Nuclear Power: A new look at a controversial power source

7/28/2019 Nuclear Power: A new look at a controversial power source

1/4

Fossil fuelsand the environmentGlobal scientic consensus agrees that global warming

and climate change are threatening lie on this planet

as we know it, and it eects are possibly irreversible.

(Solomon et al, 1704) This global warming is caused by

an overabundance o carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

primarily due to the burning o ossil uels or energy

(Center or Climate and Energy Solutions). While there

are other contributing actors to global warming, the

greatest threat and largest need o correction is in the

production o energy.

Currently, 67.1% o world electricity generation

comes rom the combustion o ossil uels. In the U.S.,

one o the largest consumers o global energy resources,

it is closer to 70% (Center or Climate and Energy Solu-

tions). Electricity plants are by ar the largest contrib-utor to the atmosphere o greenhouse gases (GHGs),

accounting or 40% o the total, primarily in the orm

o CO2 (Center or Climate and Energy Solutions). Fos-

sil-uel-burning electricity plants account or 99.6% o

all greenhouse gas emissions rom the electricity sec-

tor, 80% o which originates rom coal-burning power

plants (EPA).

Global population is on pace to hit 10 billion by 2100,with most growth happening in developing nations (Gil-

lis and Dugger). The thirst or new electricity in these

populous, developing nations coupled with a rise in the

global prolieration o electricity-powered gadgets such

as cell phones, laptops and media devices is ueling glob-

al electricity demand, which is orecasted to increase by

2.3% a year through 2035. (U.S. Energy Inormation Ad-

ministration) On the current business-as-usual trajecto-

ry, global electricity sources are not expected to change a

great deal. Renewable energy is expected to oset ossil

uel energy sources only by an additional 3% by 2030

(Center or Climate and Energy Solutions).

CO2 emissions and global warming is only part o

the problem with ossil uel combustion, however. Par-

ticulate pollution rom coal stacks is estimated to kill a

minimum o 13,000 people in the U.S. alone each year

(Schneider and Banks). Fossil uels are also a nite re-

source. At some point in the near uture, or, according

to some analysts, the very near uture, ossil uels will

be mostly used up. As easy to access ossil uel resourc-

es evaporate, the drive to nd more sources will push

development into dicult areas such as ragile eco-

systems like ANWR, remote and dangerous oshore

sea areas or into resources o dubious value such as tar

sands.

Thus, humanity aces a great challenge and a great

threat in meeting its needs or electricity in the 21st

century. Should ossil uel combustion continue to be

the dominant source o energy over the next several

decades, the 2 Celsius climate emergency line will

surely be crossed, while becoming more expensive and

contributing to greater global instability.

Can a renewed investment in nuclear power help

mitigate this crisis? Do its benets outweigh its risks?

In the atermath o the Fukushima Daiichi disaster inJapan, is there even a market or nuclear power?

The environmental impact ofcurrent nuclear power plant designNuclear power currently accounts or 13.5% o global

electricity supply, but only 31 countries use nuclear

power or energy . The top consumer o nuclear power

is France, where 75% o all electricity is generated in

nuclear power plants. For most other nuclear nations,

nuclear power contributes between 10% and 50% o

their electricity needs, with the U.S. relying on nuclear

power or 20% (IEA).

Nuclear PowerA new look at a controversial energy source

Experimental IFR Breeder Reactor.

Argonne National Labratory West, Idaho

September 26, 2012 by Colin obrien

Modern nuclear power plant design can supply

sae, aordable, clean electricity. Coupled with PV

and wind power, nuclear oers the best current

alternative to ossil uels to fght climate change.


2/4

The vast majority o nuclear power plants in op-

eration across the globe are Light Water Reactors

(LWRs) (Blees). While there are a number o other

designs, LWRs, or various reasons, have become the

primary model. LWRs oer a number o environmen-

tal advantages over the burning o ossil uels, espe-cially in their relationship to climate change, but come

with their own set o environmental drawbacks and

challenges.

Environmental advantages of nuclear power

Emissions The primary advantage o LWR nu-

clear power plants or electricity generation over

ossil-uel-burning power plants is that they produce

almost no carbon dioxide emission. Not only do LWRs

not produce CO2, neither do they produce any other

atmospheric emissions, such as the sulur dioxide or

nitrogen oxide that ossil uel combustion produces

(Javidkia, Hashemi-Tilehnoee and Zabihi). In the

ull lie-cycle o nuclear power, including uranium

mining, transportation and enrichment, the total

CO2 emission is only 2% compared to the lie-cycle o

ossil uel combustion (Javidkia, Hashemi-Tilehnoee

and Zabihi).

