We believe nuclear power is one part of the solution to climate change, given that it emits no greenhouse gases. In addition, our industry supports increasing nuclear power’s ability to generate electricity because of the current trend in which more and more natural gas is being used for that purpose. Because it is the cleanest burning fossil fuel, more and more electricity generators are turning to natural gas as a way to comply with increasingly stringent environmental standards. Unfortunately, as demand for natural gas in this market increases, so does its price, which makes it more expensive for the residential and commercial customers that natural gas utilities primarily serve. That is why our industry supports the availability of a variety of supply sources for electricity generation, including more nuclear power.

In addition, when natural gas going into electricity generation drives up its price in the residential and commercial market, that can actually have a negative effect on our national environmental goals because as the price of natural gas increases, residential and commercial customers might choose other, less expensive, but less efficient and dirtier fuel sources. The best use of natural gas, both from an efficiency and environmental standpoint, is its direct use in homes and businesses. To the extent that more nuclear power frees up natural gas to be used directly in America’s homes and businesses, that is a good thing.

Yes, building nuclear power plants can be an expensive investment, in great part because of the extensive regulatory hurdles put in their path, and because, for the most part, the general public is not well informed about the benefits, including the clear environmental benefits, of nuclear power. We believe the federal government should promote nuclear power, both through loan guarantees and through a public education outreach effort that explains the rewards of nuclear power as well as the risks.

Jacques Besnainou, president of AREVA Inc., offered the following comments on the future of nuclear power:

As a world leader in CO2-free power generation, AREVA is committed to nuclear energy to meet our energy needs while protecting the environment. Nuclear energy plays by far the largest role in producing reliable electricity for America without producing greenhouse gases. We believe that a nuclear renaissance has truly begun here in the United States and around the world.

We are ready to back up those words with actions. Just yesterday (June 18), AREVA announced its participation in an Alliance with Duke Energy, UniStar Nuclear and USEC Inc. to develop the first nation’s Clean Energy Park in Piketon, Ohio. The initial focus of this effort will be on building an AREVA’s U.S. EPR™ reactor, which if constructed there would contain more than 80% U.S. content and produce CO2-free electricity for more than one million households. Today AREVA has four EPR ™projects under way in Finland, France and China, and many more are in development around the world and here in the United States.

AREVA is making supply chain investments to support a revival in the U.S., such as a heavy component manufacturing plant in Newport News, Virginia that will begin construction next month in partnership with Northrop Grumman. We are also developing a uranium enrichment facility in Idaho. All of these projects will bring jobs and investment to their respective regions.

Of course, we at AREVA do not believe that nuclear energy is the solution to our energy and environmental challenges. In fact, nuclear energy and renewables can be complementary in addressing these challenges – that’s why we have a rapidly growing wind and biopower businesses. But, when you consider the enormous contribution to safe reliable electricity production every day without producing greenhouse gases, there really is no solution without nuclear energy.

The following comments come from Mark Cooper, Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. Cooper's recent report on nuclear power is available here.

The construction of large numbers of nuclear reactors is being widely discussed with little consensus on the likely cost. Policy makers are being forced to evaluate alternative approaches to meeting the need for electricity in the decades ahead, to make decisions that will affect the flow of trillions of dollars of economic resources, under conditions of extreme uncertainty.

One of the greatest challenges is the need to assess the economics of nuclear reactors, none of which have been built in the U.S. in well over a decade. The uncertainty and lack of experience in the construction of reactors in the U.S. has not stopped advocates of reactor construction from declaring a “nuclear renaissance” and coming forward with optimistic projections of low cost electricity from nuclear reactors. However, these have been challenged by Wall Street and independent analysts. In the past year, alone, the estimates of the cost of power from nuclear reactors have varied from a low of 7.4 cents to a high of 30 cents per kilowatt hour.

Over the course of the 1^st generation of nuclear reactors built in the U.S. the increase in costs was stunning. The last reactors built were about seven times as expensive as the initial cost projections in what came to be known as the “great bandwagon market.” It is telling that in the roughly eight years since the so-called “nuclear renaissance” began there has been a four-fold increase in projected costs.

Reality does not live up to the hope and hype because nuclear reactors are megaprojects in which complex interconnected activities must be executed in large-scale physical undertakings that tend to be site specific and which are prone to delay and interruption. The difficulty is compounded when the supply chain is thin and multiplied when there is an effort to ramp up activity significantly. And, with their long lead times, high capital costs and high consumer costs, nuclear reactors also have high marketplace and technology risk.

