美国为何不能放弃核能复兴

    上上周发生的灾难性大地震及随后袭来的海啸已夺去无数日本人的生命，而余波所及，它在美国对一个行业造成重创：核电业。不过该行业是不会不做抗争就此倒下的。日本核电站遭受重创已使长久以来的一大争议再度重燃，即核技术的安全性、可靠性及其是否能用作可行的电力来源。

    但是，即便此次事故导致核电站建造成本上升，电力生产的经济学青睐的仍是包括核电在内的多种能源组合。如风能和太阳能这样的可再生能源，尽管最近与核电相比正变得更具成本竞争优势（这部分要归功于政府的慷慨补贴），但还是无法有效地生产足够的电能点亮美国的万家灯火并完全取代核电。

    福岛核电站的多个反应堆芯可能熔毁已吸引了全世界关注的目光。目前这一灾难是否会变成另一起切尔诺贝利事件还不得而知——我们所确切知道的是，不管发生了什么，这都是核电业公共关系的灾难性事件。

    在德国，有一项规定本打算延长该国17座核电站的运营期限，现在则计划在未来3个月内暂停该规定。瑞士表示，它正暂停维持其3座核电站运转的努力，而欧盟则宣布，为应对欧盟能源最高长官所说的日本“巨灾”，它希望在其全部143座核反应堆上实施压力测试。

    在华盛顿，传统上力挺核电的共和党人士三缄其口。而一些自由派民主党人士，像来自马萨诸塞州的议员艾德•玛柯，已呼吁在美国地震易发地区暂停修建核电站，而同样来自马萨诸塞州的民主党人、参议员约翰•克里则更进一步，要求美国所有核电站建设立即中止。

    这种状况使白宫陷于颇为尴尬的境地。奥巴马政府在其2012年预算中已拨款360亿美元用于资助全美几座新核电站的建设。此外，早在2007年，国会就已为此拨付了185亿美元，至今尚有102亿美元未投入使用。

核电诉求

    总体上看，似乎美国政府已在核电业上押了550亿美元的巨额赌注，而由于福岛核危机事件，这一行业可能毁于一旦。自日本巨灾发生以来，奥巴马总统已重申了其对核电的支持，但这一立场可能很快发生转变，由此使对核电业高达360亿美元的追加拨款陷入危险。共和党人誓言要削减政府预算案中的开支项，但核问题还不是他们的主要目标。而对美国普通公众来说，他们无法理解政府支持核电业的必要。在3月3日，即日本地震前发布的由《华尔街日报》（Wall Street Journal）和美国全国广播公司新闻网（NBC News）联合开展的一项民意调研发现，受访者最能接受的是削减对核电业的财政资助，此选项支持率达57%。

    要让核电业在美国逐渐销声匿迹无须花太大力气。直到去年，自从1979年三里岛核设施发生反应堆部分熔毁以来，美国政府一直未再批准建立新的核电厂。最后一座核电厂是1996年投入运营的。

    目前，美国共有20座核电站正受政府审核，但其中似乎只有3座有所进展。位于亚特兰大的美国南方电力公司（Southern Company）是进展最顺利的，美国政府已承诺为其拨付80亿美元，用于其在乔治亚州建造总造价达140亿美元的核电厂。

    但是，如果美国政府撤走资助，其他核电项目很可能就此夭折。虽然核电厂从长期看物有所值，但其初始建造费用规模惊人。比如，美国南方电力公司核电厂140亿美元的造价几乎是该公司总市值的一半。而其他审批进程颇为顺利的公司，如达力智能源公司（Dynegy），其市值仅为其拟建核电厂造价的一小部分。

    联合反对核能的群体正迫使美国政府支持其他替代性能源，如太阳能和风能。由于政府的大笔补贴，这两种能源近年来取得了重大进步，变得更具成本竞争优势。尽管和化石燃料相比它们还很不具备竞争优势，但基于每千瓦的成本计算，它们已比核能更占上风。

    这是因为，根据近期的美国政府研究报告显示，去年在美国建造新一代核电厂的成本已增长37%，从每千瓦平均3,902美元涨至每千瓦5,339美元。全新的设计规范及核电设施建筑业缺乏竞争被斥为成本剧增的源头。