Radiation Contrary to popular belie, there is a

negligible increase in radiation or individuals living

near nuclear power plants (Javidkia, Hashemi-Tileh-

noee and Zabihi). In act, the radiation produce by

coal-red power plants is 100 times greater than theradiation ound near nuclear power plants (Javidkia,

Hashemi-Tilehnoee and Zabihi). People living near

nuclear power plants are exposed to no more than a

1% increase over background radiation, which is well

below acceptable levels o saety. To put in context, a

requent fyer receives a larger dose o radiation than

someone living near a nuclear power plant. In addi-

tion, coal soot contains many polluting chemicals thatare continually spewed into the atmosphere through

smoke stacks, that not only contribute greatly to cli-

mate change, but also, as mentioned above, kill tens

o thousands o people annually through cancers and

diseases, inect with disease many more and contrib-

ute to general air pollution and smog.

Environmental challenges of nuclear power

Toxic Waste The undamental problem with

LWRs is toxic waste. LWRs use only 1% o the avail-

able uel rom the uranium that is used to power them

(Blees). The nuclear reaction process that produces

electricity inects the spent nuclear uel with radio-

active isotopes, some o which take millions o years

to decay. This nuclear waste can kill human beings i

they are exposed to it. Storage and containment sys-

tems have been developed that can, theoretically, keep

the waste secure, but ideally the locations that housethis waste should be isolated and ew. That means that

the nuclear waste needs to be transported across the

country to toxic waste dumps, which creates a saety

concern or spills and accidents en route.

Water A second environmental concern with

LWRs is that they rely on water or cooling. This need

can challenge municipal water supplies or result in

power station shut downs when cooling water runsout, as happened across Europe during the 2006 sum-

mer heat wave (Sachs).

Accidents There have been a number o nuclear

accidents over the years that are also cause or great

concern. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and, just last

year, the Fukushima Daiichi accident in a Japan are

the three most well known accidents. While Cher-

nobyl has rendered a 1,000 square mile area in Ukraine

uninhabitable or at least the next 20,000 years, most

other nuclear accidents have had minimal loss o lie

or property. A recent study, sponsored by the U.N., o

people living in the path o the Chernobyl radiation

cloud, have estimated that less than 10,000 people

have died in total rom that accident (Mettler). This

is less than the amount o people who die in one yearo burning coal in just the U.S.

However, ear o catastrophic nuclear accidents

oten overrides the reality o how sae nuclear power

plants actually are. Reactors o more recent vintage

are built in ways much saer than the Chernobyl reac-

tor was. In several meta-analyses, it has been demon-

strated that, including all o the nuclear accidents

that have occurred since nuclear power came onlinein the 1950s, nuclear power is the saest overall source

o electricity, even saer than renewable sources such

as PV (Starelt and Wikdahl). Only wind power has

been demonstrated to be saer. These studies take into

consideration the ull lie-cycle o the energy source.

Challenges can be overcome with modern designs

Most environmental criticism o nuclear power isdirected at the current LWR design o nuclear power

plants, and rightly so. Innitely radioactive waste that

must be stored indenitely is a huge problem. Howev-

er, there is an alternative design that ran successul-


3/4

ly in Idaho or thirty years that produces almost none

o the radioactive waste that a typical LWR produces.

This type o reactor is called an Integral Fast Reactor

(IFR) and is also known as a breeder reactor. These

reactors are designed to use up all the uel that is put

inside them, and also create more uel rom the originaluel, hence the name breeder reactor. Their only by-

product is a small amount o radioactive material that

has a hal-lie o 100-300 years that can be stored on-

site, as opposed to the radioactive actinides produced

by LWRs that last over one million years. Not only do

IFRs use up all o the uel that is designed or them,

but they can burn the radioactive spent uel rods rom

the LWR reactors as well. Thus, they are a solution orthe existing radioactive waste. This waste could power

IFRs or the next several hundred years, meaning no

new uranium would need to be mined (Blees). Once this

waste is used up, there is enough uranium in seawater

to power these reactors or the lietime o the planet,

making them a truly renewable resource (Cohen). IFRs

also have built in passive saety eatures, which mean

that possibility o meltdowns, such as Chernobyl and

Three Mile Island, is virtually nil.