The bottom line is that the projected consumer cost of reactors is likely to fall in the range of 12 to 20 cents, which is far higher than the cost of alternatives. There is much greater agreement on the likely costs of alternatives, like efficiency, which is put at less than 5 cents per kilowatt hour and renewables, like biomass and wind, and cogeneration that come in at substantially less than 12 cents. Estimates of availability of these alternatives indicate that the technical potential exists to meet the need for electricity with them for decades.

Assuming an average cost for efficiency and renewables of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, building 100 new nuclear reactors, a number that has been thrown out recently, would result in excess costs of between 1.9 trillion dollars and 4.1 trillion dollars over the life of the reactors.

These vast excess costs should come as no surprise, since the industry has made it clear that no new reactors will be built without massive taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies. To construct nuclear reactors utilities are not only demanding vast loan guarantees from the U.S. government, they are also seeking subsidies from the governments of foreign equipment manufacturers and additional support from ratepayers in the form of cost-plus treatment and construction work in progress that shifts all of the risk of cost overruns and plant cancellations to ratepayers. Nuclear reactors can only be built as wards of the state, supported by policies that mask their fundamental uneconomic nature and distort the choice of low carbon resources.

From the environmental point of view, growing concern about climate change improves the profile of the less costly low carbon resources just as much as nuclear, if not more. The cost per ton of carbon emission abatement with reactors is much higher. In addition, the uranium production cycle has environmental, safety and security externalities issues of its own, that other alternatives do not.

In conclusion, combining the negative economics of nuclear reactors with their negative societal costs and factoring in risk, there are a host of alternatives that are superior to nuclear reactors. In a world where carbon must be constrained and financial resources are constrained, we cannot do everything. It is clear that building a new cohort of nuclear reactors would be just about the worst choice policy makers could make at this moment.

America’s domestic energy security is a critical issue facing the nation today. At the foundation of our energy security is a reliable, abundant, affordable and sustainable – and increasingly “green” – energy supply. A truly sustainable national energy policy must embrace: clean coal technologies – to take advantage of our most abundant resource in a sustainable manner; carbon sequestration technologies; off-shore oil and gas exploration; wind and other renewables; bio-gas technologies; and nuclear power.

The latest generation nuclear power technologies have been deployed ubiquitously around the world, especially in Europe. They have proven to be safe and reliable sources of green power. What do they know that we do not? The steel industry supports the widespread deployment of nuclear power—it is essential to transforming our energy infrastructure to among the world’s greenest.

Nuclear energy is not the solution to climate change, but it is part of the solution. The United States and the rest of the world will need additional electricity supply going forward, and nuclear energy is a proven technology that provides large amounts of electricity supply additions without associated carbon emissions. For example, each year, FPL Group’s nuclear fleet offsets emissions equal to taking more than 7 million vehicles off of the road. This is one reason FPL has much lower carbon emissions than other electricity companies.

On a policy level, expanding the use of clean, safe nuclear power helps provide a balance between sound energy policy and sound environmental policy. But clearly, it is not the only solution. Ours must be a balanced effort that encourages the adoption of a broad portfolio of carbon abatement policies.

Without policies that further encourage the expansion of nuclear energy, it will be much harder to achieve large carbon reductions, and any future reductions will likely come at a higher cost. In essence, the smaller the portfolio of carbon abatement policies that we adopt as a nation, the more reliant we become on a narrow set of potential solutions, and the greater will be the consequences of failure of those individual policies. For example, if the United States were to forgo continued development of nuclear energy, the failure to maximize U.S. wind energy potential will make it that much harder to assure adequate electricity supplies at a reasonable cost while achieving significant carbon reductions.

In reality, expanding the role of proven, safe, reliable nuclear energy presents less risk than adopting carbon policies that are built on an assumption that technologies will be developed on an ideal timetable at desirable costs. History tells us that technology development does not often work this way.

So while developing new nuclear generation is a logical step, there are still unique challenges associated with developing new nuclear plants.

The licensing process used for the last generation of nuclear energy plants in the United States was a major factor in the suspension of nuclear energy development in this country for many years. The old licensing process involved two steps and postponed critical decisions on design safety and site suitability until after construction. It resulted in prolonged licensing hearings, some of which lasted nearly a generation. The length of the licensing process was a critical factor in increasing the construction cost of nuclear energy plants.

