 tons. 103 Te nuclear industry

must compete with the petrochemical industry oraccess to these acilities.104

Te industry is not capable o taking on a largenumber o new reactor construction projectswithout time to re-establish a trained workorceand a resilient supply chain a probable sourceo delay. While new reactor component actoriesopening as early as 2011 could ease this situationsomewhat, the industry could have as many as 30to 70 active reactor construction projects at anyone time on a sustained trajectory to build 100 newreactors by 2030.105

The American Nuclear Industry Is Not Ready to Move Quickly

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

ProjectedCumulative

Emissionsafter2010(MMT

CO2

)Reference Case(AEO 2009)

100 NuclearReactors by 2030

Emissions Budget (2010 -2050)

Figure 5: Projected Cumulative Electric Sector

Emissions o Global Warming Pollution ater 2010

with No Action or 100 New Reactors Built by 2030

Nuclear power is too slow to deliver enough pollution cuts in

the next two decades. Even i the nuclear industry managed tocomplete 100 new reactors in the United States by 2030, nuclear

power could still only reduce total electric sector emissions 12

percent below orecast levels by 2030, leading to a higher and later peak in emissions. As a result, America would exceed its 2010-

2050 power plant emissions budget by 2025 25 years too early tomeet our goals or reducing the severity o global warming.


23/52


However, these nuclear reactors would not beable to reduce emissions while they are underconstruction. In other words, the nuclear path

delivers a late start in cutting pollution. As aresult, building 100 new reactors could onlyreduce cumulative power plant emissions oglobal warming pollution by 12 percent over thenext two decades compared to doing nothing.(See Figure 5.) On this path, America would stillexceed its 2010-2050 electric power emissionsbudget by 2025 25years too soon. (See Settinga Carbon Budget or the United States on page 13or a brie explanation o the source o the budgetline represented in Figure 5.)

In conclusion, building 100 new nuclear reactorsby 2030 would be too little, too late when it comesto preventing global warming pollution. By leadingto a higher and later peak in emissions, usingnuclear power as a primary strategy to addressglobal warming would ensure that the UnitedStates exceeds its 2010-2050 power plant emissionsbudget. As a result the nuclear path would cut intowhat little margin o error we have, increasing therisk o catastrophic global warming.

Clean Energy Solutions CanReduce Pollution Much FasterThan 100 New Reactors

Clean energy solutions have a signicantadvantage over nuclear power when it comes toreducing global warming pollution. Individualclean energy measures are small as simple asinstalling a new light bulb in a home or erectinga single wind turbine. Small means ast. Millionso individual workers could participate in a cleanenergy transition at the same time. And many

individual clean energy measures can add up to arapid, large-scale cut in emissions.

Energy Eciency and Clean Energy Measures

Can Be Deployed Quickly

Individual energy eciency and clean energymeasures can be implemented in a matter ominutes to just a ew years. Each individualmeasure delivers results right away. For example:

Designing and building a super energy-ecient building requires little to no extratime compared to the eort required to

build and design a standard building. Simplechanges in design and construction can yieldhomes, institutions, and commercial buildingsthat use 70 percent less energy than standardstructures.107 Adding small-scale clean energysystems solar photovoltaic panels or smallwind turbines, or instance can yield buildingsthat produce as much energy as they consumeover the course o an entire year.

Retrotting an existing structure to achievehigher energy perormance can take a matter

o days to months to a ew years. Contractorscan weatherize an existing home in an averageo three days.108 Installing a home solarphotovoltaic system typically takes less thana week.109 Larger businesses or institutionscan upgrade lighting, heating and coolingequipment, or mechanical systems in a mattero months to just a ew years.110

With available transmission inrastructure,todays power companies can build a utility-scale wind arm in as little as one year, and a

concentrating solar thermal power plant in aslittle as two to three years ater groundbreaking.111Te components o these systems are largelymodular. Making a bigger wind arm simplyrequires installing more wind turbines, andmaking a larger solar power plant basicallyrequires installing more mirrors or more steamturbines. Te modular and scalable nature oconstruction makes projects simple relative totraditional coal-red or nuclear power plants,and better able to take advantage o economies

o scale. Wind, concentrating solar thermal, andgeothermal energy, however, must be integratedinto the transmission grid. Projects that requiremajor new power lines to be built could takelonger to complete. (See Te Importance oGrid Modernization on page 20.)

