Dateline: Copenhagen

Even though some political leaders have talked about the growing importance of nuclear power, including an announcement by the Obama Administration of nuclear loan guarantees and a call for expanded nuclear power by the French government, nuclear energy only supplied some 5.5 percent of the world’s primary energy in 2008, down the seventh year in a row since a peak in 2001. Many of the currently operating 436 reactors worldwide are quickly aging, leading to a predicted round of accelerated shutdowns from 2020 onward. A global status report [PDF] commissioned by the German government estimates that all 52 reactors under construction as of mid-2009 plus an additional 42 reactors would have to be built and come online by 2015 to maintain the same number of operating reactors in the world over time. Another 192 reactors would need to come online by 2025—the equivalent of one new reactor coming online every 19 days for 10 years. Of the new generation, China is now the clear leader, accounting for 15 of the 21 nuclear reactor construction starts in the last two years and with plans to build more.

With the large number of aging reactors, huge price tags, an aging work force of nuclear experts, and problems with long-term waste storage, should we even consider nuclear as a potential energy solution? In Scotland, where 26 percent of the electricity currently comes from nuclear, the government has decided to shut down plants in the coming years. But in the process of phasing out nuclear, Scotland is now considering a new coal-fired power plant to replace the power supply. Which has me pondering, if I had to choose among two evils, which would be worse: billions in subsidies for nuclear or billions in subsidies for coal? Which would you choose?

For more nuclear statistics and numbers, read John Mulrow’s “World Nuclear Generation Stagnates.”

Before coming to DC to witness climate and energy discussions, I had been warned, of course, that big business is trying to protect its interests and the status quo while undermining progressive regulations, like elsewhere in the world. But I was also looking forward to a strong other side of the debate in this city – creative politicians and innovative businesses bubbling over with new ideas, trying to shape the energy future. To be frank, during my first week in the U.S., I saw a heavy representation of the former overshadowing much of the latter.

A case in point was the Climate Change Conference 2009 by the CQ-Roll Call Group at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center on Tuesday, October 20, at which senators, business representatives and other stakeholders debated climate policies and possible solutions for the energy sector. With only a few exceptions, two paradigms were particularly prevalent in the discussion. The first one sounded something like this: ”We need to continue using coal and capture and store the emissions, although this is going to be very expensive, we do not know when technology will become available and whether it will be safe.” The second one went along the lines of ”We should use nuclear energy even though it is expensive and risky and nobody wants it in their backyard.” Following these paradigms, climate legislation of course seems like maybe a necessary, but definitely unpleasant, burden. Following these paradigms also means failing to see the opportunities in climate change mitigation and changing the way we produce and consume energy.

Why should it be so obvious that America has to rely on coal? Just because the resource is domestically available? And why should citizens bear the enormous direct and external costs of nuclear energy? Just because it provides constant output, so called ”baseload-energy” (unless there is a maintenance problem?) Renewable energy resources are abundant in the country, too. The technologies are readily available today and further progressing rapidly – and they come without destructive mining practices, cause virtually no emissions, and do not require expensive and potentially unsafe end-of-pipe carbon capture and storage technologies. At the same time, energy efficiency technologies and savings measures can slash the need for power, heat, and transport fuels, while cutting costs and creating jobs (see for example the Greenpeace/EREC Energy [R]evolution Scenario for the United States.)

A cost-effective and efficient renewable energy supply would in fact move away from inflexible “baseload” production. Instead, it would balance various renewable energy sources against each other and across regions, while at the same time using sustainable biogas or concentrated solar thermal power (which can be ramped up and down as needed), storage technologies liked pumped hydropower storage and smart demand-side management to provide robust and reliable supplies. This, of course, would require businesses and politicians to think beyond just adding an expensive end-of-pipe technology or trying to revive a technology that, for good reasons, nobody has volunteered to invest in for decades here (the last U.S. nuclear power plants were ordered in the 1970s.) And it presupposes that the strong representation of backward-looking industry does not drown innovative and truly sustainable developments in the United States.

As for my second week in DC, my wish is simple:  Creative politicians and innovative businesses, enter the spotlight!

Two news items from opposite ends of the carbon cycle are potentially hopeful signs for our planet’s climate – and in principle could have a positive bearing on the international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark, this December.

The Wall Street Journal last month reported on a U.S. Geological Survey report [PDF] suggesting that economically extractable coal reserves in the United States, typically measured at some 240 years’ worth, could be substantially less abundant than previously thought – perhaps only half the estimated reserves.

US coal reserves may not be as cornucopian as some once thought

“We really can’t say we’re the Saudi Arabia of coal anymore,” the head of the study told the Journal. The news is consistent with the findings of a 2007 National Research Council study and is similar to other reports of overestimates of economically recoverable coal reserves in other countries.

Read the rest of this entry