Today’s licensing process frontloads decisions and promises to be a vast improvement over the previous two-step process. However, no matter how elegant the new licensing process appears on paper, the real test will be in its application. A number of licensing applications have been filed, and if the process works well, others will likely follow. But if the initial licensing proceedings under the new process do not result in timely decisions, the harsh reality is companies may pull back from nuclear energy development.

In terms of federal involvement, there are different roles the federal government can and should play. First, as indicated above, the government will license new nuclear plants. Licensing is an inherently governmental role, and effective administration of the revised licensing process is will be critical to continued U.S. nuclear energy development. Second, the federal government should honor its commitment to provide a permanent solution to the problem of high level radioactive spent fuel. This commitment was made more than 30 years ago but has not yet been honored. Third, the federal government could jump start nuclear energy development through the loan guarantee program authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. So far, that program has been a disappointment.

If the goal of federal cap and trade proposals is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, one might reasonably assume that the policymakers behind such proposals would support more nuclear energy. After all, nuclear accounts for nearly 75 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide-free electricity. But the lawmakers who are currently shepherding cap and trade through the legislative process do not promote nuclear energy, nor do they support hydroelectric power, our second largest source of carbon dioxide-free electricity. Neither of these proven, reliable carbon-free sources of electricity qualify as green solutions under the Waxman-Markey cap and trade plan House leaders hope to pass. And what about the electricity we generate from renewable biomass? Roughly 25 percent of that type of energy doesn’t count either. All told, more than 90 percent of the electricity currently provided by renewable, carbon-free sources fails to meet the definition of “green” under the electricity mandate in the Waxman-Markey plan.

Residents of President Obama’s home state of Illinois currently enjoy below average electricity prices. They also get 49 percent of their electricity from carbon-free nuclear energy. But nuclear power isn’t green enough for the Waxman-Markey crowd. The 1.4 percent of the electricity Illinois generates from wind, solar and other uneconomic, politically correct sources, on the other hand, is good enough. Good thing, too, because now they’ll only have to increase their renewable output by a mere 1,000% over the next decade. Their neighbor to the east won’t have it quite so easy. Indianans will have to boost their government-approved, taxpayer-funded green electricity by more than 4,300%.

So, it seems the only energy solution Washington lawmakers are interested in is taxing the vast majority of the energy that currently fuels America, sweeping nuclear and hydro under the rug, and mandating the use of the most expensive, least reliable, and government subsidy-dependent sources of emission-free energy in its place. Such proposals, it seems, will do little more than generate a lot of greenbacks for bigger government. The Congressional Budget Office confirmed this in a recent analysis, in which they estimate that the Waxman-Markey tax and mandate scheme currently making its way through Congress would reduce cumulative emissions by just 0.5% between 2012 and 2020.

A key goal of the Senate Republicans’ American Energy Act is to foster the construction of 100 new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years. Is that a good idea?

The short answer is no. It is true that the operation of nuclear power plants generally does not release heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming. But it is also true that from a financial and environmental standpoint, nuclear plants are among the most costly and highest risk options to meet our future energy needs and address climate change. They also continue to have significant safety, security and long-term radioactive waste disposal problems. Lower cost, lower risk technologies, such as energy efficiency and solar, wind and other renewable energy sources, are safer, more secure, do not have long-term waste disposal issues, and could be deployed much more quickly.

No new nuclear reactors have been ordered since 1978, and it is important that we understand why. The first generation of nuclear power plants built in the 1970s and 1980s were plagued by massive cost overruns and cancellations. In 1980, even Forbes magazine, an industry booster, observed: “The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale.” Ratepayers and taxpayers were forced to cover as much as $300 billion (in 2006 dollars) in industry cost overruns. Consumer outrage sounded the death knell for additional nuclear plants.

Since then, the projected price tag of new nuclear plants has jumped dramatically, increasing much faster than the cost of any other electric power technology. The estimate for construction costs in the United States has soared from about $2 billion to $3 billion per reactor in 2001 to more than $9 billion per reactor today. If this trend continues, the cost of 100 new reactors could exceed $1 trillion.

Construction costs of this magnitude likely would raise electric rates and threaten the financial viability of reactor owners. As a result, neither Wall Street nor the industry is willing to finance an expansion of nuclear power if taxpayers do not shield the companies from the economic risks through federal loan guarantees.