    而太阳能发电现在从表面上看颇有竞争潜力。去年，建造一座光伏太阳能电厂的成本下降了25%，每千瓦平均建造成本从6,303美元降至4,755美元。太阳能热电厂的建造成本下降了10%，至每千瓦4,692美元。风力发电是除核能和太阳能之外最便宜同时又是最贵的替代性选择。陆上风电场每千瓦成本仅为2,438美元，而海上风电场每千瓦成本就达到了5,975美元。比较起来，天然气发电让这三者都甘拜下风，它每千瓦成本仅为978美元。

太阳能和风能的发展障碍

    不过，基于每千瓦成本对这些可选方案进行比较具有迷惑性。即使有政府对地理位置和不同市场进行精心把控，这一成本要素似乎也并未考虑到能够服务人群的规模化电力生产所需的各种资源。比如，不可能以商业规模到处建立风电场或太阳能发电厂，因为美国有些地区风力不足，日照不够，无法生产足够的电力。而核电站理论上可以建在几乎任何地方。

    更重要的是，替代性能源无法生产足够的电能完成任务。核能是高度浓缩的能源形式，只需要很少的土地和有限的输电线路就能将电能输送到人口中心地区。替代性能源则完全谈不上浓缩，并且需要极大的空间才能产出一座小型核电厂所产电能的一小部分。

    比如，政府按其计算方式假设了一座电厂所能生产的一定电力。对核电站来说，这个数值是220万千瓦，太阳能光伏发电厂仅为150,000千瓦，而陆上风电场只有100,000千瓦。核电站生产大量电力仅需占地8到10平方英里。我们不妨将这与政府定义的最便宜的替代能源——陆上风电场比较一下。根据美国国家可再生能源实验室（National Renewable Energy Laboratory）的数据，每台2,000千瓦的风力发电机占地0.25平方英里。因此，要用风电场取代核电站意味着，一个大型风电场要占地近280平方英里，这几乎与纽约市的面积相当。

    核电站高度集中的能量是核电尽管造价不菲，却仍然如此富有吸引力的原因之一。过去数年间，核电业花了数百万美元兜售其安全记录，游说美国政府给予支持，但仅仅是大地震造成的一个事故就已让这种努力大部分付之东流。至于说核电业是否花了足够多的钱确保美国政府为其敞开财源，则有待观察。

    译者：清远

    The devastating earthquake and subsequent tsunami last week has claimed an untold number of Japanese victims, but there's one casualty in the U.S. that won't go down without a fight: the nuclear power industry. The resulting damage to one of Japan's nuclear power plants has resurrected old debates about the safety and soundness of nuclear technology and its ability to be used as a viable power source.

    But even if nuclear power plant construction costs rise as a result of this incident, the economics of power generation still favor a mix of energy sources that include nuclear. Renewable sources of energy, like wind and solar, while recently becoming more cost-competitive to nuclear energy (thanks in part to generous government subsidies), are still unable to efficiently generate enough power to keep the lights on and fully replace nuclear power in the United States just yet.

    The possibility of multiple reactor core meltdowns at the Fukushima nuclear power plant has captured the world's attention. We don't yet know if this will become another Chernobyl -- what we do know is that no matter happens, it is a public relations disaster for the nuclear industry.

    In Germany, plans to overturn a directive that would have kept the nation's 17 nuclear plants from being closed in the coming years were placed on hold for three months. Switzerland said that it was suspending efforts to keep three of its nuclear plants operating, while the European Union announced that it wants stress tests performed on all of its 143 nuclear reactors in response to what the EU's energy chief said was an "apocalypse" in Japan.

    In Washington, the Republicans, who have traditionally championed nuclear power, have been pretty much silent on the news. But some liberal Democrats, like Rep. Ed Markey from Massachusetts, have called for a moratorium on nuclear plants in earthquake prone areas of the country, while Senator John Kerry, the Democrat from Massachusetts, went a step further and called for all nuclear power plant construction to be halted immediately.

    This has put the White House in an awkward position. The Obama administration has earmarked $36 billion in its 2012 budget to help finance the construction of several new nuclear plants across the country. That's in addition to the $18.5 billion in funds that were earmarked by Congress back in 2007, of which $10.2 billion remains unspent.

The nuclear commitment

    In total, it looks like the US government has placed a $55 billion bet on an industry that could meltdown thanks to the Fukushima incident. President Obama has reiterated his support for nuclear power since the disaster struck, but that could change quickly, putting that $36 billion top-up to the industry in jeopardy. Republicans vow to slash line items in the budget, but the nuclear issue has not been their primary target, yet. As for the general public, it doesn't see the need for government support for the industry. An opinion poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News released on March 3, before the incident, found that financial support for the nuclear industry was the single most popular possible budget cut, with 57% agreeing.

    It wouldn't take much to let the nuclear industry just die out in the US. Until last year, the government had not approved the construction of a new plant since the partial reactor meltdown at the Three-Mile Island nuclear facility in 1979. The last plant went online in 1996.

    There are currently 20 projects being reviewed by the government but only three seem to be going anywhere. Atlanta-based Southern Company (SO, Fortune 500) is the farthest along and has been promised $8 billion by the government for the construction of a $14 billion plant Georgia.

    But it is highly unlikely that any of the other projects will ever get built if the government takes away funding. While nuclear plants are cost effective in the long run, they have significant start-up costs. For example, the $14 billion price tag on the Southern Company's plant is around half of its entire market capitalization. Other companies far into the permitting process, like Dynegy (DYN), have market caps that are a fraction of the costs to get a plant constructed.

    Those rallying against nuclear energy are pushing for the government to back other energy alternatives like solar and wind. Both have made great strides in becoming more cost competitive over the years, thanks in part to large government subsidies. While they remain highly uncompetitive to fossil fuels, they have overtaken nuclear on a cost per kilowatt basis.

    That's because the cost to build a new next generation nuclear facility in the US has jumped 37% in the past year from an average build cost of $3,902 per kilowatt to $5,339/kW, according to a recent government study. New design specifications and a lack of competition in the nuclear construction industry were blamed from the increase in costs.

    Solar power now looks on the surface to be potentially competitive. The cost to build a photovoltaic solar plant is down 25% in the past year from an average build cost of $6,303 per kilowatt to $4,755. The build cost for a solar thermal plant dropped 10% to $4,692 per kilowatt. Wind power remains the cheapest and the most expensive alternative to both nuclear and solar. Onshore wind power costs just $2,438 per kilowatt while offshore wind power costs $5,975/kW. For a comparison, natural gas blows all of them out of the water, costing just $978 per kilowatt.

Obstacles to solar and wind

    But comparing alternatives on a cost per kilowatt basis is deceptive. Even with the government's careful controls of geography and markets, the cost factor doesn't seem to take into account the resources needed to generate the power on a scale that could serve the population. For example, it is not possible to install wind or solar plants on a commercial scale everywhere because some areas of the country are just not windy or sunny enough to yield enough power. That compares to a nuclear plant that could theoretically be built almost anywhere.

    More importantly, alternatives don't generate enough power to do the job. Nuclear energy is a dense form of energy that requires very little in the form of land and transmission lines to carry it to a population center. Alternative energies are not dense at all and require gobs of space to generate a fraction of the energy generated by a small nuclear facility.

    For example, the government assumed a certain output would be generated by a plant in their calculations. For a nuclear plant it was 2.2 million kilowatts, while it was just 150,000 kilowatts for a photovoltaic plant and 100,000 kilowatts for an onshore wind plant. That nuclear power plant is a large jolt of electricity neatly contained to an area of 8 to 10 square miles. Compare that to an onshore wind plant, the cheapest alternative according to the government. Each 2,000 kilowatt wind turbine takes up a quarter of a square mile worth of space, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. So to replace that nuclear power plant with wind would mean dedicating nearly 280 square miles of land to a gigantic wind farm, which would be about the size of New York City.

    The energy concentration in nuclear power plants is just one reason why nuclear remains so attractive, despite the high start up costs. The nuclear industry has spent millions of dollars over the years touting its safety record and lobbying for government support, but just one incident by a massive earthquake has wiped most of that effort away. It remains to be seen if the industry spent enough money to ensure that the government keeps its coffers open to them.