Economic perspectiveThere is a lot o conficting data regarding the eco-

nomics or nuclear power. In terms o straight cost

estimates, nuclear power does not look very good, as

nuclear capital costs are very large. In Europe and theU.S., nuclear power has been given a bad rap. Thus, de-

velopment and investment has lagged, which has had

an upward impact on the capital costs associated with

building new nuclear power plants (Lovins). Nuclears

high capital costs coupled with the recent economic

downturn and poor public perception o nuclear power

have caused Western governments to redirect unding

away rom nuclear power.Yet, on the other side o the world, in China, India

and Russia, nuclear power is experiencing a minor re-

naissance (International Energy Agency (IEA)). Many

new nuclear power plants are being built in these coun-

tries, some o a hybrid IFR-type design. This shows that

with government support and investment, the high

capital costs can begin to come down. Currently, the

U.S. government continues to heavily subsidize ossiluels (Environmental Law Institute). These ossil uel

subsidies are shown to be harmul to the economy and

encourage continued reliance on these toxic orms o

energy (International Energy Agency (IEA)). I a por-

tion o these subsidies were redirected toward develop-

ing Generation IV reactors, like the IFR design outlined

above, the costs could become more palatable with the

added benet o jumpstarting a portion o the economy.

Taking into consideration wider economic actors,

however, the costs can begin to look even more appeal-ing. According to a study by the European Commis-

sion called ExternE, i all o the externalities o power

generation and the complete lie-cycle o the uel are

reviewed, including loss o lie, pollution cleanup, min-

ing and waste disposal, even including accidents, nu-

clear power comes out to be ar cheaper in the long run

than ossil uels and is comparable to other renewable

energy sources such as solar and hydroelectric power(Starelt and Wikdahl).

Social equity perspectiveIn this day and age, access to abundant, aordable elec-

tricity to power our lives has become a necessity. From

ood storage and lie-saving medical devices to heat-

ing and cooling, articial light, and the computers that

bring eciency to every area o our lives, electricity is

the backbone that makes the world what it is today. But

the ossil uels we rely on to provide this electricity are

rapidly taking a toll on our biosphere and our ability to

enjoy the ruits o our labors. The industrialized na-

tions are the biggest consumers o electricity and also

the largest contributors o GHGs to the environment.

Thus, or the good o all people on the planet, it is in-cumbent upon the industrialized nations o the world

to change course away rom ossil uels, as rapidly as

possible. A contribution rom nuclear energy can make

this possible.

Social equity challenges

There are a couple o social challenges that need

to be overcome or nuclear power to go orward in ansocially and environmentally positive way. First is the

public perception o saety. As shown above, LWRs

produce radioactive waste that must be stored. No one

wants to live next door to radioactive waste, nor do they

want trains lled with waste rolling through their town.

Others ear that a nuclear power plant may be built in

their town. And o course the biggest ear: What i there

is an accident? These are legitimate concerns. A second

actor, which drives nuclear policy much more than

people realize, is prolieration concerns and perception

o nuclear security risks. What i nuclear technology

alls into the wrongs hands?


4/4

The unortunate reality is that in the current nucle-

ar paradigm, these challenges are unlikely to be over-

come. Radiation is invisible, and thus the ear o it is

hard to curb, even in the ace o scientic acts. Even

though the crude design o LWRs can contribute great-

ly to reducing climate change, have lower externalizedand long term costs, and are generally saer than almost

all other power sources, it is doubtul that the public

will ever accept them.

The other regrettable reality o nuclear power is its

relationship with nuclear weapons. One o the reasons

LWRs were selected over alternative breeder reactor

designs that produce no waste, is ear o nuclear proli-

eration (Blees). It was claimed that LWRs have a lowerchance o their uel alling into the wrong hands and be-

ing used or a nuclear weapon. As time has progressed,

however, it has been made apparent that these ears

were unounded. Ironically, LWRs double as weapons

actories. In a breeder reactor, all the uel gets used up

i operated correctly leaving no uel or nuclear weap-

ons. But in an LWR, they can strip out the plutonium to

be used in nuclear weapons, and thus, render a portion

o the uel unusable or nuclear power.

Conversely, nuclear power can provide energy inde-

pendence or industrialized nations, promoting greater

geopolitical stability. With greater geopolitical stability

comes less ear o confict or the need or nuclear weap-

ons. As countries become more stable and involved in

the global community, industrialized nations can helpbring the technology saely to developing nations, ulti-

mately reducing concerns o prolieration.

