Those of us whose interest in energy was sparked during the energy crisis of the 1970s might remember Amory Lovins’ stinging indictment of nuclear power — it was like “cutting butter with a chainsaw.” He was making the point that solving our energy problems with a technology as complex, expensive and potentially dangerous as nuclear power was unnecessary and foolish when the potential for low-cost efficiency improvements was so great.

The intervening 30 years demonstrated the wisdom of Lovins’ metaphor. Nuclear power development essentially imploded as a consequence of massive cost overruns (e.g., Washington Public Power Supply System), safety concerns (e.g., Three Mile Island and Chernobyl), the failure to bring about a solution to the problem of long-term nuclear waste disposal, and concerns about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear’s share of U.S. electricity generation has been stuck at 20 percent for years, and no one has begun construction on a nuclear power plant since 1973. In contrast, during the same period, the reality and economy of investments in energy efficiency have been amply demonstrated.

But many argue the times are changing. A recent article in Fortune noted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expecting applications for 27 new reactors over the next two years, for which “there is no serious opposition.”

What’s changed? Well, it’s certainly not the economics of nuclear power. Nuclear power is still hugely capital intensive and more expensive than coal- or natural-gas-fired power plants, to say nothing of conservation. And it is not nuclear waste. After spending $9 billion to develop a “permanent” high-level nuclear waste repository, the United States is still years away from actually storing any waste there. And whether or not the safety issue has changed is unclear. Nuclear power is a complex technology that requires a high level of technical, managerial and regulatory skill to operate safely.

In 2002, a major accident was narrowly averted at the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio more by luck than by best practices. Some new reactor designs promise greater safety, but the reality has yet to be demonstrated. And nuclear proliferation is probably of more concern now that ever before.

What has changed is awareness around climate change. The fact that, as far as energy production is concerned, nuclear is carbon-free is reason to give nuclear another look. There are carbon emissions associated with the full nuclear power lifecycle (fuel mining and processing, plant construction, operation, decommissioning, waste sequestration), but they are comparable to some renewables.

Climate change can alter the economics of nuclear power if a carbon tax or cap and trade regime is instituted. A carbon tax of $100 per metric ton would make the cost of power from a coal-fired power plant (without carbon sequestration) roughly equivalent to that from a nuclear power plant. According to a 2005 Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, possible (but not certain or proven) reductions in the cost of construction and operation of nuclear power plants could further improve nuclear’s competitive position.

Topping it all off, of course, are subsidies. The 2005 Energy Policy legislation incorporated several billion dollars’ worth of tax incentives, loan guarantees and insurance for nuclear development. The Senate version of the 2007 Energy Bill purportedly contains additional billions in loan guarantees, possibly limited to only the most innovative new plants, but possibly not.

The reemergence of nuclear power in light of climate change has ignited controversy among the environmental community. One side of the debate contends dealing with climate change is so daunting a proposition that we need to employ all the low carbon energy sources we can with reasonable safety. The other side of the argument says the problems of nuclear power have not been solved and that we have alternatives to get us where we need to go without the costs and risks of nuclear power.

I feel strongly both ways. I am not convinced nuclear technology, the industry and its regulators are ready for a massive expansion. The problems remain, and they need to be meaningfully addressed before we plunge down that path. Moreover, I am concerned nuclear has the potential for “sucking all the air out of the room.” By that I mean the industry and its backers have the potential for diverting necessary dollars and attention from safer and more cost-effective alternatives.

By the same token, I’m not convinced we aren’t going to need nuclear power at some point. I look at some of the analysis of how we might reduce carbon emissions, and I see some risk there as well. The analysis of Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala in the September 2006 Scientific American shows how we can reduce U.S. greenhouse emissions by almost 60 percent over the next 50 years. To do so, they suggest, among other approaches, carbon capture and storage at a scale that has yet to be demonstrated as feasible. The same is true, to a lesser extent, about some of the other technologies they suggest.

So let’s get serious about solving the problems of nuclear power while getting on with the business of implementing reductions in carbon emissions through improvements in end-use efficiency and renewable resources. We may need both.

Contact Dick Watson at dick@celilo.net.