Symposium: “Nuclear Power: Hype or Hope”
Center for Energy and Environmental Security, CU Law
November 5, 2009
Climate Change and the Nuclear Wedge
Jim McNeil
CSM Physics
 Climate change frames the issue
 Scales of problem: Energy - Time
 Pacala-Socolow plan for sustainable Carbon
 Nuclear wedge
 Renewable wedge
 Summary
Source material from N. Lewis, DOE (EIA,NREL), Calif. En. Com., and Carbon Mit. Initiative
Framing the issue:
$$ = Energy = Carbon
Nathan Lewis, Cal Tech, http://nsl.caltech.edu
Framing the Issue
Carbon 
Climate impact
Time scale to act is short
~50 years
~ 1 power plant lifetime
Population control
Marty Hoffert, NYU
Energy Scale = Peta (10^15) Watt-hrs
90% fossil
U.S.
40% electricity
21% U.S.
(5% population)
U. S. has an obligation to lead
Energy Information Agency - http://EIA.doe.gov
Economics of Electric Power
Market force drives greater use of fossil fuels
Only government can put climate costs
on the utilities’ balance sheets
Energy Information Agency - http://EIA.doe.gov
Pacala-Socolow Roadmap
~$GWP
Stabilizes at 550 ppm
Carbon
Pacala & Socolow, Princeton
4 Categories of viable or “near viable” Wedges
Energy Efficiency &
Conservation (4)
?
16 GtC/y
Fuel Switching(1)
Renewable Fuels
& Electricity (4)
Stabilization
Stabilization
Triangle
?
CO2 Capture
& Storage (3)
8 GtC/y
2007
2057
Nuclear Fission (1)
Forest and Soil
Storage (2)
?
Nuclear
Electricity
Triple the world’s
nuclear electricity
capacity by 2055
The rate of installation required for a wedge from nuclear power
is equal to the global rate of nuclear expansion from 1975-1990.
Issues with Nuclear Power
Proliferation
Waste disposal
Operational Safety
Cost
Proliferation
Not an issue with major nuclear powers:
U.S., Europe, Russia, China, India, (Japan)
Generate 70% of World’s Electric Power
Continued strong non-proliferation controls
Energy Information Agency - http://EIA.doe.gov
Operational Safety
Chernyobl: criticality event caused by positive feedback
design flaw
All modern reactors have negative feedback design
Three Mile Island: core melt induced by operator error
Very highly unlikely with new passively-safe reactor designs
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Issues with Nuclear Power: Waste
Nuclear waste is a carcinogen
requiring containment
Natural reactors 2 billion years ago
near Oklo, Gabon, West Africa.
Plutonium has migrated 10 feet
Nuclear waste disposal is a NIMBY,
not technical, issue.
Better solution –
Don’t bury it – “burn” it!
Gen IV - Smart Nuclear Power:
Integral Fast Reactor
 Burns usual “waste” - vastly reduces true waste volume

Burned waste is safer

Vastly increase fuel supply

Minimal proliferation risk – blocks both paths to bomb
Hansen:
“Fourth generation nuclear power has the potential to provide
safe base-load electric power with negligible CO2 emissions.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20081121_Obama.pdf
.
Issues with Nuclear Power: Cost
100
Size (MW)
80
1350
50
50
Size matters - If it doesn’t have a “giga” in front,
it won’t really impact Carbon
California Energy Commission – June 2007
Renewable Wedge
NREL Report
“20% Wind by 2030”
Just do it!
Issues with Wind
Reliability
Distribution
Variability
Issues with Renewables: Distribution
Wind resource not located near consumers
NREL
Transmission Lines
12,650 new miles ~ $20 billion
Upgrades to ~100,000 miles of existing lines
NREL: “20% by 2030”, p, 96
Issues with Wind: Variability
Wind/solar resource inherently intermittent
(mitigated by large coupled electric grid)
Storage: large scale energy storage not yet available
Backup  build more Carbon-generating gas plants
Hansen: “… it would be dangerous to proceed under the presumption
that we will soon have all-renewable electric power.”
op. cit.
Summary
Carbon is the transcendent challenge
Energy scale is HUGE – Time scale is short
In crisis now
Pacala-Socolow - roadmap to Carbon sustainability
Renewables have a role
Nuclear power has a role – the nuclear wedge
Issues/risks with nuclear power are manageable
“Questions” ?