This week on “60 Minutes,” Scott Pelley reports on coal in America’s energy production.
The segment is somewhat bullish on Carbon Capture and Sequestration technology with most sources saying the technology works. However a look at this story will show you how monumental the engineering challenge for converting our nation’s coal plants into CCS coal plants would be. (Conservatively, it would take a trillion dollars, but that’s just a number pulled from a dank hole). At that price you can’t tell me nuclear isn’t a more reliable, feasible option for base load power. Sure, there’s waste involved, but the science involved in reprocessing nuclear waste is arguably at the same place as CCS. And besides, these numbers are so astronomically large that if we were to actual spend these amounts all sorts of potential technology becomes feasible.
And I still think the proposed CCS plant called the Mesaba Energy Project — the Range’s boondoggle addition to this debate — is powered more by politics than anything else. I’d rather give engineers a couple billion to find the cheapest, cleanest way to make electricity than give them a couple billion and marching orders from one big industry … unless that industry is ponying up the cash. Remember, these billions are coming from taxpayers.
Aaron –
The process for reprocessing nuclear waste is non-existent. And the promised permanent storage for that waste is 30 years behind schedule for both political and technical reasons.
Even without the storage issue, nuclear power has proven both costly and unreliable. It is attractive to regulated utilities because it has high up-front capital costs, on which the utility is guaranteed a profit. They don’t get a return on operating expenses, which are higher for coal generation.
Large, centralized nuclear power facilities are probably never going to be commercially viable. They got built to begin with only with huge government subsidies. It worked a lot like the investment banking business. The government took the risk and the utilities and nuclear industry took the profits.
Countries, like France, that have government operated have been able to avoid many of the pitfalls that a private market has. Of course, you have countries like the Soviet Union, where government operations had even worse problems.
While the future may be nuclear, it is likely going to be based on smaller, safer, decentralized facilities. But that is a lot further off than carbon-sequestration.
The problem with carbon-sequestration is that it is really only economically viable in some locations. The Iron Range isn’t one of them.
Nuclear power is cheap, reliable, and clean. It is the only solution for grid power that makes sense.
C.O.