Nuclear power supplies a sixth of the world's electricity. Along with hydropower (which supplies slightly more than a sixth), it is the major source of "carbon-free" energy today. The technology suffered growing pains, seared into the public's mind by the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents, but plants have demonstrated remarkable reliability and efficiency recently. The world's ample supply of uranium could fuel a much larger fleet of reactors than exists today throughout their 40- to 50-year life span.

With growing worries about global warming and the associated likelihood that greenhouse gas emissions will be regulated in some fashion, it is not surprising that governments and power providers in the U.S. and elsewhere are increasingly considering building a substantial number of additional nuclear power plants. The fossil-fuel alternatives have their drawbacks. Natural gas is attractive in a carbon-constrained world because it has lower carbon content relative to other fossil fuels and because advanced power plants have low capital costs. But the cost of the electricity produced is very sensitive to natural gas prices, which have become much higher and more volatile in recent years. In contrast, coal prices are relatively low and stable, but coal is the most carbon-intensive source of electricity. The capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide, which will add significantly to the cost, must be demonstrated and introduced on a large scale if coal-powered electricity is to expand significantly without emitting unacceptable quantities of carbon into the atmosphere. These concerns raise doubts about new investments in gas- or coal-powered plants.

This article was originally published with the title The Nuclear Option.

4 Comments

1. 1. molderic 11:34 PM 12/13/07

   When or how will the fears of nuclear power make way for this implementation of part of the carbon solution?
   I envision nuclear power as a source of hydrogen, desalinated sea-water and electrified rail solutions.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Cyril R. 02:46 AM 7/16/08

   Nuclear power can indeed help a lot, but let's keep a level head. 20 GW in 8 years is nothing, and even with all the new plants announced, nuclear power will actually decline as a percentage of global electricity generation. It cannot grow as fast as global electricity demand.
   
   The problem is we're building nuclear plant like cathedrals! Takes too long.
   
   We need a different design. Mass producable, standardized, scalable exponentially just like solar PV manufacturing plants.
   
   One of the most promising designs that is under development right now is the liquid fluoride thorium reactor. Check it out here:
   
   http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Cyril R. 02:59 AM 7/16/08

   Oh, it's a 2006 article so 20 GW in 6 years. Still nothing.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. eco-steve 06:36 AM 12/2/09

   A threefold increase in nuclear power would reduce current uranium stocks to 20 years, meaning the normal lifespan of reactors of fifty years would never be attained, making the investments totally uneconomical and the electricity extremely expensive.
   Better solutions can surely be found.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this