Production o large amounts o energy ecientproducts and renewable energy technologies


24/52


can be ramped up quickly. For example,worldwide capacity or solar panel productionnearly doubled in 2008 alone and has increasedby roughly ve-old since 2004.112

Individual Clean Energy Measures Quickly

Add Up to Substantial Results

Clean energy measures are individually smalland modular, but massed together, they candeliver substantial emissions reductions within

just a ew years.

Energy eciency programs active nowin states such as Caliornia, Oregon,Connecticut, Vermont and New York aresupplying most new electricity needs cuttingelectricity consumption by 1-2 percent beloworecast levels per year.114 Reducing electricityconsumption by 1.2 percent per year (below a

no additional action orecast) across Americaas a whole, starting in 2010, could deliver thesame amount o energy as building more than30 nuclear reactors by 2016 the earliestpossible date the U.S. could have even threenew reactors up and running.115

In 2008, the wind industry brought 8,500 MWo wind energy generation capacity online,with another 4,000 MW in the rst hal o

2009.

116

Te installations increased U.S. windenergy capacity by more than 50 percent two years ahead o schedule on a trajectory tosupply 20 percent o Americas electricity by2030, as mapped out by the U.S. Departmento Energy.117 Wind accounted or almost halo all new generation capacity completed in2008.118 In energy equivalent terms, thesenew wind turbines are equal to more than

The Importance of Grid Modernization

A rapid and massive expansion o renewableelectricity generation through wind, concentratingsolar thermal, geothermal, and related energysources will require investments to modernize theU.S. electricity grid. Needed steps may includeexpanding transmission inrastructure into areaswith large amounts o renewable electricityresources, such as the windy plains o NorthDakota or the sun-soaked desert Southwest. Gridmodernization may also require investments toimprove the integration o distributed sources oelectricity, such as rootop solar panels.

While these costs are real, available evidence indicatesthat they will be relatively small. For example, theU.S. Department o Energy estimates that generating20 percent o Americas electricity supply rom windpower by 2030, including necessary transmissionupgrades, would cost the average household just 50cents per month compared to sticking with coal-and gas-red power.113 And this estimate excludesthe benets o cleaner air, conserved water and lessglobal warming. Moreover, the U.S. electricity gridwould require upgrading to accommodate a massivedeployment o nuclear power as well.

Tat said, in order or the majority o Americaselectricity to come rom renewable sources opower, electricity system planners must plan ahead.Building major new transmission lines can requireve years or more. o the extent that necessaryinvestments in grid modernization are delayed, itcould limit the speed o a transition to a renewableelectricity system.

Fortunately, many clean energy sources such asenergy eciency, combined heat and power, andsolar photovoltaic panels can make a dierenceright away, with no added transmission capacity.

Tese energy sources are located at or near wherethe energy will be used and do not require theaddition o massive new power lines. Tese energysources alone can provide the energy equivalento well over 150 new nuclear reactors in the U.S.over the next two decades. (See discussion on pags25 and 33.) Te deployment o massive amountso energy eciency measures and distributedgeneration can also ease pressure on existingtransmission inrastructure and enable more windarms and concentrating solar thermal plants tocontribute than would otherwise be possible.