In 2005, Congress authorized $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for the next generation of nuclear plants, and it is expected that four new plants will receive guarantees under this program. However, given the rapidly escalating cost projections and the unwillingness of Wall Street to finance nuclear plants without federal guarantees, the industry is now demanding that the federal government underwrite its entire expansion.

We need to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent or more by mid-century to avoid the worst effects of global warming, so the nuclear power option should not be taken off the table. But rather than prematurely deploying dozens of new plants through massive public subsidies and loan guarantees, the nuclear industry and the federal government should resolve critical economic as well as technical, safety, security and waste issues before committing the nation to a large-scale nuclear resurgence.

Climate change is real, and we must combat this issue now.

Nuclear energy is not only the most readily available form of clean-air electricity, but it is also the most sustainable and cost-effective. Of all forms of clean-air electricity, nuclear energy has the smallest impact on the environment. If we invest in this form of power now, we will see benefits for years to come.

Just like other major sources of clean-air electricity, such as hydroelectric power, wind energy and solar energy, nuclear power plants do not emit any carbon or greenhouse gases. And nuclear energy is the only large-scale, clean-air electricity source that can be expanded widely to produce large amounts of energy. In fact, it makes up nearly 74 percent of the nation’s clean-air electricity.

Average nuclear production costs have already declined more than 30 percent in the past 10 years to 1.87 cents per kilowatt-hours, and new and more complex forms of technology are continually being explored to make this cost even lower. Currently, it is the lowest-cost producer of baseload electricity.

It makes sense for consumers by providing them with a low and highly stable cost, and if we continue growing this industry, it makes sense for the country -- the number of jobs created would be substantial and widespread.

Greater use of nuclear energy is absolutely a necessary step to becoming a more environmentally responsible and energy independent nation.

If the electricity sector is to achieve the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, new nuclear generation must be part of the discussion. While uncertainty in waste-disposal policy remains a critical question, proposals for new central generating stations in the 1,000 to 1,600 MW range are now under consideration with 17 applications to construct and operate 26 reactors now pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with more expected.

Obtaining a license for a new reactor is not necessarily a commitment to build, as financing and other permits will be required. Clearly, new reactors will require major capital investments that may become barriers to those utilities where access to capital markets is an issue. However, the loan guarantees provided by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 were designed to help provide assistance for “first movers” to resurrect the nuclear industry supply chain.

Some have argued that nuclear power is “too expensive,” but it is very likely that the cost of producing power by other means will continue to increase when and if new restrictions on carbon emissions are implemented. In its 2009 Update of the MIT 2003 Future of Nuclear Power study, MIT analysts noted that construction costs of all types of large-scale engineered projects have escalated dramatically. Compared with other fuels, nuclear is forecast to have higher capital costs but lower fuel costs. The MIT update provides some comparisons of levelized costs with and without a carbon charge.

It is difficult to forecast what operating expenses for nuclear reactors will be over an expected service life of 60 years or more and how that will compare with other fuel types. Investors are likely to be attracted to the 91.5 percent industry-wide capacity factor for nuclear plants.

Once the first reactors are approved and in operation, after three years of licensing and five or so for construction, the rest of the industry will take stock of their circumstances and perhaps have greater confidence in a commitment of resources. To reach a level of 100 units will require developing greenfield sites, which may take longer than the first batch of applications which are co-located with existing reactors and transmission infrastructure.

It is interesting to learn of possible development of smaller-scale nuclear reactors. The nuclear industry will need to work with the NRC in developing regulatory certification standards. There may be technology advances that can be brought to market that can meet economic, environmental and safety requirements.

A very curious thing has been happening in the US. Even with the decline in the number of reactors in the US production of nuclear energy has increased over the years due mostly to increases in capacity factors and efficiency. Nuclear power is a very efficient and, under certain circumstances, a competitive way of making electric power compared to coal, oil, and gas.

There have been many studies of the relative costs and benefits of nuclear power. Some are mostly scientifically based. Others take on almost a religious tone either supporting of rejecting nuclear power. (I have read dozens of these cost-benefits analyses, competitiveness reports and the like and am so far not convinced of their comprehensiveness. Most do not consider ALL alternative power sources, which is the way a proper opportunity costs comparison should be made. Much more needs to be done, and without the advocacy tone that most of these reports have for one side or the other.)

