Michael E. Kraft opines, in answering the following question ... .... Should the U.S. rely heavily on nuclear power in seeking to address climate change? Response ...In December, delegates from 195 nations meeting in Paris approved a remarkable global climate agreement. It calls for all countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases substantially. Most of these emissions currently come from the burning of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, and the message could not be more clear... we need to change the way we generate and use energy, and do so quickly. The U.S. set a modest goal .. cutting emissions by between 26 to 28% from 2005 levels by 2025. In the face of persistent congressional opposition to climate change policy, President Obama has used executive authority to move toward that goal, most notably through the EPA Clean Power Plan, which will regulate coal-fired power plants and new vehicle fuel economy standards.
The question now is what additional policy actions will most help in meeting the target for emission reductions. One approach is to expand and redirect investment in energy technology to favor low-energy or no-carbon energy sources, among them nuclear power and renewable energy, and to greatly improve energy efficiency. China understands this strategy. It plans to double its nuclear power capacity and has 24 new plants under construction. But China also is investing heavily in wind and solar power, as it has been for years. Should the U.S. do the same? Yes, but only in part. Currently, our 99 nuclear reactors generate about 19% of electrical output, yet only about 8% of total energy consumption. The lion share of the energy we use, about 81%, currently comes from fossil fuels. Nuclear power will have an important role to play, but it is unlikely to replace much fossil fuel use. A better bet is to invest in renewables and energy efficiency, which most of the world is now doing...? But what about costs?
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
