Follow this blog:
RSS

Cheap shale gas threatens future of nuclear energy

By | February 22, 2013, 5:27 AM PST

America’s use of nuclear power for electricity has been in decline in recent years - the country has lost about 3 percent of its electricity production, or 29 billion kilowatt-hours, since 2010.

Part of the reason for the drop in this carbon-free energy source is that America’s nuclear reactors are aging and need frequent repairs. But a growing concern has been the competition from shale gas - a cheap source of energy, albeit not carbon-free.

Florida’s Duke Energy made the decision to close its Crystal River nuclear plant in Florida, which has been out of service and in need of repairs since 2009, arguing that it would be cheaper to build new turbines for natural gas than to make the $1.5 billion repair needed for the nuclear plant. Another reactor, in Wisconsin, will close this year after similar pressures from shale gas.

Analyst Julien Dumoulin-Smith recently told Bloomberg that four other American reactors are at risk of being closed due to “new power market economics.” Indeed, in some cases plans for new reactors have been jeopardized because of the availability of other, cheaper options.

While the financials may warrant this shift towards shale gas, the environmental costs tell a different story. Natural gas is about twice as clean as coal when used for electricity, and insofar as it was helping to replace that fossil fuel, it was helping to lower U.S. carbon emissions. But now it seems that shale gas’ affordability is hampering prospects for alternative, carbon-free energy sources, like nuclear power - which produces less CO2 than even other alternative energies, like solar and biomass.

There may still be hope for nuclear power. The Tennessee Valley Authority has plans to build smaller, more efficient reactors that may be able to compete more effectively with natural gas. With shale prices continuing to undercut those of other renewable energy sources, those committed to preserving nuclear power as a source of carbon-free energy will have to innovate and adopt creative strategies to make it a more financially attractive investment proposition.

via [The Washington Post]

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Channtal Fleischfresser

About Channtal Fleischfresser

Channtal Fleischfresser is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Channtal Fleischfresser

Channtal Fleischfresser

Contributing Editor

Channtal Fleischfresser has worked for The Economist, WNET/Channel 13, Al Jazeera English, Wall Street Journal and Associated Press. She holds degrees from the University of Pennsylvania and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. She is based in New York.

Follow her on Twitter.

Channtal Fleischfresser

Channtal Fleischfresser

Channtal does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
16
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+4 Votes
+ -
Can we please end this simplistic coverage?
I love natural gas as a heating fuel and hope ConEd develops the infrastructure to deliver the supplies by 2030. However, as pointed out in a recent New York Times article on the spiking price of natural gas in New England, there are significant infrastructural costs to switching to natural gas. One needs both major supply pipelines and local delivery infrastructure or the local cost of the fuel spikes rapidly during periods of high demand. Cheap well-head costs are only one ingredient in the process. And, as the experience of New England this winter shows, switching to natural gas without an adequate infrastructure makes for a very expensive commodity.
Posted by hfw10027
22nd Feb
-2 Votes
+ -
What about posterity?
Both nuclear accidents/waste and fracking for natural gas have the potential to ruin large swaths of the environment in a way that would be permanent on a human scale. How can we not realize that it's just not worth it?

If you want to solve all of this, population growth is really the only problem you need to tackle. It was a popular topic at the start of the environmental movement, but now nearly nobody talks about it. Why not?
Posted by omb00900@...
22nd Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
That's easy
It wouldn't be Politically Correct.... UGH.. two words that are the bane of intelligence and common sense everywhere
Posted by jonrosen
22nd Feb
+3 Votes
+ -
Want to stop population growth in the US?
Stop all immigration.

Without immigration the US has a low birthrate that results in population loss.

News headline from SmartPlanet.

End population growth in the US. Close the borders.

That solves 2 huge problems in one move.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 22nd Feb
+3 Votes
+ -
Why not?
Because the environmental movement is tightly integrated with Democratic Party, which sees unlimited immigration as a core part of their agenda for votes.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
22nd Feb
-1 Votes
+ -
You miss the point
HI and John,

Immigration is not the issue. You can't narrow down the problem of overpopulation to the US alone, it's a global issue and the only answer will ultimately be global. And don't imagine that the US can shield itself from the woes of the rest of the world either. Their problem will become our problems sooner or later. As John Donne said "No man is an island, entire of it self." The same is true of nations too.
Posted by riverat1
23rd Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
Did I?
The crisis industrial complex wishes us to believe that these problems are exclusively our fault, and that it's our sole responsibility to fix, mainly by giving them money and power over us. As you know, I reject that notion.

