In June of last year, energy company Southern California Edison announced the permanent closure of Southern California’s sole nuclear power plant. Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric, who jointly operate the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, had previously attempted to restart the plant after a small radioactive leak in early 2012. After numerous setbacks, the companies determined that the plant was no longer economically viable. The plant began operating in 1968 and had been a major producer of energy for residents of Southern California – accounting for about 20% of the region’s power. The plant is also somewhat of a local landmark, marking the end (or beginning) of the journey through Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton on I-5. As a kid during family car trips from San Diego to Orange County, I’d gaze out the window and try to imagine just what was happening inside those two huge round buildings.
San Onofre Nuclear Power Generating Station. Source: WPPilot, Wikimedia
Picking up the slack
The process of completely shutting down the plant is only in its early stages and will likely take many years. The effects of its closure, however, are already being felt by the region’s power grid and the environment. Between 2008 and 2011 when the plant was operating normally, greenhouse gas emissions from California power plants had been steadily declining due to advances in renewable energy. But between 2011 and 2012 when the plant ceased operations, carbon dioxide emissions from the state’s power plants increased by 35 percent – in part due to other sources of energy being forced to pick up the slack.
Skepticism and criticism of nuclear energy have existed since the technology was developed. Opponents question the safety of living and working near reactors and argue that radioactive waste is detrimental to the environment. Proponents maintain the importance of nuclear plants as sustainable, clean alternatives to more traditional sources of energy like the burning of coal, oil or natural gas. Though accidents involving nuclear plants are always highly publicized, proponents also argue that nuclear energy is as safe, if not safer than other sources of energy production. In fact, it has a better safety record than the coal industry. Support for nuclear energy has always polarized the public, but incidents involving nuclear plants always have a sharp, negative impact on public support.
Disastrous response
In the aftermath of the recent Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011, it’s clear that one of nuclear energy’s most serious threats to remaining an important source of the world’s energy is its public perception. The Fukushima incident was relatively mild as far as nuclear disasters go, releasing between 10 and 30 percent of the radiation released by the fire and meltdown in Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986. Don’t get me wrong, the incident, which left 300,000 people displaced is an absolutely awful event, but the World Health Organization has concluded that radiation-induced health impacts are likely to be below detectible levels, and so far, no short term radiation deaths have been reported. It’s incredible that after a tsunami devastated a poorly designed nuclear plant, the outcome has not been worse. The biggest challenges in the wake of the disaster will be the cleanup of radioactive water at the plant and repairing the reputation of nuclear energy, both of which may be impossible to achieve.
Response to the Fukushima disaster has been swift and resounding. Support for nuclear power had been growing in the United States, but after the incident, only 43 percent of those polled in one study supported building new nuclear plants. Another 2011 poll conducted in 24 countries revealed that the percentage of respondents who supported nuclear energy was just 38. In contrast, support for natural gas and coal as energy sources were at 80 and 48 percent respectively. One of the most stunning examples of nuclear dismissal is occurring in Germany, catalyzed by the disaster in Japan. German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced just eighteen days after the Fukushima disaster that the country would close all seventeen of its nuclear plants by 2022. So far, eight reactors have been permanently shut down. In the U.S., the forecast is grim. The Energy Information Administration predicts that nuclear power has only a 3 percent new capacity for electricity generation through 2040.
Our energy future
It’s my fear that in order to cope with the increasing demand for electricity coupled with the possible decline of nuclear energy, less environmentally-friendly alternatives will be used as stopgaps. In the U.S., natural gas production has increased dramatically in the past half-decade. It’s cheap and abundant and burns about 29 percent more cleanly than oil. However, it still produces carbon dioxide when burned and makes up a significant percentage of human carbon emissions. It’s also non-renewable and some estimates predict that the earth contains only about a 250 year supply of the gas.
However, if nuclear energy does decline in the future, its absence could also help spur the adoption of more truly renewable energy sources. In Southern California, it’s unlikely that a new nuclear plant will be produced in the near future, but solar and wind power are popular and have been growing significantly in the past ten years. If this trend continues and is stimulated by decreasing nuclear contributions, it could have a positive effect on the implementation and further development of renewable energy in California and the U.S.
A 2013 billboard in San Diego opposing the reopening of the San Onofre Plant. Source: Dave_Rice, San Diego Reader
Public education regarding nuclear energy is essential to combat ad campaigns like a 2013 billboard in San Diego which urged people through fear to oppose the reopening of the San Onofre nuclear plant. Everyone needs to be made aware of the environmental implications that result from losing a large, sustainable portion of our power supply. If nuclear energy is truly on a dwindling trajectory, we have an important decision to make about how we will meet our energy needs in a post-nuclear age. I hope we make the right one.
No comments:
Post a Comment