• • Consequences
  • Emissions
  • Climate Change
  • Security Impacts
• • Energy Security
  • American Dependence
  • Source Reliability
  • Geographic Choke Points
• • Alternatives
  • Public Opinion
  • Consumption
  • Alternative Energy
  • Responses
• • News Clips
  • Press Releases
  • Blog

Alternative Energy

Future increases in electricity demand can easily be met by investment in renewable energy. Alternative energy technologies also create fewer strategic vulnerabilities for the United States.

Greater energy independence is possible. Increased efficiency is projected to reduce the rate of growth of electricity demand in the United States. In the future, the price of renewable energy is projected to drop, while the price of non-renewables will remain static, and may, in fact increase if requirements for carbon capture are implemented.¹⁴ Nonetheless, for at least a generation, higher priced alternative energy will have to compete with lower cost coal and natural gas by promoting its small carbon footprint. Nuclear energy, less expensive than renewable, but still more expensive than coal and natural gas, will need to serve as a bridge until clean, renewable energy sources and technologies mature

Renewable energy -- notably solar, wind, and hydroelectric -- usually suffer from high, up-front construction costs, but benefit from low fuel and maintenance costs. Because they do not produce carbon, their contribution to climate change is negligible. Additionally, alternative energy technologies create fewer strategic vulnerabilities. They do not rely on imports and are less vulnerable to disruption due to political disturbances. Because of the unfortunately high cost of some of these energy sources, however, it is clear that the short-term alternative is increased reliance on nuclear energy.

In order for nuclear power to have an impact on emissions, it would need to make up a higher percentage of the United States' overall electricity production. In the past, however, growth of nuclear power has been stymied by concerns over safety and the risk of proliferation. France already uses nuclear power to supply over 75% of its electricity while the United States only uses nuclear power to supply around 20% of its electricity.¹⁵ Without some mechanism to penalize carbon emissions -- such as a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system, nuclear power will remain more expensive than coal and natural gas due primarily to higher capital costs, particularly for construction.¹⁶

Nuclear energy is, like other non-renewable energy, dependent on resource availability. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) conservatively estimates that at least an 80 year global supply of nuclear fuel exists for 800 reactors (there are nearly 440 commercial reactors operating worldwide today) and specifically states that, "the world-wide supply of uranium ore is sufficient to fuel the deployment of 1000 reactors over the next half century".¹⁷

Americans continue to worry about the safety of nuclear reactors and fear reactor accidents and the effects of nuclear waste. However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's safety standards are rigorous. There is a strong scientific consensus that nuclear reactors can be built and operated safely.¹⁸

The issue of nuclear waste remains unresolved. Yucca Mountain, originally intended to store nuclear waste, is no longer a politically viable option and does not have the capacity needed now for America's nuclear waste. Since the United States has not come up with a long-term waste management solution, nuclear plants currently store their waste on site. As a result, with over one hundred reactors operating in thirty one states, there are waste storage sites scattered all over the country with few problems or protests.¹⁹ These factors highlight the fact that nuclear energy could serve as a bridge technology between today's reliance on fossil fuels and a future economy powered by renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.

Join our Mailing List