The Nuclear Alternative to Coal

At least one voice close-ish to President Obama's ear believes nuclear power ought to be part of the nation's energy mix: Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson, a physicist, educator, former nuclear regulator, and newly-appointed member of the Obama adminstration's President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

I interviewed Dr. Jackson last week for Grist, and came away intrigued by her sophisticated take on energy policy. What energy policy, you ask? Well, that's part of the issue: the U.S. has not approached meeting our energy needs with a comprehensive strategy for some time.

I asked her if, to slash the nation's climate-disrupting greenhouse gas emissions as far and fast as possible, we ought to plan on substituting nuclear power for coal-fired power. "You have to think about it as, the country has a certain overall need for energy," Dr. Jackson told me,

And depending upon choices in areas like transportation, there could be a need for greater electrical generation, both if we have hybrid vehicles or plug-in hybrids, that kind of thing, where you have batteries that need to be recharged. That could drive an increase...Depending on overall economic growth, a mix of things that drive the economy could drive the need for energy.

And so really it is a function of what the overall energy needs are, and how the mix plays out among the various sectors, from the commercial and industrial, to home heating and cooling, to transportation.

I appreciated Dr. Jackson's subtle answer to a complicated question, even though it didn't make for a convenient sound bite. Too often, the debate about energy in this country gets reduced to the muddled concept of "energy independence." How we use oil versus how we use coal, and the different tactics needed to reduce use of each for the sake of the climate, are seldom made clear; not by most government officials, and not by many activist campaigns that I observe, either.

"Where I come at it is, we need a comprehensive energy security roadmap that has to be a combination of options," Dr. Jackson told me. "Nuclear should be part of that.

But in order for us to get to where we need to be will require a couple of things. One is innovation. Innovation in the energy arena broadly, but innovation as well with respect to new designs for reactors; innovation with respect to fuel cycle management, et cetera. There are ... some things we know how to do today. There are things we know in terms of the science, what to do. But to do these things at scale requires some innovation.

The questions for climate action advocates are tough ones: Is nuclear power the lesser harm to global warming? Would the trade off in expense and radioactive waste be worth it?

And how could we ensure that if we expand nuclear power over the next two decades, we'll really follow through with shutting it off two decades after that?