An interesting story in this week’s Sustainable Life, a publication of the Portland Tribune, suggests that nuclear power may be rising in the eyes of some of our region’s energy-decision movers and shakers. The reason? Nuclear power isn’t perfect, but its carbon footprint is better than burning coal or natural gas.
From Steve Law’s article:
“Many people now say coal plants constitute a bigger environmental threat because they spew a large volume of greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. Some prominent environmentalists, regional energy planners and PGE’s new CEO say it’s time to rethink nuclear power, given the potential global problems from climate change.
Angus Duncan, chairman of the Oregon Global Warming Commission and president of Portland-based Bonneville Environmental Foundation, is periodically asked his views on nuclear power plants.
“My answer is, ‘carbon reduction trumps nuclear waste,’ ” Duncan says.
He’s quick to point out that cheaper remedies for greenhouse gas pollution should be pursued first, such as energy-efficiency measures and renewable energy. But Duncan stresses that Oregon can’t meet its ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals if PGE’s Boardman coal plant continues operating.
Boardman emits about one-tenth of all Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions, while nuclear power plants emit none.”
In Oregon, voters would have to approve the building on any new nuclear plant. And after years of being told the nuclear power is a danger, and fighting to get the old Trojan plant shut down, it seems unlikely that they would change their minds. It’s interesting how scientific data has changed what we view as critical energy-related danger over time. Can power utilities really sell voters on the idea that nuclear is “greener” than other forms of power, even if it still poses some danger?
Later in the article, a spokesman from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council revealed that for the first time in over 20 years, the organization researched nuclear power as an option. In their view, he said, nuclear power isn’t the best viable option in a short-term (20-year) plan, because Oregon, specifically, had better options like wind and hydro. Also, the abundance of Natural Gas in the region means that building an infrastructure around that source would be cheaper.
The Sierra club contends that nuclear power still has a high carbon cost, and so doesn’t support it. But this (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf) report out of the UK refutes that, putting the carbon cost of nuclear somewhere around the same amount as wind power. However, if more lower grade uranium ore is used in the future, because there is more nuclear power, the carbon footprint could skyrocket.
Moving forward in time, it seems that a true cost-benefit analysis of our power needs, and the damage those needs do to the environment, might lead us to some previously almost unthinkable decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment