![C]()
AMBRIDGE, Mass.
The world needs both more electricity and less
pollution. The goals are not incompatible, but the solution will require
better management of demand, smarter use of coal as well as renewable energy
sources, and increased use of nuclear power.
As Congress considers an energy bill when it returns from recess, it will
be under pressure to expand or limit the use of nuclear power. The issue,
however, is not simple. More nuclear power will be necessary - but more
nuclear plants will be built only if more safeguards and incentives are put in
place. The challenge is to make nuclear energy safer, cleaner and more
economical.
We built a model to compare the costs of producing electricity from new
nuclear, coal and natural gas plants. The model focuses on economic cost, not
regulated or subsidized cost. According to our study, the baseline cost of new
nuclear power is 6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to 4.2 cents for coal
and natural gas (when the price of gas is $4.50 per thousand cubic feet).
Plausible, but unproved, technology could reduce nuclear costs to those of
coal and gas.
However, if a cost is assigned to carbon emissions - either through a tax
or some other way, as in a current Congressional proposal that would limit
emissions but allow companies to buy and sell the right to discharge more
pollutants - nuclear power could become an attractive economic option. For
example, a $50 per ton carbon value, about the cost of capturing and
separating the carbon dioxide product of coal and natural gas combustion,
raises the cost of coal to 5.4 cents and natural gas to 4.8 cents.
Even under these favorable circumstances, the regulatory uncertainty
threatening the large-scale investment needed for a nuclear plant will require
some government assistance. A production tax credit, similar to that extended
to wind power, is a good idea. It would give private investors an incentive to
complete a plant. If no plant is built and operated, no public money is spent.
If the first plants are indeed built and operated competitively, more will
follow and the possibility of reducing greenhouse gases increases.
Besides cost, there is the problem of nuclear waste. While it is
technically possible to dispose of spent fuel safely, the issue is actually
doing it. Successful operation of the planned Yucca Mountain repository in
Nevada would be an important step.
But the Department of Energy's nuclear waste research and development
program should consider solutions beyond mined depositories like Yucca
Mountain. For example, burying spent fuel several kilometers deep in a dry
well, called a borehole, may offer significant cost and environmental benefits
compared to mined repositories. This and other possibilities should be
systematically explored.
Finally, there is the challenge of nonproliferation, which is complex
because of its international dimensions. There is no question that the current
nonproliferation regime needs to be strengthened. Particular attention must be
paid to enrichment technology and reprocessing. Enrichment, which converts
natural uranium into reactor fuel, can produce uranium well beyond reactor
grade, suitable for weapons. Reprocessing separates plutonium metal, which can
be used directly in weapons, from reactor fuel. There is ample uranium
available so that reprocessing can be avoided for at least the next 50
years.
In the near term, the priority should be to require signatories to the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, like Iran, to accept inspections of suspected
but undeclared nuclear facilities. For the longer term, advanced nations that
operate nuclear facilities should offer to provide fuel to reactors in less
developed nations - and to remove all spent fuel.
Nuclear power can make an important contribution to meeting the world's
growing electricity needs while helping to reduce carbon emissions. But this
contribution will be realized only if the United States and other nations
focus on making today's technology work and avoid expensive advanced
technologies that involve reprocessing, which presents serious proliferation
risks.
It will be difficult, of course, to carry forward this nuclear agenda. Yet
it will also be difficult to limit greenhouse gas emissions adequately while
satisfying global energy needs for social and economic development. In both of
these endeavors, American leadership is essential.
John Deutch, professor of chemistry at M.I.T. and former director of
central intelligence, was in the Energy Department from 1977 to 1980. Ernest
Moniz, professor of physics at M.I.T., was in the Energy Department from 1997
to 2001. They directed a recent M.I.T. study on nuclear
energy.
