There are dangers associated with nuclear power, but changing course isn’t so easy.
Following the recent earthquake and tsunami that destroyed nuclear plants in Fukushima, Japan, a reevaluation of nuclear power policies has emerged around the globe, as officials make plans to close down facilities. However, a new study finds significant economic and environmental consequences related to shutting down these plants.
Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University and DAI Management Consults say that shifting from nuclear to other types of power plants could affect the reliability of the electricity supply, raise electricity costs, air pollution and carbon emissions, and increase reliance on fossil fuels like coal and natural gas.
“Turning off a single large nuclear power plant could require dozens of coal and gas-fired plants to ramp up production to make up the difference,” said Paul Fischbeck, a professor of social and decision sciences and engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon, in a statement. “These plants use fossil fuels, cost more to operate, and emit pollution that can lead to acid rain and ozone, and CO2, a greenhouse gas.”
Using a national database of more than 15,000 power generators, researchers evaluated the impact of a selective shutdown of the U.S.’s 104 reactors at 65 nuclear power plants. They found that the loss of even one nuclear plant makes a significant difference.
Researchers say that if just the Brown’s Ferry plant in Alabama were terminated, the coal and gas plants needed to make up for the loss of power would cause carbon dioxide emissions to increase by approximately 24 million tons each year—a number equal to the annual emissions of over 4 million cars.
The study also looked at shutting down reactors based on various geographic risks, such as earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes. The termination of nuclear plants in the nation’s tornado alley would result in a national coal consumption increase of over 160 million tons or 16 percent, and cost more than $9 billion more for electricity every year, according to researchers.
Researchers admit that, given time and enough investment, some of the power generation lost by shutting down nuclear plants could be made up by developing renewable resources and improving energy efficiency, but they say the size of the potential shortfall is daunting.
“To replace the nuclear plants located in counties with populations over half a million with wind power would require the construction of 25,000 large wind turbines on land—greater than one and a half times the size of Rhode Island,” Fischbeck said in a press release.
He added, “Nuclear power is a major component of the nation’s electricity generating capability, and policies that lead to its curtailment must be carefully planned recognizing the long-term negative impacts that are very real.”
Following the recent earthquake and tsunami that destroyed nuclear plants in Fukushima, Japan, a reevaluation of nuclear power policies has emerged around the globe, as officials make plans to close down facilities. However, a new study finds significant economic and environmental consequences related to shutting down these plants.
Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University and DAI Management Consults say that shifting from nuclear to other types of power plants could affect the reliability of the electricity supply, raise electricity costs, air pollution and carbon emissions, and increase reliance on fossil fuels like coal and natural gas.
“Turning off a single large nuclear power plant could require dozens of coal and gas-fired plants to ramp up production to make up the difference,” said Paul Fischbeck, a professor of social and decision sciences and engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon, in a statement. “These plants use fossil fuels, cost more to operate, and emit pollution that can lead to acid rain and ozone, and CO2, a greenhouse gas.”
Using a national database of more than 15,000 power generators, researchers evaluated the impact of a selective shutdown of the U.S.’s 104 reactors at 65 nuclear power plants. They found that the loss of even one nuclear plant makes a significant difference.
Researchers say that if just the Brown’s Ferry plant in Alabama were terminated, the coal and gas plants needed to make up for the loss of power would cause carbon dioxide emissions to increase by approximately 24 million tons each year—a number equal to the annual emissions of over 4 million cars.
The study also looked at shutting down reactors based on various geographic risks, such as earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes. The termination of nuclear plants in the nation’s tornado alley would result in a national coal consumption increase of over 160 million tons or 16 percent, and cost more than $9 billion more for electricity every year, according to researchers.
Researchers admit that, given time and enough investment, some of the power generation lost by shutting down nuclear plants could be made up by developing renewable resources and improving energy efficiency, but they say the size of the potential shortfall is daunting.
“To replace the nuclear plants located in counties with populations over half a million with wind power would require the construction of 25,000 large wind turbines on land—greater than one and a half times the size of Rhode Island,” Fischbeck said in a press release.
He added, “Nuclear power is a major component of the nation’s electricity generating capability, and policies that lead to its curtailment must be carefully planned recognizing the long-term negative impacts that are very real.”