One fact is clear in all of them: nuclear power is one of the slowest technologies to deploy for electricity generation historically. Nuclear power is also the most expensive technology to build in terms of upfront capital costs to get the plant in operating shape from scratch. Some of these plants can be in the $10-15 billion range after interest payments, delays, and more are built in. However, there are many smaller, modular nuclear technologies being developed and perfected that could be much cheaper, even less capable of being a proliferation problem, and could be used for desalinization as well as electricity production. Much cheaper plants are possible. It is also possible to spread the costs of the plants over many activities and outputs of the plants.

Co-generation of many outputs may be the key to making the future of nuclear power more viable than it might otherwise be. Nuclear power could be used to make hydrogen from water. It could be used to clean up and desalinate water. It could also be used for municipal and other heating. There are numerous uses for the massive power that could be produced from nuclear. Many developing countries have been looking at these options. Also some developed countries and developing countries could turn themselves from being net energy importers into net energy exporters if they develop the right sorts of mixes of energy systems. Such financial and other security concerns need to be brought into the cost-benefit mix.

Nuclear power is a very complex and potentially dangerous technology. One of the most complex machines on earth is likely a nuclear power plant in its totality. The dangers come when such a complex plant it not properly managed and maintained, and when the fuels supply chains are not secure and closed-loop. Wherever nuclear power is going in the future industry, governments, and international organizations need to make sure that along with providing the massive benefits that nuclear power can accrue, that its potential costs and drawbacks, especially in safety, security and proliferation issues are minimized. My experience with nuclear power plants in the US is that they are very well run and safety is a big focus of the people at the plants. The people are well-trained and focused. However, there is a public perception problem that still exists. There are also some issues with nuclear power that are not found in solar, wind, geothermal, and the like. Hence, we are facing many great choices for energy production, and we need to be logical and clear-headed about making those choices.

One of the complexities and costs of nuclear power is involved in the decommissioning of old plants when their lifetimes are over, or when politics requires that they shut down. Decommissioning costs are, according to the World Nuclear Association and the IAEA, about 10-15% of the total cost of the plant. Most plants that now exist have originally registered and calculated lifetimes of about 40 years, but many plants’ lives are being extended through refitting and other technological and management upgrades to as much as 60 years. There will be lots of decommissioning costs coming around the bend, and fairly soon.

One of the biggest problems the nuclear industry faces is the combination of the required decommissioning of the older plants and the long times it often takes to get new plants online, and up to full power. Sometimes, given political, plant siting, and other reasons, this could take 5-20 years (or even more).

If new plants are not built to replace the old ones than the nuclear industry will simply fade into the sunset of energy technologies. Some would like to see this happen, but for the overall energy needs of the US, given the energy import vulnerabilities of the US, and given the relatively carbon-free nature of nuclear power (as well as solar, wind, etc) compared to coal, oil and gas, the US would be ill-served to allow nuclear power to fade away.

Again, and this is very important: if we don't start building new nuclear plants in the US soon then nuclear electric energy as an option will begin to fade away. It takes a long time to get new plants on line, and many of our plants will reach their lifetimes fairly soon.

Then there is the giant nuclear elephant in the room. What do we do with all of the waste from nuclear plants? The US, for example, has had great difficulty getting the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository online. Almost all the nuclear waste from nuclear electricity plants in the US is stored in dry casks on the properties of the nuclear facilities. The nuclear industry and electricity customers have been charged over $28 billion for this facility’s development. Yet it is not allowed to fulfill its purpose and the waste pods are gradually filling up the backyards of many nuclear plants.

There are ways of reducing the nuclear waste stockpiles in the US and elsewhere via reprocessing of the nuclear fuel. This is part of the program of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). However, there can be proliferation issues associated with reprocessing. Most nuclear energy facilities produce plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU) as part of the fission process in the plants. These are by-products of producing energy through many of the nuclear technologies that exist, but not all. The US stopped its reprocessing during the time of Presidents Carter and Ford.

There are also nuclear technologies that use non-enriched uranium, such as the CANDU reactors developed by Canada and the thorium-based reactors being used and developed by India. (India has huge thorium reserves found in its south and southeast, mostly in minerals sands deposits.) There are also other technologies, such as fast-breeder and accelerator reactors that can reduce the amount of waste produced per kilowatt hour by having a much larger burn percentage of the uranium or other fuels used. This can reduce the amount of waste produced, and can also lead to less fuel being used for each unit of electricity produced.

