Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Coal and nuclear technologies: creating a false dichotomy for American energy policy

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The American electric utility industry is entering a moment of transition. Once viewed as a stable and secure consortium of publicly regulated monopolies that produce and distribute electricity, the industry has weathered market restructuring only to face the ever-present risk of natural disasters, price fluctuations, terrorist attacks, and blackouts. This paper uses five criteria—technical feasibility, cost, negative externalities, reliability, and security—to evaluate the broad portfolio of energy technologies available to American electricity policymakers. Upon close inspection, energy efficiency practices, renewable energy systems, and small-scale distributed generation technologies appear to offer many advantages over large and centralized nuclear and fossil fueled generators. Contrary to the mimetic commentary produced by the media, these three approaches would present policymakers a superior alternative for curbing electricity demand, minimizing the risk of fuel interruptions and shortages, helping improve the fragile transmission network, and reducing environmental harm

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barton, J. (2003). Future Options for Generation of Electricity from Coal. Hearing Before the Subcommitee on Energy and Air Quality of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. June 24.

  • Bauer, A., Woods, J., & Hailes, R. (2004). Bioelectricity vision: Achieving 15 percent of electricity from biomass in OECD countries by 2020. London: Center for Energy Policy and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckjord, E. S. (2003). The future of nuclear power: An interdisciplinary MIT study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berinstein, P. (2001). Alternative energy: Facts, statistics, and issues. New York: Oryx Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J., & Fischer, S. (2004). More than 200 hospitals nationwide are recycling energy for peak performance. Distributed Energy, January/February: 32.

  • Black, C. (2003). Future options for generation of electricity from coal. Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, June 24.

  • Blix, H. (1997.) Nuclear energy in the 21st century. Nuclear News, September, 34–48.

  • Bodman, S. W. (2006). ITER agreement paves way for clean fusion energy project. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borbely, A., & Kreider, J. (2001) Distributed generation: The power paradigm for the new millennium. New York: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. A., Sovacool, B. K., & Hirsh, R. F. (2006). Assessing American Energy Policy. Daedalus, 135, 5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, G. W. (2003). Hydrogen Fuel Initiative can make a Fundamental Difference. Remarks on Energy Dependence at the National Building Museum. February 6.

  • Business Week (2006). Dark days for energy efficiency. Business Week, 1, 39–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casten, T. (1998). Turning off the heat: Why America must double energy efficiency to save money and reduce global warming. New York: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catan, T. (2005). Nuclear power wins a revival of interest. Financial Times, 12, 16 July.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claussen, E. (2004). Global climate change and coal’s future. Remarks at the Spring, 2004 American Coal Council Forum, March 18.

  • Cohen, A. (2001). National energy policy: Coal, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. March 14.

  • Cohen, B. L. (1998). Perspectives on the high level waste disposal problem. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 23, 193–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cookson, C. (2004). The hydrogen economy. The Financial Times, September 8:4.

  • DeCanio, S. J., & Watkins, W. E. (1998). Investment in energy efficiency: Do the characteristics of firms matter? Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Economist. (2005). Britain ponders a nuclear future. The Economist, 5, 64.

  • Edison Electric Institute. (2005). Survey of transmission investment, historical and planned capital expenditures, 1998–2008. New York: EEI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Electric Power Research Institute. (2003). Electricity Technology Roadmap: Meeting the Critical Challenges. New York: EPRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fertel, M. S. (2004). The future of nuclear power. Hearing Before the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources, March 4.

  • Friedman, S., & Homer-Dixon, T. (2004). Out of the energy box. Foreign Affairs, 83, 72–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaukler, P., Barnett, S., Rosinski, D. (2002). Putting nuclear terrorism in perspective. Natural Resources and Environment, 16, 141–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillingham, K., Newell, R., Palmer, K. (2004) Retrospective review of demand-side energy efficiency practices. Washington, DC: National Commission on Energy Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goett, A., & Farmer, R. (2003). Prospects for distributed generation. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, J. M. (2005). Keeping the nuclear power option open. Oxford Energy Forum, 1–22.

  • Gupta, R. (2003). Enhancing energy security. Hearing Before the House Committee on Natural Resources, March 19.