25/52


three new nuclear reactors.119 Wind energyexperts predict that wind will become thedominant source o new electric generatingcapacity in 2009-2012, with 36,000 to 40,000MW installed (the energy equivalent o 10-12new nuclear reactors).120

Te concentrating solar power industry isactively installing acilities in the southwesternUnited States, with 8,500 MW o generatingcapacity expected to be online by 2014.121 Tiscapacity is the rough energy equivalent o twoto three nuclear reactors.122 Rootop solarphotovoltaic panels are booming as well, withCaliornia alone on pace to install 3,000 MWby 2017.123

With the Capital Investment

Required to Build 100 Nuclear Reactors

in the Next wo Decades, Clean Energy

Could Deliver Double the Impact

Trough 2030, investing in clean energy coulddeliver double the impact o a comparableinvestment in nuclear power. Te speed at which

small, modular clean energy measures can bedeployed means that capital invested in cleanenergy can begin preventing pollution rightaway, making a bigger overall dierence in thenext two decades.

Cost estimates or new nuclear reactors varywidely, since none have been built in the U.S. inmore than 30 years.129 Te U.S. Department o

Compared to the nuclear reactor manuacturing andconstruction industry, which has been in declineor 30 years, Americas clean energy economy isa major part o todays business landscape, andis growing rapidly. Many workers are alreadyworking in the clean energy industry. Many more such as displaced auto manuacturing workersin Michigan, or steel workers in Pennsylvania already have most o the skills needed to join theclean energy workorce.

According to the American Council or anEnergy-Ecient Economy, the U.S. economyinvested $300 billion in energy eciency in2004, supporting 1.6 million jobs across allsectors.124

According to research by the Pew Charitablerusts, entrepreneurs launched nearly 70,000new clean energy businesses in America rom1998 to 2007.125 During that period, cleanenergy created more than 750,000 jobs and produced them 2.5 times aster than theeconomy as a whole. 126

In 2007 and 2008, wind turbine manuacturersannounced, added or expanded more than 70acilities representing 13,000 new jobs.127

More than 65,000 businesses across theUnited States manuacture, install, serviceor supply a wide variety o clean energytechnologies. 128

Americas Clean Energy Economy

Is Ready to Take on This Challenge

Workers inspecting a wind turbine.

Photo: NREL.


26/52


Energy has put orward one o the most optimisticorecasts o possible nuclear reactor costs over thenext two decades, projecting that the capital cost

o reactor construction could be as low as $2,400per kilowatt (kW) by 2030 (in 2007 dollars).130(Many independent experts nd this estimateimplausible.131) However, even i building a nuclearreactor turns out to be this inexpensive and quick,100 new nuclear reactors by 2030 could at best prevent the same amount o pollution as investingthat same capital into clean energy solutions suchas energy eciency. (See Figures 6 and 7.)

On the other hand, i building a new nuclearreactor turns out to be an expensive and time-

consuming endeavor, like many reactors built inthe 1970s, reactors could cost as much as $10,000per kW (2008 dollars).132 Putting that level ocapital investment into energy eciency andrenewable energy technologies instead wouldprevent three times as much pollution by 2030.

(See Figures 6 and 7.)

At a mid-range reactor cost estimate o $6,250 perkW (2008 dollars), putting an equivalent investmentinto energy eciency and renewable energy wouldprevent twice as much pollution by 2030 as building100 new reactors.133 (See Figures 6 and 7.) (See theMethodology section or more details.)

o Keep Power Plant Emissions Within

Budget, America Will Have to Do Much More

Power plant emissions are on pace to exceedthe U.S. power sector emission budget by 2024with no urther action. o keep emissions romexceeding this budget, the nation must respondswitly and decisively.

In the next two decades, clean energydeployment equal to the capital investment in100 new nuclear reactors could reduce global

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

100 Nuclear Reactors by2030

Equivalent CapitalInvestment in Clean Energy

Preven

tedGloba

lWarm

ing

Em

issions,

2010

-2030

(MMTCO

2)

Figure 6: Potential Reduction in Total Electric

Sector Emissions o Global Warming Pollution,

2010-2030, rom 100 New Reactors Built by

2030 vs. an Equivalent Capital Investment in

Clean Energy

Investing in clean energy can deliver greater progress, aster, than

a comparable investment in nuclear power. Building 100 newnuclear reactors by 2030 could prevent about 6 billion metric tons

o carbon dioxide pollution. However, putting that same capitalinvestment into clean energy solutions instead would prevent 6to 18 billion metric tons o pollution (with the range representing

uncertainty over how much a new nuclear reactor would cost, sincenone have been built in the United States in more than 30 years).

Comparing Nuclear

Cost EstimatesCost estimates rom dierent sources arenotoriously dicult to compare directly.Estimates oten rely on dierent assumptions(such as the duration o construction) andthey can exclude important costs (such asnance). Te gures cited on page 22 aremeant to give a plausible range o the up-rontcapital investment needed to build 100 newnuclear reactors.

For a direct comparison o the cost o nuclear

generated electricity with other sourceso power, averaged over the entire lietimeo each technology to enable meaningulcomparison, see page 28.


27/52


warming pollution by 6 billion to 18 billionmetric tons o carbon dioxide 11 to 35 percentbelow orecast levels. However, even this level

o clean energy deployment that would not beenough to keep U.S. power plant emissionswithin budget. (See Figure 7.) America willhave to do much more to reduce power plantemissions within the next 20 years to limit theworst consequences o global warming.

Keeping power plant emissions within thisbudget would require reducing emissions by

more than hal in the next 10 years, and thenreducing emissions by 95 percent by mid-century. Achieving progress on this scale will

require a level o eort approaching that calledor by Al Gore when he challenged the nation toend its dependence on ossil uels or electricitygeneration within a decade.134

Quick Action Trough Clean Energy Can

Demonstrate International Leadership

I the United States chooses nuclear power as itsprimary strategy to reduce emissions o global

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

ProjectedCumulative

Emissionsafter2010(MMTCO2

)Reference Case(AEO 2009)

100 NuclearReactors by 2030

Equivalent CapitalInvestment inClean Energy(Range andMidpoint)

Emissions Budget ( 2010-2050)

Figure 7: Projected Cumulative Electric Sector Emissions o Global WarmingPollution ater 2010 with No Action, 100 New Reactors Built by 2030 or an

Equivalent Capital Investment in Clean Energy

Clean energy solutions can deliver results aster than nuclear power. With the up-ront capital investment

required to build 100 new nuclear reactors, America could achieve twice as much by investing in clean energyinstead. (Given the wide range o uncertainty over the cost o a new nuclear reactor, clean energy could at least

equal the perormance o new nuclear power by 2030, and at most perorm three times better. See the shadedwedge in the gure above.) However, even this level o clean energy deployment would not be enough to keep

U.S. power plant emissions within budget. America will have to do much more to reduce power plant emissionswithin the next 20 years to limit the worst consequences o global warming.


28/52


warming pollution, it is likely that the nationwould have little or nothingto show or it in termso real emission reductions rom the electric

power sector in the next 10 years. Te ailure othe United States to demonstrate real emissionreductions would erode U.S. leadership inaddressing global warming and likely reduce theinternational communitys appetite or action.

We need other countries across the world to actrapidly and orceully alongside the United States inorder to have a chance at limiting global warming to3.6 F above the pre-industrial era thus controllingthe severity o global warming impacts.

Showing a commitment to urgent action byadopting a clean energy path, however, coulddemonstrate more U.S. leadership, bringing theinternational community closer to achieving anambitious, binding and rm agreement to ghtglobal warming. Urgent action to deploy cleanenergy can also help America take a leadershiprole in building a clean technology and cleanenergy economy.135

Choosing to Build NewReactors Would Divert

Resources rom More Cost-

Efective Strategies

Choosing to build new reactors would divertresources rom more cost-eective strategies.Building 100 new nuclear reactors could have anup-ront cost on the order o $600 billion (witha possible range o $250 billion to $1 trillion).136

Investing this money in reactor deploymentwould oreclose opportunities to pursue cheaperand aster options.