Dealing with the nuclear waste is a huge issue that could keep the industry back for years. However, in many ways the nuclear industry is sui generis when it comes to the way its waste is treated, and for good reason: this waste, especially the high-level waste, is dangerous and unhealthy. However, the nuclear power industry is the only industry that has to keep control over its waste fully in the entire energy system of the world.

Imagine how different the world would be if the oil, gas and coal industries, and their associated electricity industries had to keep full control over their waste products. Consider how costly that would have been. Consider how much fewer billions of tons of CO2 would not be in the atmosphere warming the planet. Consider the massive health effects that have occurred from present-day coal mining in China and India, coal mining in the earlier days in the UK and the US, and more. Consider the health, quality of life and other costs that the world’s population has carried for the coal, gas, and oil industries as part of their external costs that were never “paid for” by the industry and its consumers directly, and you get a clearer sense of why nuclear seems to be more expensive per MWh when one looks at the costs of the entire nuclear fuel cycle.

In retrospect, and after some more thought on this, it might seem to some that the nuclear industry has done a very good job of controlling its waste and the results of those wastes in comparison to many other industries inside and outside of the overall energy industry. Still, it is imperative that if there is to be a future for the nuclear industry that the waste issues be dealt with properly. That, however, is also the case for the oil, gas and coal industries, but world politics and civil society are only just starting to get a handle on that issue.

Related to the internalizing of the external costs of oil, gas, and coal we have the growing potential for the further developments of cap-and-trade systems for CO2. Once the costs of C02 and the overall storage costs of C02 are calculated into the production and use of fossil fuels for generation of electricity and transportation then nuclear energy and its smaller energy cousins, such as solar, wind, ocean energy, tidal energy, geothermal, and more look even better.

One of the biggest missing elements in the overall energy security strategies of countries, and of the world, is the incorporation of the true costs of the use of energy sources and energy systems into the overall costs and benefits that are used to decide how to set up energy mixes in the future.

For the US and others who have oil-intensive transport systems (99% of US transport is fueled by oil-based products) and who also import most of their oil, and this includes the US, the EU, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, China, and many others, electric cars are an alternative to the oil-fueled internal combustion engine of today. In order to shift to many more electric cars we need more electricity. Nuclear power is but one of the options available to produce that energy in the whole framework or future smart-grid systems.

There will be a portfolio of new and presently-known energy technologies incorporated into the smart grids. Nuclear, being mostly carbon free is a potential alternative to consider.

One of the major debates and discussions about transport futures is about how the electricity industry can be merged with the transport industry. If this happens, and there is a good chance it will to some extent, there will be huge increases in demand for electricity production. That will require increased investments in a mix of nuclear power, gas-fired electricity generation, coal-fired electricity generation, renewable energy technologies (such as solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) to ensure that we can keep up with the needs. Over time the coal and gas generation, and the oil generation you find in some countries, will have to pay much higher costs for dealing with their externalities via carbon sequestration, the development of more efficient and “super-critical” technologies and more. If they don’t keep up with the new external costs game they will loose out as sources of electricity in many places.

One also needs to consider the historical variability in the prices of hydrocarbons in some areas. When the price of gas doubles the cost of producing that gas-fired electricity goes up 70%. When the price of uranium doubles the cost of producing that nuclear electricity goes up only about 10%. When the price of carbon goes up the electricity produced by the most carbon intensive fuels, such as lignite and other types of coal, could increase dramatically. Carbon sequestration is not cheap. “Clean coal” electricity plants are much more expensive to build per MW of capacity than the coal-fired plants normally used today. We need to take a look at all of these options in order to figure out better energy strategies in the future.

For the US coal is very abundant. It will likely remain the biggest fuel to produce electricity for decades to come. Natural gas will be second. So far nuclear is third. How the politics, economics, business and other decisions will work out in the next decades will determine whether nuclear keeps its third-place position, or whether it falls behind others in the coming decades as plants close down, and new ones may or my not be built.

In the very long run there will be peak gas. Already the US has been increasing its imports of LNG. It will be interesting to see how the import dependency of the US on natural gas works itself out. There is lots of coal-bed methane. Coal can be converted to gas. Waste can be converted to gas. But there are economic and technical uncertainties there that many seem to disregard.