  • Hafstad, L. R. (1954). Nuclear Power-Its Future. Science, 119, 3A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, C., & Murray, C. (2003). Who should deliver ratepayer funded energy efficiency? Washington, DC: Regulatory Assistance Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, R., & R. Brustman. (2000). Air pollution deadlier than previously thought. Retrieved from http://www.niehs.nih.gov/centers/2000news/ctrnws4.htm.

  • Hirsh, R. F. (1999). Power loss: The origins of deregulation and restructuring in the American electric utility system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsh, R. F. (1989). Technology and transformation in the American electric utility industry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, E. (2004). U.S. Transmission Capacity: Present status and future prospects. New York: EPRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, G. W. (1957). The role of nuclear power in Europe’s future energy balance. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 47, 36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, M. (2004). Nuclear energy policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. (2005). The real cost of oil: How much are we paying for a gallon of gas? Retrieved from http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html.

  • International Energy Agency. (2002). Distributed generation in liberalized electricity markets. Paris: International Energy Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Energy Agency. (2004). Energy security in a dangerous world. Paris: International Energy Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Energy Agency. (2006). Variability of wind power and other renewables: Management options and strategies. Paris: International Energy Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karmis, M., Hirsh, R., & Sovacool, B. (2004). A study of increased use of renewable energy resources in Virginia. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, R. F. (2005). Nuclear plants vulnerable to attack. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August 5.

  • Klass, D. K. (2003). A critical assessment of renewable energy usage in the USA. Energy Policy, 31, 353–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinbach, P., & Hinrichs, H. (2002). Energy: Its use and the environment. New York: Harcourt College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, K. P. (2005). Outlook for nuclear energy. Presentation at the Oak ridge center for advanced studies, July 6.

  • Learner, H. A. (2001). Cleaning, greening, and modernizing the electric power sector. Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 277–314.

  • Leer, S. F. (2003). Energy production on Federal Llands. Hearing Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, February 27.

  • Lewis, N. H. (2006) Interpreting the oracle: Licensing modifications, economics, safety, politics, and the future of nuclear power in the United States. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology, 16, 58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lochbaum, D. (2001). Beware of aging reactors, a weak regulator, and vulnerability to terrorists. Testimony Before the Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, May 8.

  • Lovins, A., Datta, E. K., Feiler, T., Lehmann, A., Rabago, K., Swisher, J., Wicker, K. (2002). Small is profitable: The hidden benefits of making electrical resources the right size. Snowmass, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makarov, Y. (2005). California ISO wind generation forecating service design and experience. Sacramento, CA: California ISO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masters, G. M. (2004). Reneawble and efficient electric power systems. New York: Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCusker, S. M., & Hobbs, B. F. (2003). A nested benders decomposition approach to locating distributed generation in a multi-area power system. Networks and Spatial Economics, 197–223.

  • Nadel, S. (2001). National energy policy: Conservation and energy efficiency. Hearing before the subcommittee on energy and air quality of the house committee on energy and commerce. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, June 22.

  • National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The hydrogen economy: Opportunities, costs, barriers, and R&D needs. Washington, DC: The National Academies.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Energy Policy Development Group. (2001). Reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy for America’s future. Washington, DC: Whitehouse Printing Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. (2004). NRECA white paper on wind. Arlington, VA: NRECA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayak, N. (2005). Redirecting America’s energy future: The economic and consumer benefits of clean energy policies. Washington, DC: Public Interest Research Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. (2004). New York energy smart program evaluation and status report. Albany, NY: NYSERDA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Normile, D. (2006). Waiting for ITER, fusion jocks lok east. Science, 311, 992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuclear Energy Agency. (2005). Projected costs of generating electricity: 2005 Update. Paris: International Energy Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottaviano, D. M. (2003). Environmental justice: New Clean Air Act Regulations and the anticipated impact on minority communities. New York: Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palast, G., Oppenheim, J., & MacGregor, T. (2003). Democracy and regulation: How the public can govern essential services. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parformak, P. W. (2003). Liquefied natural gas infrastructure security: Background and issues for congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkins, W. E. (2006). Fusion power: Will it ever come?. Science, 311, 1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasqualetti, M. J. (2000). Morality, space, and the power of wind energy landscapes. Geographical Review, 90, 383–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petchers, N. (2003). Combined heating, cooling, and power handbook: Technologies and applications. New York: The Fairmount Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D. (2002). Renewable energy: Current and potential issues, Bioscience, 52, 1111–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Primary Energy Inc. (2006). Projects-cokeenergy LLC. Retrieved from http://www.primaryenergy.com/facilities/cokenergy.htm.