New nuclear reactors would be ar more costlythan other orms o emission-ree electricity.Even the most optimistic estimates or theaverage cost o power rom a new nuclear reactorare 300 percent higher than the cost o energy

eciency or the cost o co-ring biomass in anexisting power plant, and well above renewabletechnologies like wind power. Moreover, any

new nuclear reactors wont be operational untilwell into the next decade, whereas clean energysources can be deployed now.

Te cost advantages that clean energy has overnuclear power are likely to become even morepronounced over time, while we wait or the nuclearindustry to nish its rst new reactor. According toMoodys Investor Service, nuclear generation hasa xed design where construction costs are risingrapidly, while other renewable technologies are stillexperiencing signicant advancements in terms oenergy conversion eciency and cost reductions.137

Building 100 New Nuclear ReactorsWould Divert Resources romCheaper and More Efective Solutions

I both nuclear power and clean energytechnologies such as renewable energy andenergy eciency improvements can reduce globalwarming pollution, why cant we just pursue bothpaths reducing emissions now through cleanenergy and in the uture with nuclear?

In a world o unlimited resources, such a pathwould be conceivable. But in the real world opublic policy, governments must make choicesabout how to allocate limited resources. Moreover,to retain public support or eorts to reduce globalwarming pollution, government will need todemonstrate that it is acting in ways that minimizethe costs o emission reductions and deliver thegreatest benet or the smallest expenditure.

Recent estimates or the up-ront cost o buildinga new nuclear reactor suggest that building 100 othem could require an up-ront investment on theorder o $600 billion.138

However, the capital cost o a new nuclear plant isonly part o the ull story. Any up-ront investmentin nuclear power would lock in additionalexpenditures across decades. Once a plant is


29/52


built, the price o the electricity it generates willrefect the ongoing need to pay o debt; thecost o operating and maintaining the plant; the

cost o ueling the plant with uranium; the costo decommissioning the plant and disposingo the waste; and the cost o transmitting anddistributing the electricity to consumers. For 100reactors, these costs would add up to additionaltrillions over a period o decades.

An investment in energy eciency would deliver vastly superior results. Investing in energyeciency actually pays us backwith ongoingsavings on electricity bills. Eciency measuresare almost always cheaper even than operatingexisting power plants. For example, analystsat the consulting rm McKinsey & Companyestimate that investing $520 billion in energyeciency measures would eliminate $1.2 trillionin waste rom the U.S. economy, saving citizensand businesses nearly $700 billion (in netpresent value terms).139 In other words, energyeciency could provide the same level o impactas building 160 nuclear reactors in the next tenyears at net savings.140

An investment in renewable sources o powercan deliver carbon-ree electricity or muchless cost than nuclear power. Many types orenewable energy have the advantage o zerouel costs, since wind and sunlight and theearths heat are ree. Other types o cleanenergy, such as solar photovoltaic panels, havethe advantage o being located near where theenergy will be used, minimizing the cost otransmitting and distributing electricity. Andthese technologies require no special wastehandling or decommissioning.

Compared to clean energy solutions, nuclearpower is extremely expensive. Te total extracost to the U.S. economy o building 100 newnuclear reactors, above and beyond a least-costclean energy approach, could all in the range o$1.9 to $4.4 trillion over the entire lietime o thereactors.141

Cost Estimates or Nuclear Power Continue to Rise

In 2003, experts at the Massachusetts Institute oechnology and Harvard concluded that today,nuclear power is not an economically competitivechoice.142 Te researchers predicted that withoutsubsidies and nancial support or the nuclearindustry, nuclear power aces stagnation anddecline.143 Te U.S. Congress responded bystreamlining the permitting process at the NuclearRegulatory Commission and authorizing billionsin new subsidies through the 2005 Energy PolicyAct. However, in 2009, the MI researcherstook another look at the nuclear industry andound that despite the new support, increaseddeployment o nuclear power has been slow bothin the United States and globally .144

The ailure o the U.S. nuclear power program

ranks as the largest managerial disaster in

business history, a disaster on a monumental

scale. The utility industry has already invested

$125 billion in nuclear power, with an

additional $140 billion to come beore the

decade is out, and only the blind, or the biased,

can now think that the money has been well

spent. It is a deeat or the U.S. consumer and

or the competitiveness o U.S. industry, or the

utilities that undertook the program and or the

private enterprise system that made it possible.