The geopolitical risks of oil importation are well known. The geopolitical risks of relying on outside sources of natural gas are also well known, especially for the EU with its reliance on natural gas from Russia and North Africa. Uranium is more geographically and strategically securable than oil and gas. Canada, Australia, the US and Brazil are hardly unstable countries with chokepoints around them, like the Straits of Hormuz, etc. Uranium sources in Niger, Kazakhstan, Russia and the like could be problematic in the future, but nowhere near as problematic as the major oil transport chokepoints and other oil supply-chain insecurities.

The present use, and potentially increased use, of former nuclear weapons as a source of uranium and other nuclear fuels should not be dismissed as a benefit to society. It is a classic case of turning swords into ploughshares. If the world turns even more so against nuclear weapons, and this seems to be the case in the public statements of many world leaders, then there could even be a glut of nuclear fuel from weapons on the world markets.

So far in places like China and some other countries renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind are growing faster in generating capacity than nuclear, the “other carbon-free source of energy”. However, nuclear power stations are lumpy investments and take longer times to get on line than these other renewable energy sources. Getting one of two 1500MW nuclear stations up to full power could soon dwarf many of these other renewable sources. We shall have to see how this all works out. The future of energy in China could be very interesting indeed.

But this is not just a race amongst energy sources. It is really a race against the ticking clocks of energy security and global climate change. We need to think as systematically, logically and objectively as possible. Far too much is at stake to make mistakes that could cost future generations more than we could ever imagine today.

However, even if the world were to build another 400 reactors in the next 30 years we would likely not even dent the global warming issues. Nor would many countries have their energy security situations in much better control if this is seen as the only solution. But we will still need the electricity, and the most probable alternatives to nuclear will be gas and coal for some time to come at the high-MW plant ranges.

Building 100 new nuclear facilities in the US in the next 20 years seems like a very big stretch given the problems with siting, litigation, etc. that would be expected to occur. A more reasonable expectation might be 30-40 new reactors in those 20 years. For many ant-nuclear activists and others this may be 30-40 too many, but then what are the alternatives to these potentially 36,000-48,000 MW of power generating capacity.

On the other hand, where is all of the financing going to come from given the potentials that the credit tightness of today may continue for some time?

It may prove to be easier to get financing for cheaper projects, and projects that come on line faster, such as solar, wind, coal, and gas generating plants.

The future of nuclear power, the future of energy security, the future of global climate change will require much more than the myopic focus on one set of technologies or another as some do, or the myopic focus on one set of policy options or another as some do, but on a full-scale, multi-pronged, multi-technology, wise and thoughtful approach to many systematic changes that need to occur in our energy systems, our treatment of the environment, and in our societies. There needs to be a more comprehensive approach to measuring one set of technologies and policies against another that goes way beyond the parochial approaches that seem to dominate such studies, debates and discussions.

There must also be a huge focus on energy, other resource, and environmental efficiencies, wherein we might find some of the most effective solutions to the many problems we face.It may also mean that the solar, wind, gas, oil, coal, nuclear , electricity, transport, and other industries will need to compete as well as cooperate in order to develop the technologies, infrastructure and policies (both public and private) that we will need to have a more energy and environmentally secure future.

The Role of Nuclear Power in America’s Future

America's 104 nuclear plants provide 19 percent of the nation's electricity and account for over 70 percent of our emissions-free power generation.

While operational improvements and capacity additions at existing plants have allowed nuclear to maintain its share of the generation portfolio, no new plants have been ordered in the United States since 1978.

U.S. nuclear plants are operating more efficiently and more safely than at other time in history. The nation’s fleet of nuclear plants is operating at roughly 90 percent of its capacity (our own fleet has operated at more than 93% capacity for the last 7 years). And according to Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, it is safer to work at a nuclear plant than to work in the real estate or financial services sectors.

What role should nuclear power play in America’s future?

The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) has estimated that electric demand in the United States will increase 26 percent by 2030, even factoring in gains in conservation and energy efficiency.

And while we can greatly expand the role of renewables in many regions of the country (and will if proposed renewable electricity standards are enacted), we will need additional baseload power plants to maintain our highly reliable electric system.

In a carbon-constrained economy, it will be more imperative than ever that nuclear play an increasing role in meeting America’s energy needs. Modeling of proposed climate legislation by the Environmental Protection Agency and EIA shows that meeting our environmental goals can be done more quickly and more cheaply with the rapid deployment of 150 new nuclear plants.

