nuclear-news

The lower price of gas is causing the stillbirth of the nuclear ‘renaissance’

Nuclear Power vs. Natural Gas, February 10, 2012, NYT, By MATTHEW L. WALD When critics say nuclear power is risky, they often mean the risk of an accident. But people in the nuclear industry say that the bigger threat is natural gas.

To look like a smart move, the $14 billion nuclear project undertaken by the Southern Company and its partners must meet several challenges, including actually completing the job for that figure, always a question in nuclear construction.

But for the 104 nuclear reactors now running in this country, and for many of the ones that have retired, the big issue has always been the price of electricity from competing sources. And generally, that comes down to a prediction about the future cost of natural gas, which usually sets the price of electricity on the grid in much of the United States.

The nuclear industry must also reckon with the prospect that in the 2020’s or 2030’s, that the United States will get more serious about limiting carbon dioxide emissions, which would be a plus for nuclear operators. Substituting gas for coal does reduce emissions, but there is still far too much carbon in natural gas to allow its widespread use if the electric system is to reduce its emissions by 80 percent by 2050. That was the national goal endorsed by President Obama when he ran for president in 2008.

In fact, some electricity experts say that if the economy as a whole has to cut emissions by 80 percent, the electric sector will have shoulder even deeper reductions, given that other areas, like transportation, can probably manage less….

February 11, 2012 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, USA