Nuclear Follies, a cover story inForbes Magazine, February 11, 1985


30/52


more than seven times higher than cost estimatesrom early in the decade.147 Areva oered itstechnology or $23 billion or $7,400 per kW

but its bid was deemed non-compliant, likelybecause it would not guarantee the price.148Both o these quotes were more than double thethreshold or competitiveness.149

Nuclear Reactors end to Run Aground on

Skyrocketing Construction Costs

High and escalating bids or new nuclear reactorprojects should not be a surprise. Nuclear reactorconstruction projects in the U.S. have regularlyrun aground on skyrocketing construction costs.O 75 nuclear reactors completed between 1966and 1986, the average reactor cost more thantriple its original construction budget.150 Later-built reactors came in as much as 1,200 percentover budget.151

Economists commonly expect that new productsand technologies become cheaper over time,as companies gain experience and developeconomies o scale. However, in the case o thelast generation o nuclear power in the UnitedStates, the opposite proved to be true. Te rst

nuclear reactors ever built were among the leastexpensive, while costs spiraled wildly out o controlin the nal decades o reactor construction. (SeeFigure 8.) For plants beginning operation in thelate 1970s and onward, infation-adjusted capitalcosts escalated rom just under $2,000 per kW tomore than $10,000 per kW (in 2004 dollars).152

Seen through the lens o history, nuclear industrypredictions that new designs and modularconstruction techniques will bring costs downappear overcondent.154 Developing new nuclear

power plants will likely remain prone to high costsurprises and increased nancial risk or powercompanies and their customers.155 Due to the largeamount o money required to build an individualreactor, the investment ratings rm Moodys callsnuclear construction a bet the arm risk or atypical utility.156

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

InstalledCapitalCosts

(2004dollarsperkW)

First Year of Operation

Figure 8: Actual Capital Costs o Completed

U.S. Nuclear Reactors (in 2004 Dollars)153

High costs are a major obstacle in the way obuilding new reactors. In the past decade, costestimates or new nuclear power plants have

only escalated.

In the early 2000s, nuclear industry executivesestimated that construction costs or building anew nuclear reactor could approach $1,500 per kWo power generating capacity, plus nance costs.145Tey said the lower costs would make nuclearpower competitive with coal and natural gas.

However, these early estimates have turned outto be overly optimistic. Recent estimates or theaverage cost o electricity rom a new nuclearplant over its entire lietime are our times higherthan this initial projection that promoters o anuclear renaissance put orward in the earlypart o the decade.146

No nuclear companies have signed a contractguaranteeing a price or a new nuclear reactor.When Canada asked or guaranteed cost bidsto build two new reactors, the results blew arpast expectations. Te only company willing toguarantee its work quoted a price o $26 billion

to build two new reactors or $10,800 per kW


31/52


Nuclear Power Is MoreCostly than Other Forms oEmission-Free Electricity

Power rom a new nuclear reactor would bemore costly than other orms o emission-reeelectricity. Recent estimates or the average costo electricity rom a new nuclear power plant overits entire lietime range rom a low o 8 cents toa high o 30 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), withthe bulk o estimates alling between 12 and 20cents per kWh.157 For many o these estimates,add another 2 cents per kWh to transmit anddistribute the electricity rom the nuclear plant tothe customer.

