Sanders’ Inconsistent Opposition to Nuclear Energy
Senator Bernie Sanders’ new energy plan, Combating Climate Change to Save the Planet, foresees the United States moving to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2050 through a mix of solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal sources. His framework has one glaring omission: nuclear energy. With nuclear power, America could make vast strides toward emissions-free electricity.
Sanders devotes just one paragraph in his 6,500-word plan to nuclear power:
“Begin a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States. Bernie believes that solar, wind, geothermal power and energy efficiency are proven and more cost-effective than nuclear – even without tax incentives – and that the toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technology’s benefit. Especially in light of lessons learned from Japan’s Fukushima meltdown, Bernie has also raised questions about why the federal government invests billions into federal subsidies for the nuclear industry. We can have an affordable carbon-free, nuclear-free energy system and we must work for a safe, healthy future for all Americans.”
Sanders makes a number of dubious claims. Let us examine them individually.
“Solar, wind, geothermal power and energy efficiency are proven and more cost-effective than nuclear.”
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), advanced nuclear electricity has an average levelized cost of $95 per megawatt hour. Compare this to photovoltaic solar ($125), offshore wind ($197), and thermal solar ($240).
Onshore wind has a reported levelized cost of $74 per megawatt hour. But this number is not directly comparable to nuclear, as the EIA notes. Nuclear energy is dispatchable, meaning its output can be adjusted according to demand and does not depend on exogenous factors such as the weather. Wind, by contrast, can only generate power when the wind is blowing. While wind energy might be a plentiful, cheap source of power in the breezy Great Plains states where it is currently concentrated, costs would be higher should that energy be exported to other areas. Additionally, storing electricity for when the wind is not blowing costs money, something that would drive up the cost of wind relative to nuclear.
“[T]he toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technology’s benefit […] Especially in light of lessons learned from Japan’s Fukushima meltdown.”
Conventional wisdom now holds that the Fukushima disaster was preventable, and not the result of risks inherent in nuclear power. Additionally, newer nuclear reactors promise to be much safer than the 1970s-era Fukushima reactors. According to a report prepared by the OECD, the annual risk of a major accident with modern, Generation III nuclear reactors is anywhere from one in a million to one in 100 million. Contrast this with older, Generation I reactors, where the risks were between one in 1,000 and one in 10,000.
Sanders and others concerned about public safety ought to welcome the construction of new reactors in the United States. Replacing the capacity of older reactors with newer, safer reactors reduces the risk of a major accident by several orders of magnitude. Unfortunately, due to regulatory barriers and the threat of litigation, the last new reactor entered service nearly twenty years ago. No Generation III reactors are currently in operation in the United States.
Toxic waste byproducts can be reduced by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Unfortunately, government policy on reprocessing has been inconsistent at best—after President Carter temporarily banned the procedure in 1977, the United States has been without a single reprocessing plant. Other countries, such as France and Japan, safely recycle spent nuclear fuel.
Another option is to bury spent fuel underground. But here, again, government policy gets in the way. In 2011, President Obama—in a decision the Government Accountability Office stated was based on politics, not safety concerns—shut down the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, which would have safely held spent nuclear fuel.
“Bernie has also raised questions about why the federal government invests billions into federal subsidies for the nuclear industry.”
Sanders’ use of the plural for “billions” is not quite correct. In 2013, the nuclear energy industry received $1.7 billion in subsidies. By contrast, Sanders’ favored solar and wind industries received $5.3 billion and $5.9 billion, respectively.
Despite the mismatch in subsidies, solar and wind energy combined generated less than 5 percent of America’s electricity in 2013. Nuclear power, however, accounted for nearly a fifth of net generation. Nuclear provides much more bang for your subsidy dollar—in 2013, nuclear power received $2.10 in subsidies for every megawatt hour generated. The wind industry received $35 for the same amount of power. The solar industry received a whopping $280.
Subsidies are usually inefficient regardless of the targeted industry. Consumers should bear the full cost of the electricity they use, rather than relying on their fellow taxpayers to reduce their power bills. But the subsidies which target renewable energy sources are far more costly, and far more inefficient, than those aimed at nuclear. By heavily subsidizing renewables, the government redirects investment from more promising energy industries to the ones granted political favors.
“We can have an affordable carbon-free, nuclear-free energy system and we must work for a safe, healthy future for all Americans.”
A “carbon-free, nuclear-free energy system” is not possible. Without the large-scale, reliable energy produced by nuclear power, there is simply no way environmentalists can hope to transition to an energy system that does not emit greenhouse gases. While renewables have their place—there is no reason Arizona should not take advantage of its sun, Iowa of its winds, and Oregon of its rivers—a dispatchable source of energy is required for when renewables cannot meet demand.
Consider the case of Germany. The nation’s push to adopt renewables and spurn nuclear energy has caused it to consistently miss its emissions reduction targets, because it has needed to rely on dirtier coal-fired plants to back up unreliable wind and solar energy. Electricity prices are high as well. Failing to incorporate nuclear energy has hurt German consumers and increased emissions.
Those who profess to care about mitigating the effects of climate change must be realistic in their goals. Ridding the world of carbon emissions, as Sanders intends, is only possible with nuclear energy as part of the mix. For consistency in his fight against climate change, Sanders should endorse removing regulatory barriers afflicting the nuclear industry and abolishing distortionary energy subsidies.
Preston Cooper is a Policy Analyst at Economics21. You can follow him on Twitter here.
Interested in real economic insights? Want to stay ahead of the competition? Each weekday morning, e21 delivers a short email that includes e21 exclusive commentaries and the latest market news and updates from Washington. Sign up for the e21 Morning eBrief.