With global warming blowing across our landscape and scientists warning of future catastophes, we are in a predicament about what to do regarding future energy needs. This is especially true of electric power plants due to the fact that they contribute the most to this very serious issue. According to Scientific American, in their Autumn, 2006 issue, the electric power sector accounted for nearly 72% of all U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions in 2004. Coal, which is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, accounts for 50% of the U.S. electricity. There have been several articles posted on Blog4Brains concerning the aggresive push for more coal burning power plants in Texas. This is why this is such a huge concern in this country with many states, especially Texas, looking for more cheap electric energy but at what cost?

The Scientific American article asks the question…what about nuclear? Since nuclear energy ‘could help save the world’ from global warming, perhaps we should take another look at it. But what are the aspects of nuclear that we need to reconsider?

First, there is the scarce commodity called ‘money’ for which nuclear is demanding more and more due to increased safety regulations and expense of uranium enrichment and disposal. With the reality that some 2,500 nuclear plants would be needed to meet future energy needs by mid-century, there is also the real risk for nuclear proliferation. This is due to the fact that commerical enrichment plants can be reconfigured to produce weapons-grade uranium. Not a very pleasant alternative in the rapidly escalating nuclear threat in the world.

There is also the difficulty of managing radioactive waste. Building 2,500 reactors by 2050, would lead to nearly quadrupling the average rate at which spent fuel is generated. With this management of waste is a high cost. The U.S. Department of Energy has already spent $9 Billion on nuclear waste management. Added to this cost is the rising cost of obtaining new storage facilities which the Energy Department is not even keeping up with now. Therefore, the lack of a repository has become a major obstacle to building new nuclear power plants. And of course, there is the impact to the environment of storage including deep borehole disposal which would deposit nuclear waste several thousands of feet into a hole.

And finally, there is the risk of accidents. They are difficult to estimate when data is not commonly available. But a single accident, by itself, could eliminate the prospects of using large numbers of nuclear reactors online just due to the devastating effects. With as many as 2,500 new reactors on board to solve the future energy needs, our risks would be greatly amplified.

So, do the risks of cost, proliferation, waste management and accidents outweigh the benefits? All the environmental and political ramifications are enough to torpedo this alternative. So what if we just take cost into consideration. Let’s look at the cost of sources of energy:

• Nuclear — $.07 per kW
• Coal Power — $.04 per kWh
• Wind Power — $.04 - $.06 per kWh

From the above numbers, it appears that coal would be a logical choice just from the cost perspective. But what about coal? Coal is the dirtiest of all energy sources because of the emissions of greenhouse gases and the highly toxic mercury that spew from it’s combustion. In Texas, with TXU Energy’s push for eleven new coal-fired power plants, if approved, will spew 78 Million Tons of additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And this is just in Texas where their federally mandated clean air is already teetering on violation. However, there is new techonology which can reduce CO2’s emissions with coal combustion which is called integrated combined-cycle or IGCC. This is great news! However, this is very expensive new technology which pushes the cost for coal up to as much as $.08 per kWh.

So that just leaves wind power….ahh Mother Nature at her finest. Free (well almost free) and non-polluting. Why are we not aggressively pursuing wind power? From Scientific American, it is stated that “without any major changes in the existing electricity grid, wind power could generate 15 to 20 percent of the U.S. electricity supply.” So what are we waiting for? What I think is happening is that without political attention being given to upgrading the transmission and distribution infrastructure and changing regulations, wind power will not have a chance. And I believe that the reason the political agenda is the way it is, is because that no one ‘owns’ wind. It’s not a commodity. So, you have your big business nuclear people, your big business oil and gas people, and your big business coal people all vying for the big bottom line. So, who does own the wind? I say that it is you and I. Until we do something to push this high on the political agenda of Congressman who make the laws to promote and develop efficient wind energy, it just won’t happen, or we, and Mother Nature, will be stuck with dirty, and dangerous choices. We all have to become educated about the choices we make today and what will it do to us and our children tomorrow. The only chance we have is now because once the coal lobby gets their plans in place, we will have to live with 50 or more years of worsening environmental and health consequences. So write a letter, get involved but any rate…do something!

You can email your letter to us with the contact form below and we will do all the leg work for you. Please include your city and state so we can forward this to the appropriate congressman and agency.