In fact, EPA had to constrain their model to limit the amount of nuclear plants that would be built to meet our greenhouse gas goals. Why? EPA recognized the uncertainty surrounding how quickly new nuclear plants could be deployed given the lack of construction experience in the U.S. in recent years.

The federal government can and should play an important role in the deployment of the first several nuclear power plants by providing loan guarantees to companies building new reactors in the U.S. The economic downturn has largely frozen capital markets for large scale energy projects – even a solar facility that DOE has approved for a loan guarantee has been unable to secure the necessary private financing to fund 20 percent of the project. And Wall Street remains reluctant to put billions of dollars on the line for the first wave of plants given the lack of recent construction experience and the risks associated with the Federal regulatory process.

While DOE’s loan guarantee project office has made great strides recently in its efforts to review potential nuclear projects for Federal assistance, the program must be more robust given the large capital costs associated with nuclear projects.

There has been much talk about “green jobs” recently and the benefits of transitioning to a green economy. Yet, policymakers have paid little attention to the numbers behind the claims. In fact, nuclear plants provide the most “bang for the buck” of any clean generation source. Nuclear plants produce over 1,400 full-time construction jobs during the four or five year construction period and another 500 to 700 high-paying, permanent jobs during their 40, and likely 60, year operating lives. Even better, jobs at nuclear power plants pay, on average, 36 percent more than salaries in the surrounding community.

How does that compare to other clean energy sources? A study by the Ventyx Group estimates that for every 1,000 megawatts of capacity, a nuclear plant provides 500 direct jobs, while a coal plant provides 220 full time positions. A wind facility provides 90 jobs, while a natural gas plant supports 60 jobs. Solar facilities provide even fewer full time jobs.

If we are going to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050, we simply must embrace nuclear power. The sooner we get started, the better off we will be from an economic, environmental, and national security perspective.

Meeting the challenges of growth reliably and responsibly requires a balanced energy strategy that combines aggressive energy efficiency, investments in renewable and alternative energy sources and state-of-the-art power plants, including new nuclear plants. We can't rely exclusively on any single element. We must pursue all three components in tandem.

Nuclear energy has been a key part of the energy mix that meets our customers' needs since the 1970s. We operate five reactors at four sites in the Carolinas and Florida.

We have filed license applications for potential new reactors in Levy County, Fla., on a new site, and at the existing Harris Nuclear Plant in Wake County, N.C. We have not made a decision to build new plants, but we are taking the necessary steps to ensure that nuclear power remains a viable option for the future to meet customer demand. We can't wait till the electric system is overloaded to begin planning for responsible expansion. We have to keep the process moving even as we aggressively pursue efficiency and alternative energy.

Nuclear energy must continue to be a key part of a diverse and reliable resource mix. It is the safest, most economical, carbon-free way to generate large-scale energy, and it is our best option for new baseload plants. If our country and our states are serious about addressing global climate change, nuclear energy must be part of the solution.

Nuclear energy is a low-carbon source of electricity and a vital part of a comprehensive solution to climate change, but is no more “the” solution than any other energy technology. Our nation should continue to employ a diverse mix of electricity sources to meet its energy and environmental challenges.

Given the reality -- namely that nuclear power plants constitute nearly 75 percent of the nation’s carbon-free electricity supply -- it is important to recognize that efforts to achieve substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the electric sector will not be successful without continued reliance on and expansion of nuclear energy.

This fact is borne out in a myriad of analyses done in recent years by entities ranging from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to the Electric Power Research Institute to the Environmental Protection Administration in its evaluation of pending climate change legislation. Even in cases where the reports’ authors see the path to nuclear energy’s expansion as more daunting than the industry does, the conclusion remains the same: there has to be a larger role for nuclear energy going forward.

The federal government should encourage nuclear plant construction as a means of undergirding the nation’s economy with reliable baseload electricity, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and creating hundreds of thousands of high-paying green jobs.

It can do this in four ways:

1. near-term actions to ensure that 2005 Energy Policy Act’s loan guarantee program is working as intended, and creation of a broader, permanent financing platform to ensure access to capital for the large-scale deployment of advanced energy technologies, including nuclear facilities, that will reduce carbon emissions;

2. a sustainable strategy for the management and ultimate disposal of used nuclear fuel;

3. an effective and predictable licensing process for new nuclear facilities; and

4. a research, development and deployment program that will allow the nation to meet environmental goals and provide leadership on issues related to expansion of nuclear technology and non-proliferation.