Vast amounts o clean energy are available now at ar less cost.158

Energy rom a new nuclear reactor would betwo to six times more expensive than savingelectricity through eciency includingutility and consumer investment. Acrossthe country, the average utility cost o savedenergy is 2.5 cents per kWh, three to ourtimes cheaper than building any kind onew power plant.159 Including consumercontributions to eciency measures, theaverage total resource cost o eciency isaround 4.6 cents per kWh.160 Analyses outure energy eciency potential typicallynd vast available resources with averageutility lietime costs o around 4 cents perkWh in the residential sector and 2 cents perkWh or less in the commercial and industrialsectors.161 Moreover, as the scale and scopeo energy eciency programs increase, theytend to become even more cost eective.162

Combined heat and power and recycledenergy technologies are also extremely cost-eective sources o electricity. Recycledenergy technologies can generate electricityor about 3 cents per kWh.163 Combined cycleindustrial heat and power installations cangenerally produce power or 4.5 to 5.5 centsper kWh, including credit or the value o

useul heat that the generators also produce.164And smaller building-scale CHP technologycan deliver electricity or less than 6 cents per

kWh, again counting the value o the useulheat also produced by the generator.165

Energy eciency, distributed solar power,and combined heat and power have the addedadvantage o saving or generating energy nearwhere it will be used, avoiding transmissionand distribution costs. In addition, saving orgenerating energy locally minimizes electricitylosses that can occur while transportingelectricity rom a distant power plant.

Large potential supplies o clean energy romwind, solar, biomass and geothermal sources arealso available now at costs well below estimatesor new nuclear power. For example:

Americas entire electricity needs could be metby the wind blowing across the Great Plains orthe sunlight alling on a 100 mile square patcho the desert Southwest, or a tiny raction othe natural heat just beneath the surace othe earth anywhere across the country.166Diverse, locally-based resources are availablein every state. Even the southeastern UnitedStates has enough biomass, wind, and low-impact hydroelectric resources to meet 25percent o its electricity needs within the nexttwo decades.167

Te U.S. Department o Energy (DOE)estimates that wind energy resources acrossthe U.S. as a whole could produce more than1.5 million GWh per year or between 6 and10 cents per kWh (2006 dollars).168 (Tisprice includes estimated transmission costs,assuming that the existing grid has 10 percentspare capacity that could be used or wind, andthat appropriate planning will allow new linesto be constructed as needed.) Tis amounto wind would be the energy equivalent o190 nuclear reactors.169 DOE estimates thatgenerating 20 percent o Americas electricitysupply with wind by 2030 would cost the


32/52


average household just 50 cents per monthmore compared to sticking with coal- andgas-red power and excluding the benets

o cleaner air and conserved water.170

Te Caliornia Public Utilities Commissionestimates that in the western United States:171

Nearly 200,000 GWh per year o renewableelectricity could be delivered locally or 9cents per kWh or less;

An additional 200,000 GWh per year orenewable electricity could be locallydelivered at costs o 10 cents per kWh or

less; and

Well over 500,000 GWh per year oadditional renewable electricity could bedelivered locally at a cost o 12 cents perkWh or less.

Electricity rom these renewable resources theenergy equivalent o more than 110 nuclear reactors would be available at 8 to 12 cents per kWhdelivered, hal to two-thirds o a mid-range estimateor the cost o power rom a new nuclear power

plant.

172

Developing U.S. renewable energy andenergy eciency resources could save Americansmore than $200 billion on energy bills by 2020.173

Per Dollar Spent, Clean Energy

Is More Eective at Preventing

Pollution than New Nuclear Power

In at least the next six years, new nuclear powercannot be obtained in the United States at anyprice. However, many other energy technologiesare available now that can deliver cost-eectivereductions in pollution. Recent estimates or

the cost o a new nuclear power plant place itwell above many alternatives, including energyeciency, combined heat and power, wind power(on land and o shore), biomass, landll gas,geothermal, some types o solar thermal powerand natural gas combined cycle power.174

