Clarifying Al Gore's Position on Nuclear Power
Saturday, July 26, 2008 at 11:02AM 
Several readers have asked me to clarify Gore's position on nuclear power in his new 10-year carbon-free electricity plan. (I really wish you folks would post comments instead of sending me emails!)
Gore announced his plan July 17th at Constitution Hall, and like other politicians, Gore selects his words carefully. In fact, his 3200-word speech doesn't include the word "nuclear" at all. Katie Couric at CBS interviewed Gore after his speech, but let him off easy on his answer about nuclear power. Gore said, “We have a lot of nuclear plants in the U.S., and … I'm not anti-nuclear. I'm a little skeptical that's it's gonna play a much bigger role than it does now. I think it'll continue to play a role.” Hmmm. Way to go, Katie.
The group “We Can Solve It”, founded by Gore, reports that his plan includes a mix of energy sources, including “existing nuclear”. That’s vague but also misleading, appearing to mean existing “power plants” rather than the existing “percentage of the electricity mix”, which is around 20 percent.
Fortunately some reporters from Associated Press questioned him in more detail. World Nuclear News reported, “He later admitted, however, to the Associated Press that his plan relies on nuclear power for the 20% of US electricity it currently produces.” Even that statement could be misinterpreted, but the Arizona Star reported it solidly: “Gore told the AP his plan counts on nuclear power plants still providing about a fifth of the nation's electricity…”.
So I maintain that in order for nuclear to still be contributing one fifth of the nation’s electricity ten years from now, we will need to build a lot of new nuclear power plants. According to the EIA, we need to add about 120 gigawatts of new generation over the next ten years to meet projected growth and to replace retiring power plants. (The nuclear fleet alone is 26-years old, on average.) So if nuclear is still going to make up one fifth of the mix, an estimated 24 gigawatts of that new generation will need to be nuclear.
If all this is too much of a bummer, check out Harvey Wasserman’s great post today at CommonDreams telling how unlikely the nuclear revival is.
Reader Comments (2)
Yeah local energy!!! Amory Lovins says Nobody is investing in Nuclear, even if it's 100% subsidized.
What I heard Obama say, is we should consider nuclear power, which sounded like to me "I don't need to rule out stupid ideas and create unnecessary media fuel for sound bite controversy". I sure hope Obama isn't so stupid as to embrace some political death wish and think nuclear is a good idea.
Yep, stupid is the word I have always associated with nucleur. Stuff done in the name of progress can be so damn embarrassing.
Anyway, here's a couple of lines out of the recent Amy Goodman interview of Amory Lovins. I've always thought Amory was one of the most intelligent voices concerning nuclear. "Using nuclear energy to make electricity, is like using a chain saw to cut butter" is a quote of his, as I recall (1970's?)
AMY GOODMAN: And Barack Obama, while he hasn’t laid out a plan for building, he has a big campaign contributor, Exelon, and has supported the expansion of nuclear power. And, of course, we heard what President Bush has to say.
AMORY LOVINS: Actually, I thought what Senator Obama said was “explore”, which is different. And you will find major environmental groups saying something like “explore” or “consider”, but they will also say very carefully it has to be competitive, it has to be cost-effective. And clearly, that doesn’t even pass the giggle test.
A new nuclear plant, according to Moody’s, would send out electricity for about fifteen cents a kilowatt-hour, which is half, again, as much as the average residential rate. And that doesn’t even account for delivering it to your house. And I think if nuclear plants were built, which I don’t think is likely, you would see incredible rates shock and a big political reaction.
Interview link http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/16/amory_lovins_expanding_nuclear_power_makes
Brian Skeele
Al Gore's comment to the AP that we should maintain the mix of nuclear power I judge to be more of a long-term statement about his position. I say that because I have read in a book, Nuclear Inc, that the average time required to bring up a nuclear power plant is 14 years and it has been a while since we built one. If this is true it wouldnt have any impact on his proposed 10 year goal.