Nuclear Power’s Commanded Heights
Note: This is Part 1 of a 2 Part Series.
The Federal Government has always played a dominant role in Nuclear Energy. It was the Manhattan Project that took the theories of Albert Eisenstein’s and Enrico Fermi to harness the energy released by nuclear fission to create the first atomic bomb.
Scientists understood that nuclear fission could not only be a weapon of war, but go a long-way toward realizing Nicola Tesla’s dream of ending scarcity and create, virtually, limitless electrical power generation. Experimental Nuclear Reactors for electricity generation quickly followed. But the potential for nuclear energy’s destructive use led the U.S. Government to, effectively, nationalize fissionable materials with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Government control of uranium enrichment allowed the Federal Government to ‘command’ virtually all aspects of nuclear power.
A century earlier, the discovery of crude oil—then called “rock oil,” in Western Pennsylvania spread a revolution in home heating and lighting. Entrepreneurs and small partnerships formed to pool their money and drill wells, lay railroad spurs and build pipelines to transport crude oil to the refineries where it oil was made into kerosene for heat and light, and later, into petroleum. The great fortunes associated with oil production that we know today—such as Philip Drake and John D. Rockefeller, began with one or two guys pooling their money to bring ‘rock oil’ to the surface and transport it to refineries. But many—perhaps, most of these entrepreneurs, ‘lost their shirts’ as they drilled ‘dry holes’ or crude oil prices collapsed.
If we are going to all be driving Electric Vehicles by 2035—as the Biden Administration plans, we’re going to need a lot more electricity generation. Electric Utilities are phasing-out Coal Power Plants to meet environmental goals. Natural Gas is increasingly used for industrial production and fleets of buses and trucks. Many of the hydroelectric dams built in the last century have to be re-licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and environmental groups often oppose their re-licensing. Indeed, environmental activists in Eastern Washington State are demanding that several of those dams be torn-down because they have thwarted the spawning of Salmon.
So-called “Fossil Fuels” like coal, oil and natural gas contain carbon molecules that are the same substances in their respective forms as either solid, liquid or gas at different stages of natural decay. The economic efficiency of these fuels is a relatively simple calculation of the amount of fuel needed to produce a kilowatt hour of electricity (kWh). Coal is almost entirely composed compressed carbon. Those carbon atoms make it the worst fuel in terms of ‘Climate Change’ –while simultaneously being the best fuel in terms of price.
The energy efficiency of coal is approximately 24 million joules (megajoules) per kilograms (kg)—enough to produce 6.7 kWh of electricity. The quantity of megajoules per unit of crude oil varies depending on its location, and contains between 5 and 40 carbon atoms per molecule. Natural Gas processing removes ‘dirty’ hydrocarbons to produce a fuel whose energy ranges content between 35–39 megajoules per cubic meter.
In its most simple form, the thermal generation of electricity production captures heat to boil water and channel the steam it produces to turn cylindrical coils of wire around the polls of magnate. The process is the same whether you use “Fossil Fuels” or “Renewables.” The only exception is hydro-electric power, in which the natural flow of water is harnessed behind dams that then release it in quantities needed to generate electricity without ‘boiling’ the water for steam.
Energy intensity is not the only economic variable. Coal can be, and is, transported to power plants on railroad flatcars in sufficient quantity to supply a power plant, while oil and gas require pipelines with prices regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
But the cost per kWh for fuels are:
-Coal = $0.01/kWh
-Oil = $0.05/kWh
-Natural Gas = $0.03/kWh
-Nuclear - $0.12/kWh
-Wind =$0.26/kWh
-Solar =$0.37/kWh
Nuclear Power costs twice as much to produce a single kWh as the most expensive fossil fuel. That is why it is said to be ‘too expensive.’ But nuclear generation of electricity costs less than half the cheapest Renewable Source—harnessing the Wind. Solar costs three times as much as nuclear. The Inflation Reduction Act and other government programs seek to overwhelm the free-market incentives with government subsidies—that it controls—and can be cancelled, by government fiat.
Making ‘green energy’ even less practical, the wind blows strongest late at night—when less electricity is needed, while the Sun shines only in the day. Relying on wind and solar requires that you build both ‘renewable’ power plants if you want to have electricity both at night and by day—and there are still some days when neither the Sun shines nor the wind blows strong-enough to generate electricity. You actually need a third power source if you want to have electricity all the time—and it is most likely to require fossil fuels, hydro- or nuclear.
Fortunately, nuclear energy is also clean energy. The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that, the longer life-cycle of nuclear reactors means that they produce about the same amount of “carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions per unit of electricity” as wind—and only a third as much as solar! Wind Turbines have a life-span of 20 years and Solar Panels 25. Both are also classified as toxic waste that require disposal after 25-years under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Terry Campo is an attorney and energy policy consultant.