Research done or the Caliornia EnergyCommission (CEC) in 2009 provides a relativelyrecent, apples-to-apples comparison o the

estimated costs o dierent generation technologieswith an in-service date o 2018, a decent guess asto when the rst nuclear reactors might becomeavailable.175 Te estimates are partially specic towestern states, and include the eects o some taxand incentive policies now authorized through thatyear (but not the renewable energy production taxcredit, which is currently set to expire by 2013).Tese actors aside, the research gives a generalidea o how generation technologies stack up.Many additional studies, using dierent startingassumptions, support the conclusion that energyeciency and many orms o renewable power areexpected to be substantially more cost-eectivethan nuclear power.176

Te CEC gures also exclude solutions like energyeciency, biomass co-ring and combined heatand power, so this report draws on other sourcesto include them. Finally, this report does notconsider possible intermediate solutions such asreplacing coal-red power with greater utilizationo existing natural gas-red power plants, which

are also likely to be more cost-eective ways toprevent carbon emissions than building newnuclear plants.

In 2018, the CEC projects that new nuclear powerwill be more costly than most other orms o low-emission electricity, whether nanced by a publicutility, an investor-owned utility, or a merchantgenerator.177 Under investor-owned utilitynancing, per dollar spent (over the lietime othe technology), energy eciency would be vetimes more eective at preventing global warming

pollution, and combined heat and power (inwhich a power plant generates both electricityand heat or a building or industrial application)would be greater than three times more eective.(See Figure 9.) Even without the benet othe production tax credit in 2018, biomass,geothermal and land-based wind energy will be


33/52


more than twice as eective, and oshore windwill be on the order o 40 percent more eective.Under merchant nancing terms, nuclear ares

even more poorly, with CEC expecting both solarthermal and solar photovoltaic power to be morecost-eective ways to reduce pollution.

By 2018, solar photovoltaic power should becomparable to a new nuclear reactor in terms oits per-dollar ability to prevent global warming

pollution. However, solar power is alling in pricear aster than any other generation technology.Solar prices have allen by more than 80 percent

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

GlobalWarmingPollutionPreventio

n

Capacity(kg

CO2per2018Dollar)

Figure 9: Comparative Ability o Electricity Technologies to Prevent Global

Warming Pollution, per 2018 Dollar Spent over Technology Lietime Online in

2018, Merchant Financing Terms 178

By 2018, a reasonable estimate or the rst date a new reactor could be online, nuclear power will be among theleast cost-eective options or reducing global warming pollution. Per dollar spent, nuclear power would be less

eective than other low- or zero-emission energy solutions. Efciency, combined heat and power, wind power, geothermal energy, biomass combustion, small scale hydropower and oshore wind all outperorm nuclear.

(For simplicity, this gure assumes that power rom these new sources at scale would displace an average unito electricity rom the existing U.S. electricity grid. Error bars represent a possible range o values or each

technology, given the range o resource quality and location, and uncertainty around cost estimates. See theMethodology section or more details.)


34/52


since 1980.179 And prices continue to decline aspublic policies encourage growth in capacityor solar panel manuacturing, distribution

and installation.180 Recent cost improvement isapparent in utility decisions to build nearly 1,000MW o large-scale solar photovoltaic powerplants in Florida and Caliornia 10 times biggerthan any now in service across the world.181

In act, recent analysis by the investment rmLazard implies that thin-lm solar photovoltaicand solar thermal power technologies, withexisting incentives, are already competitive withand even ahead o nuclear power.182 Lazard alsohighlights biomass co-ring in which an existingcoal-red power plant replaces up to 15 percento its typical uel with plant matter and landllgas as additional cost-eective options.183

Te act that clean energy is more cost-eective thannew nuclear reactors is refected in the conclusiono a recent report by the European RenewableEnergy Council, the German Aerospace Center andGreenpeace, which shows that currently availableclean energy technology could be deployed inthe United States to deliver massive reductions

in global warming pollution at hal the costand with twice the job creation as an equiva

generating failure

Documents