Now, I know two things; one, climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases is happening, and it's going to get worse. Two, nuclear power, despite the naysayers, offers one of the only viable generating capacity alternatives that can cover all three sectors (home, industry, and transportation), and which offers substantial reduction in greenhouse gases, AND which maintains the trajectory of increased standard-of-living for all mankind (whether or not that's a good thing, which is debatable). Therefore, climate change "skeptics" -- actually, they should be called Preservers of the Big Carbon Status Quo -- are standing in the way of addressing the climate change problem and my own industry, which makes me doubly peevish with them.
So I'll continue as I have been doing.
Climate change is bad for nuclear power, industry needs a shrinking cap on carbon to survive
In case anyone needs the bottom line reality:
Currently, coal-fired generation is less expensive than nuclear power, which adds to the risk of investing in new nuclear reactors. Putting a cap on carbon, however, would make coal-fired power more expensive than nuclear power, making it much more likely that an investment in a nuclear reactor will make money.
This dynamic is at play in Maryland, where Constellation Energy has applied for a loan guarantee for a new reactor from the Department of Energy. According to the Baltimore Sun, Constellation’s project is now at risk, whether or not they get a loan guarantee. Project chairman Michael J. Wallace told the Sun, “When we get the DOE loan guarantee, that certainly is a major step forward for us. We then need to go through calculations on all the other variables to see whether this project can go forward on an economically sound basis. And we have to continue to do that over the next several months.”
No comments:
Post a Comment