Overpopulation is only the fault of the US to the degree that we subsidize it worldwide. The only real solution is to stop subsidizing it, which is not what they have in mind.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
25th Feb
+3 Votes
+ -
I call BS
Just read an article the other day, RIGHT HERE on smartplanet. In fact it's in the 'smartplanet weekly' email that I just got. Seems to speak to something completely different.
Posted by jonrosen
Updated - 22nd Feb
-2 Votes
+ -
Cat-and-mouse game
It's an old old old cat-and-mouse game. You start planning nukes; oil-and-gas lobby reduces prices. So you build gas-fired plants instead. Now, let's talk about small rise... to the next "nuclear renaissance". No way out up to the final catastrophe. No gas, no nukes, no snake-oil wind. No population. Halleluyah in the green paradise.
Posted by praoss
22nd Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
I call all of this, a failure by government to force solutions on all of us
and we'll probably end up with solutions dictated by the people and businesses.

Can't have that! No sirree!
Posted by adornoe
22nd Feb
-2 Votes
+ -
Shortsighted; Shale Gas Will Be Depleted!
Admittedly, nuclear energy may be more expensive, but there is a finite amount of shale gas deposits out there, and like fracking, what hidden environmental disasters await us with its extraction? Regardless, sooner than later, shale gas will be gone. Atomic plants need maintenance and better design, but the only real salvation for energy source can only be found with wind, sun and hydro power, all of which are inexhaustible, but continue to be woefully underutilized for lack of exorbitant profits for the utility companies.
Posted by lodavesf
22nd Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
It's all about costs
Actually, while renewables may seem to be limitless, they do use up a very valuable commodity -- money. Our economy has only a limited amount of money to invest on things such as infrastructure, manufacturing, etc. If for the next few decades it's cheaper to use shale gas than other energy sources, it frees up money for our society to use elsewhere.

If you own a home you could probably put solar panels on your roof. Most people don't. Why not? Because they have other more immediate needs for their money that they value more.
Posted by zackers
22nd Feb
-2 Votes
+ -
Nukes ge gassed!
Let's see, estimates for shale & coal-seam gas are that it will last 20-100 years, if we don't ruin much of the environment getting at it.

Nuclear? Well, let;s see, we have thousands of years of Uranium, even if all nations used only today's nukes. And, we have so much Thorium, the sun will have bloated & engulfed us before we'd run out.

Gotta love the blogosphere! This one, if transcripts survive, will get a chuckle from descendents using nuclear power because gas ran out millennia before.
;]
.
Posted by DrAlexC
22nd Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
When one only looks at the positives for a product or service, it will
always seem like nothing can ever go wrong, and it would be a no-brainer to go with that one product or service.

However, in the real world, nothing ever works with only the positives engaged, and if anything can go wrong, it will, and in fact, things have gone wrong with nuclear power in the past, and will likely go wrong again. It may be the cleanest form of energy, but when something goes wrong, it will be deemed very expensive to fix, or not fixable at all, and it will cost billions to fix or not to fix. Oil and coal still exist in large volumes, and are still relatively inexpensive and quite easy to harness once pulled out of the ground.
Posted by adornoe
22nd Feb
-2 Votes
+ -
Nothing can go wrong?
In my opinion shale gas/oil is an even greater environmental threat than pure oil production.
If you have the courage to read this report, even only the highlights, you will understand:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201107/20110715ATT24183/20110715ATT24183EN.pdf

Radioactive substances, heavy metals, .... from the underground makes the drilling waste harmful.
Methane, chlorides and chemicals used for extraction can contaminate the groundwater (there are many reports that you can even burn the methane from the water tap or reports of explosions in residences)...
The resulting gas may be cleaner , but.....
Posted by balouke
Updated - 23rd Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Larryshultz
U.S is good generator of energy. U.S. is good energy provider.Its better than electricity providing according to another country.And they have better facility of how to save electricity for a future. Electricity production by coal, nuclear and natural gas power plants is the fastest-growing use of freshwater in the U.S. accounting for more than about
Posted by larryshultz
2nd Mar
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!