Nuclear vs. RenewablesDo we even need nuclear power with advances in solar

and wind power? It is debatable. Looking at them each

through the ull lie cycle rom mining to manuacture

to distribution to decommission nuclear power comes

out slightly ahead in terms o saety and economically,

but not by much. An interesting challenge or both nu-

clear power and solar and wind power is obtaining land

or power plants. Many new solar arms in the South-western U.S. have been blocked by environmentalists

on the grounds that they threaten animal habitat and

wind arms ace challenges rom noise, line-o-sight

and bird deaths (Stein).

ConclusionNuclear power needs to be renewed i we are to avert

a major climate crisis. Nuclear power should be lever-aged alongside investments and development in solar

power, wind and other renewable energy resources.

Nuclear energy can augment these other renewable en-

ergy sources by providing consistent, sae, aordable,

clean baseload power to the global energy grid.

In order or nuclear power to be successul, how-

ever, it needs to be brought into the 21st century. LWR

reactors need to be replaced with modern IFR breeder

reactors. These so-called Generation IV reactors pro-

duce very little waste, are passively sae, do not melt

down and pose no greater prolieration risk than LWRs.

A large capital investment, with subsidies and rebates

rom government can help jumpstart this renewal,

much as it did in the 40s and 50s. It would provide

skilled jobs opportunities and contribute to strength-ening energy independence and greater global geopo-

litical stability.

Fossil uels are an unmitigated disaster or human-

ity. Even with the ew risks and problems o nuclear

power as they are right now, it still provides a much

better energy option than ossil uel combustion.

SourcesBlees, Tom. Prescription for the Planet. BookSurge Publishing, 2008.Center or Climate and Energy Solutions. Electricity Overview. June 2011. Center for Climate

and Energy Solutions. 26 Sep 2012 .

Cohen, Bernard. Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source.American Journal of Physics.

PDF fle. Pittsburgh, Jan 1983.

Cooper, Mark. The Economics Of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance Or Relapse?South Royalton,

June 2009.

Environmental Law Institute. Energy Subsidies Favor Fossil Fuels Over Renewables. 2008. 26 Sep

2012 .

EPA. Inventory Of U.s. Greenhouse Gas Emissions And Sinks: 1990-2010. PDF fle. Washington ,

15 April 2012.

Fthenakis, Vasilis and Hyung Chul Kim. Greenhouse-gas Emissions rom Solar Electric and

Nuclear Power: A Lie-cycle Study . Energy Policy. New York, April 2007.

Gillis, Justin and Celia Dugger.U.N. Forecasts 10.1 Billion People by Centurys End. 03 May 2011.

26 Sep 2012 .

IEA. Key World Energy Statistics. PDF fle. Paris: International Energy Agency (IEA), 2011.

International Energy Agency (IEA). World Energy Outlook 2011 Factsheet. Paris, 2011.

Javidkia, F., M Hashemi-Tilehnoee and V. Zabihi. A Comparison between Fossil and Nuclear Pow-

er Plants Pollutions and Their Environmental Eects. Journal of Energy and Power Engineering.

EL Monte: David Publishing Company, 30 Sep 2011.

Lovins, Amory, Imran Sheikh and Alex Markevich. Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly? RMI

Solutions. Snowmass, April 2008.

Mettler, Fred. Chernobyls Living Legacy. 2004. 26 Sep 2012 .

MIT. The Future of Nuclear Power. Cambridge, 2003.

Sachs, Susan. Nuclear powers green promise dulled by rising temps. 10 Aug 2006. 26 Sep 2012

.

Schneider, Conrad and Jonathan Banks. The Toll From Coal. Boston: Clean Air Task Force, Sep

2010.

Solomon, Susan, et al. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. PNAS10

2 2009: 1704-1709.

Starelt, Nils and Carl-Erik Wikdahl. Economic Analysis of Various Options of Electricity Generation

- Taking into Account Health and Environmental Effects. Otwock: Management o Health and

Environmental Hazards, 2001.

Stein, Steve. The Environmentalists Dilemma. Policy Review174 (2012): 49-62. Business

Source Complete. Web. 28 Sept. 2012.

U.S. Energy Inormation Administration. International Energy Outlook 2011. 19 Sep 2011. 26 Sep

2012 .

University o Chicago. The Economic Future Of Nuclear Power. Chicago, April 2004.

Wang, Brian. Deaths by TWH by energy source. 03 Mar 2011. 26 Sep 2012 .

Documents

Nuclear Power: A new look at a controversial power source