The article by Rosenfeld, Kaarsberg, and Romm deals with essentially marginal methods for reducing CO2 emissions. It ignores nuclear power, which is capable of a major effect. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, 1 US electric power is 20% nuclear generated, but that percentage is likely to shrink rather than grow in coming years unless steps are taken to encourage new nuclear facilities. No nuclear power plants have been licensed since 1978; the costs of nuclear plants are at least doubled by delays caused by licensing, inspections, reviews, and intervenor hearings. Moreover, in the 12 years that it is estimated to get a nuclear plant on line, the cost is doubled by inflation and interest charges.

Many of the nations that agreed to the Kyoto Protocol get a major share of their electric power from nuclear plants: France, 75%; Sweden, 47%; UK, 29%; and Japan, 36%. Moreover, in most countries, power plants are government operated; several countries have plans to convert more of their power generation to nuclear: France, for example, has a stated goal of 95%. I have no doubt that conversion to nuclear power will be a factor in their strategy to comply with Kyoto.

An interesting possibility would be siting a nuclear power plant in Mexico near the California border for the express purpose of selling power to the US grid. Freed from US red tape, a plant might be on line in five years or less, would cost about half as much, and would be near a power-hungry market, already suffering from high costs for power. That would make a real contribution to lowering CO2 emissions.

1.
J.
Johnson
,
Chemical Engineering News
, 2 October
2000
,p.
39
.