????上上周發生的災難性大地震及隨后襲來的海嘯已奪去無數日本人的生命，而余波所及，它在美國對一個行業造成重創：核電業。不過該行業是不會不做抗爭就此倒下的。日本核電站遭受重創已使長久以來的一大爭議再度重燃，即核技術的安全性、可靠性及其是否能用作可行的電力來源。

????但是，即便此次事故導致核電站建造成本上升，電力生產的經濟學青睞的仍是包括核電在內的多種能源組合。如風能和太陽能這樣的可再生能源，盡管最近與核電相比正變得更具成本競爭優勢（這部分要歸功于政府的慷慨補貼），但還是無法有效地生產足夠的電能點亮美國的萬家燈火并完全取代核電。

????福島核電站的多個反應堆芯可能熔毀已吸引了全世界關注的目光。目前這一災難是否會變成另一起切爾諾貝利事件還不得而知——我們所確切知道的是，不管發生了什么，這都是核電業公共關系的災難性事件。

????在德國，有一項規定本打算延長該國17座核電站的運營期限，現在則計劃在未來3個月內暫停該規定。瑞士表示，它正暫停維持其3座核電站運轉的努力，而歐盟則宣布，為應對歐盟能源最高長官所說的日本“巨災”，它希望在其全部143座核反應堆上實施壓力測試。

????在華盛頓，傳統上力挺核電的共和黨人士三緘其口。而一些自由派民主黨人士，像來自馬薩諸塞州的議員艾德?瑪柯，已呼吁在美國地震易發地區暫停修建核電站，而同樣來自馬薩諸塞州的民主黨人、參議員約翰?克里則更進一步，要求美國所有核電站建設立即中止。

????這種狀況使白宮陷于頗為尷尬的境地。奧巴馬政府在其2012年預算中已撥款360億美元用于資助全美幾座新核電站的建設。此外，早在2007年，國會就已為此撥付了185億美元，至今尚有102億美元未投入使用。

核電訴求

????總體上看，似乎美國政府已在核電業上押了550億美元的巨額賭注，而由于福島核危機事件，這一行業可能毀于一旦。自日本巨災發生以來，奧巴馬總統已重申了其對核電的支持，但這一立場可能很快發生轉變，由此使對核電業高達360億美元的追加撥款陷入危險。共和黨人誓言要削減政府預算案中的開支項，但核問題還不是他們的主要目標。而對美國普通公眾來說，他們無法理解政府支持核電業的必要。在3月3日，即日本地震前發布的由《華爾街日報》（Wall Street Journal）和美國全國廣播公司新聞網（NBC News）聯合開展的一項民意調研發現，受訪者最能接受的是削減對核電業的財政資助，此選項支持率達57%。

????要讓核電業在美國逐漸銷聲匿跡無須花太大力氣。直到去年，自從1979年三里島核設施發生反應堆部分熔毀以來，美國政府一直未再批準建立新的核電廠。最后一座核電廠是1996年投入運營的。

????目前，美國共有20座核電站正受政府審核，但其中似乎只有3座有所進展。位于亞特蘭大的美國南方電力公司（Southern Company）是進展最順利的，美國政府已承諾為其撥付80億美元，用于其在喬治亞州建造總造價達140億美元的核電廠。

????但是，如果美國政府撤走資助，其他核電項目很可能就此夭折。雖然核電廠從長期看物有所值，但其初始建造費用規模驚人。比如，美國南方電力公司核電廠140億美元的造價幾乎是該公司總市值的一半。而其他審批進程頗為順利的公司，如達力智能源公司（Dynegy），其市值僅為其擬建核電廠造價的一小部分。

????聯合反對核能的群體正迫使美國政府支持其他替代性能源，如太陽能和風能。由于政府的大筆補貼，這兩種能源近年來取得了重大進步，變得更具成本競爭優勢。盡管和化石燃料相比它們還很不具備競爭優勢，但基于每千瓦的成本計算，它們已比核能更占上風。

????這是因為，根據近期的美國政府研究報告顯示，去年在美國建造新一代核電廠的成本已增長37%，從每千瓦平均3,902美元漲至每千瓦5,339美元。全新的設計規范及核電設施建筑業缺乏競爭被斥為成本劇增的源頭。

????而太陽能發電現在從表面上看頗有競爭潛力。去年，建造一座光伏太陽能電廠的成本下降了25%，每千瓦平均建造成本從6,303美元降至4,755美元。太陽能熱電廠的建造成本下降了10%，至每千瓦4,692美元。風力發電是除核能和太陽能之外最便宜同時又是最貴的替代性選擇。陸上風電場每千瓦成本僅為2,438美元，而海上風電場每千瓦成本就達到了5,975美元。比較起來，天然氣發電讓這三者都甘拜下風，它每千瓦成本僅為978美元。

太陽能和風能的發展障礙

????不過，基于每千瓦成本對這些可選方案進行比較具有迷惑性。即使有政府對地理位置和不同市場進行精心把控，這一成本要素似乎也并未考慮到能夠服務人群的規模化電力生產所需的各種資源。比如，不可能以商業規模到處建立風電場或太陽能發電廠，因為美國有些地區風力不足，日照不夠，無法生產足夠的電力。而核電站理論上可以建在幾乎任何地方。

????更重要的是，替代性能源無法生產足夠的電能完成任務。核能是高度濃縮的能源形式，只需要很少的土地和有限的輸電線路就能將電能輸送到人口中心地區。替代性能源則完全談不上濃縮，并且需要極大的空間才能產出一座小型核電廠所產電能的一小部分。

????比如，政府按其計算方式假設了一座電廠所能生產的一定電力。對核電站來說，這個數值是220萬千瓦，太陽能光伏發電廠僅為150,000千瓦，而陸上風電場只有100,000千瓦。核電站生產大量電力僅需占地8到10平方英里。我們不妨將這與政府定義的最便宜的替代能源——陸上風電場比較一下。根據美國國家可再生能源實驗室（National Renewable Energy Laboratory）的數據，每臺2,000千瓦的風力發電機占地0.25平方英里。因此，要用風電場取代核電站意味著，一個大型風電場要占地近280平方英里，這幾乎與紐約市的面積相當。

????核電站高度集中的能量是核電盡管造價不菲，卻仍然如此富有吸引力的原因之一。過去數年間，核電業花了數百萬美元兜售其安全記錄，游說美國政府給予支持，但僅僅是大地震造成的一個事故就已讓這種努力大部分付之東流。至于說核電業是否花了足夠多的錢確保美國政府為其敞開財源，則有待觀察。

????譯者：清遠

????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.