Credit: Creative Commons/ brewbooks
I have been a socially responsible investor for over forty years. I apply strict ethical screens in choosing my companies. I also look for companies that sell products that make the world a better place. I take pride in owning such companies.
In making my investment decisions, I have made few compromises. Two weeks ago, however, I made a big compromise with my long held principles. I purchased a small position in an electric utility with some plants that run on nuclear power. It was not an easy decision. I made it only because I can no longer see a happy solution to the problem of global climate change without an increased reliance on nuclear power in the short term.
We all know the problem. In a post two months ago, I cited statistics from the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimating that global energy consumption will increase by fifty-six percent by the year 2040. Currently solar and wind power generate two percent of the world’s electric power. Hydroelectric plants account for another four percent. The challenge we face is to dramatically increase the percentage of energy produced from these nonpolluting sources and to meet increased global energy demand from them as well.
This challenge must be met in a world in which the climate change clock is ticking rapidly. A million years ago carbon dioxide in the atmosphere varied from 180 parts per million to 280 parts per million. To manage the climate change problem safely, scientists claim we must not allow the carbon dioxide level to increase beyond 450 parts per million. This year for the first time the world surpassed 400. In 2013 carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere at the fastest rate ever. If current trends continue, the world will exceed the 450 level within the next twenty-five years or less.
There is no question that wind and solar power have made dramatic progress as alternative energy sources in the last ten years. Both sources have become far more efficient with the cost per kilowatt-hour dropping impressively. Winds in particular as a source of energy has become competitive with coal and natural gas.
But there are problems with these alternative sources of energy. Wind doesn’t blow all the time and the sun only shines during the day, which means that a backup plant is required. This plant will most likely run on fossil fuel. Wind has the additional problem of blowing best far away from the cities that need electricity, which makes it necessary for new transmission lines to be constructed.
The Fukushima disaster in March of 2011 was a scary event. It led both Japan and Germany to close down nuclear power plants. How was the lost power replaced? Both countries turned to coal. As a result Japan will no longer meet its goal to reduce carbon emissions by twenty-five percent in 2020. The government now projects emissions will increase by three percent instead. Worldwide consumption of nuclear energy declined by seven percent between 2010 and 2012, and in most cases coal replaced it. Coal consumption was up 4.5 percent during that period. The EIA forecasts that by 2040 the US will generate twenty-two percent of its electricity from coal. That is not a big improvement. We generate twenty-six percent of our electricity from coal today.
As is well known, coal is by far the most dangerous greenhouse gas. What is less well known is that nuclear power is a much safer source of energy than coal. Far more people have died from the pollution that spews from coal-fired plants than have died from radiation exposure following a nuclear plant disaster. Climate change scientist James Hansen estimates that nuclear power has already saved 1.8 million lives from air pollution related deaths.
Nuclear plant disasters have been few and far between. They have also been well contained with the exception of Chernobyl. The threat to human life and property from nuclear plant disasters pale in contrast to what the world faces with runaway carbon dioxide emissions. The sad truth about the climate change problem is that we are not going to manage it safely without a greater reliance on nuclear power in the short term. Wind and solar, despite remarkable progress, are not yet ready to replace coal. Natural gas, while less polluting than coal, is not a long-term solution to the climate change problem. With luck and improved energy-related technology, we should be able to retire these nuclear plants within the next twenty-five or thirty years. I will instruct my children to sell my investment in the electric utility with some nuclear plants at that time.
Rick Herrick’s most recent novel is entitled A Man Called Jesus.
You write “As is well known, coal is the most dangerous greenhouse gas.” I assume you mean the emissions from coal burning. However, this is false, although it is heavily touted as true by the natural gas (methane) industry. In fact, based upon industry statistics, natural gas is worse than coal. Much worse. Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and when you look at the entire spectrum of emissions, from production to burning (as opposed to only looking at burning), methane production turns out to have much greater impact upon the environment. This is from studies by a professor from Cornell.
And I disagree with your choice here, despite understanding the choice. We must not cave to the idea that increased power consumption is a given and therefore we must use nuclear power. Disasters may be few and far between, but the Fukashima disaster has caused many health problems throughout the world, and will continue to do so. As the Chernobyl disaster caused tremendous suffering, and it continues to cause health problems even today. No, these are not frequent, but their impact is tremendous. It is also not true that Chernobyl was the only one not contained. Neither was Fukashima, and neither, according to some sources, was even Three Mile Island. Not as well contained as the industry proponents will have us believe.
“…, but the Fukashima disaster has caused many health problems throughout the world, and will continue to do so. As the Chernobyl disaster caused tremendous suffering, and it continues to cause health problems even today.”
What peer-reviewed epidemiologic studies have demonstrated health problems from Fukushima throughout the world? None to my knowledge and furthermore the doses are too low as to cause changes in disease rates in the future. The major health impacts so far near Fukushima are due to disruption of their lives due to forced evacuations when it was clearly not warranted by the levels of radioactivity. While there has been shown to be increases in thyroid tumors/cancer from Chernobyl, it is doubtful that the remaining activity causes health problems even today from that accident which happened more than 25 years ago,.
Rick Herrick’s essay presents a responsible evaluation of the competing energy sources and strategies for the immediate future. He also put his money where is mouth is.
Rick’s reasoning is impeccable and I respect the care with which he made this decision. But for me accepting nukes is a Faustian bargain that I just can’t believe is really necessary. Certainly we’re going to have to get serious about facing our energy future, but I think cutting back; realizing what we do and don’t need, will be (while difficult to contemplate for such dedicated materialists) seen as essential, and it could allow renewable energy to meet our NEEDS. Maybe. We’re in a bind, for sure.
One of the problems with solar is energy storage. I think great strides have been made with long-term storage and, as soon as these solutions are on the market solar will move at a speed that makes previous growth seem minuscule.
Another problem is what the nuclear plants will replace. Herrick seems to think they will replace coal, but there is a real danger they will replace renewables. The powers that control the coal markets make it seem unlikely that they will allow themselves to be replaced with nuclear any more than they have with renewables.
Finally, I believe assuming that nuclear will be temporary, unless more disasters occur, is mistaken thinking.
Reading this reminds me of my grandmother’s comments 70 years ago, that not to worry about letting the water run, by the time you are my age, “they” will have thought of something else to use in it’s place. Well, I guess we should be praying for asteroids to come close, so we can harvest their water “soon!” Sounds right to me. Water doesn’t have much problem with toxic waste either!
Bob
P.S. Oh, unless there is “hidden” cost of toxic waste from the harvest process of the water, or the unknown dangers of other metals or toxins in the closeness of the asteroid, etc., etc.,
First, I would like to thank the six people who responded to my essay. It is obvious that Tikkun Daily readers are well versed on this issue.
Yesterday the European Union announced that the cost of air pollution from coal fired power plants in 2012 was 235 billion dollars–much of that expense was health related. For me, coal is enemy number one. While I fully agree that energy conservation and less consumption is the safest long-term response to this dangerous challenge, I just don’t see the world doing that. Because CO2 emissions are so unforgiving, I will hold my nose and keep my investment in the company with some nuclear fired plants. It helps that the company is the leading generator of wind and solar power in North America.