  • RAND. (2003). Strengthening the grid: Effect of high-temperature superconducting power technologies on reliability, power transfer capacity, and use. Los Angeles: RAND.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romm, J. J. (2004). Lots of hot air about hydrogen. Los Angeles Times, March 28, M3.

  • Rudins, G. (2003). Future options for generation of electricity from coal. Hearing before the subcommittee on energy and air quality of the house committee on energy and commerce, June 24.

  • Schwartz, P., & Spencer, R. (2005). Nuclear now! How clean, green atomic energy can stop global warming. Wired Magazine, January, 34–42.

  • Sinclair, M. P. (2002). The nuclear threat to the Great Lakes. Toledo Journal of Great Lakes’ Law, Science, and Policy, 33–47.

  • Smil, V. (2003). Energy at the crossroads: Global perspectives and uncertainties. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool, B. K. (2006). The power production paradox: Revealing the socio-technical impediments to distributed generation technologies. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech (Doctoral Dissertation).

  • Sovacool, B. K. (2005). Think again: Nuclear power. Foreign Policy, September, 150.

  • Sovacool, B. K., & Cooper, C. (2006). Green means go: A colorful approach to a national renewable portfolio standard. Electricity Journal, 19, 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • State Energy Advisory Board. (2003). State energy programs: Strong returns based on uncompromising metrics. Washington, DC: State Energy Advisory Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J., & VanDoren, P. (2002). Evaluating the case for renewable energy: Is government support warranted? Washington, DC: CATO Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Agency for International Development. (2004). Increasing energy access in developing countries: The role of distributed generation. Washington, DC: USAID.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Energy. (2001). A roadmap to deploy new nuclear power plants in the United States by 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Energy. (2006). Announcing the global nuclear energy partnership. Retrieved from http://www.energy.gov/news/3171.htm.

  • U.S. Department of Energy. (2002). Homeland security: Safeguarding America’s future with energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Energy. (2000). Report to congress on the maintenance of viable domestic uranium, conversion, and enrichment industries. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2003). Monthly energy review June, Table 9.11.

  • U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2005a). Annual Energy Outlook 2005: With Projections to 2025. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2005b). International energy outlook 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2006). Coal news and markets. Retrieved from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coalnews/coalmar.html.

  • U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004). Renewable eenergy: Wind power’s contribution to electric power generation and impact on farms and rural communities. Washington, DC: GAO Printing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Union of Concerned Scientists. (2004). The renewable electricity standard. Washington, DC.

  • University of Oregon. (2001). Overview of energy storage technologies. Eugene, OR.

  • Vandenplas, P. (2004). Time to choose the right sight for a fusion reactor. Nature, 428, 119–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wan, Y.-h., & Parsons, B. K. (1993). Factors relevant to utility integration of intermittent renewable technologies. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yacobucci, B. D., & Curtright, A. E. (2004). A hydrogen economy and fuel cells: An overview. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yergin, D. (2006). Ensuring Energy Security. Foreign Affairs, 85, 69–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yue, C. D., Liu, C. M., & Liu, E. (2001). A transition toward a sustainable energy future. Energy Policy, 155–163.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to the U.S. National Science Foundation for grants SES-0522653, ECS-0323344, and SES-0522653, which have supported elements of the work reported here. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, 340 Burruss Hall (0244), Blacksburg, VA, 24060, USA

    Benjamin K. Sovacool

Authors
  1. Benjamin K. Sovacool
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin K. Sovacool.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sovacool, B.K. Coal and nuclear technologies: creating a false dichotomy for American energy policy. Policy Sci 40, 101–122 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-007-9038-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-007-9038-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation