Nuclear Power

A new look at a controversial energy source

September 26, 2012 By Colin OBrien

Modern nuclear power plant design can supply safe, affordable, clean electricity. Coupled with PV and wind power, nuclear offers the best current alternative to fossil fuels to fight climate change.

Global scientific consensus agrees that global warming and climate change are threatening life on this planet as we know it, and it effects are possibly irreversible. (Solomon et al, 1704) This global warming is caused by an overabundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels for energy (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions). While there are other contributing factors to global warming, the greatest threat and largest need of correction is in the production of energy. Currently, 67.1% of world electricity generation comes from the combustion of fossil fuels. In the U.S., one of the largest consumers of global energy resources, it is closer to 70% (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions). Electricity plants are by far the largest contributor to the atmosphere of greenhouse gases (GHGs), accounting for 40% of the total, primarily in the form of CO2 (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions). Fossil-fuel-burning electricity plants account for 99.6% of all greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector, 80% of which originates from coal-burning power plants (EPA). Global population is on pace to hit 10 billion by 2100, with most growth happening in developing nations (Gillis and Dugger). The thirst for new electricity in these populous, developing nations coupled with a rise in the global proliferation of electricity-powered gadgets such as cell phones, laptops and media devices is fueling global electricity demand, which is forecasted to increase by 2.3% a year through 2035. (U.S. Energy Information Administration) On the current business-as-usual trajectory, global electricity sources are not expected to change a great deal. Renewable energy is expected to offset fossil fuel energy sources only by an additional 3% by 2030 (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions).

Fossil fuels and the environment

Experimental IFR Breeder Reactor. Argonne National Labratory West, Idaho

CO2 emissions and global warming is only part of the problem with fossil fuel combustion, however. Particulate pollution from coal stacks is estimated to kill a minimum of 13,000 people in the U.S. alone each year (Schneider and Banks). Fossil fuels are also a finite resource. At some point in the near future, or, according to some analysts, the very near future, fossil fuels will be mostly used up. As easy to access fossil fuel resources evaporate, the drive to find more sources will push development into difficult areas such as fragile ecosystems like ANWR, remote and dangerous offshore sea areas or into resources of dubious value such as tar sands. Thus, humanity faces a great challenge and a great threat in meeting its needs for electricity in the 21st century. Should fossil fuel combustion continue to be the dominant source of 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 benefits outweigh its risks? In the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan, is there even a market for nuclear power?

The environmental impact of current nuclear power plant design

Nuclear power currently accounts for 13.5% of global electricity supply, but only 31 countries use nuclear power for energy . The top consumer of nuclear power is France, where 75% of all electricity is generated in nuclear power plants. For most other nuclear nations, nuclear power contributes between 10% and 50% of their electricity needs, with the U.S. relying on nuclear power for 20% (IEA).

The vast majority of nuclear power plants in operation across the globe are Light Water Reactors (LWRs) (Blees). While there are a number of other designs, LWRs, for various reasons, have become the primary model. LWRs offer a number of environmental advantages over the burning of fossil fuels, especially in their relationship to climate change, but come with their own set of environmental drawbacks and challenges. Environmental advantages of nuclear power Emissions The primary advantage of LWR nuclear power plants for electricity generation over fossil-fuel-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 sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxide that fossil fuel combustion produces (Javidkia, Hashemi-Tilehnoee and Zabihi). In the full life-cycle of nuclear power, including uranium mining, transportation and enrichment, the total CO2 emission is only 2% compared to the life-cycle of fossil fuel combustion (Javidkia, Hashemi-Tilehnoee and Zabihi). Radiation Contrary to popular belief, there is a negligible increase in radiation for individuals living near nuclear power plants (Javidkia, Hashemi-Tilehnoee and Zabihi). In fact, the radiation produce by coal-fired power plants is 100 times greater than the radiation found 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 of safety. To put in context, a frequent flyer receives a larger dose of radiation than someone living near a nuclear power plant. In addition, coal soot contains many polluting chemicals that are continually spewed into the atmosphere through smoke stacks, that not only contribute greatly to climate change, but also, as mentioned above, kill tens of thousands of people annually through cancers and diseases, infect with disease many more and contribute to general air pollution and smog. Environmental challenges of nuclear power Toxic Waste The fundamental problem with LWRs is toxic waste. LWRs use only 1% of the available fuel from the uranium that is used to power them (Blees). The nuclear reaction process that produces

electricity infects the spent nuclear fuel with radioactive isotopes, some of which take millions of years to decay. This nuclear waste can kill human beings if they are exposed to it. Storage and containment systems have been developed that can, theoretically, keep the waste secure, but ideally the locations that house this waste should be isolated and few. That means that the nuclear waste needs to be transported across the country to toxic waste dumps, which creates a safety concern for spills and accidents en route. Water A second environmental concern with LWRs is that they rely on water for cooling. This need can challenge municipal water supplies or result in power station shut downs when cooling water runs out, as happened across Europe during the 2006 summer heat wave (Sachs). Accidents There have been a number of nuclear accidents over the years that are also cause for 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 Chernobyl has rendered a 1,000 square mile area in Ukraine uninhabitable for at least the next 20,000 years, most other nuclear accidents have had minimal loss of life or property. A recent study, sponsored by the U.N., of people living in the path of the Chernobyl radiation cloud, have estimated that less than 10,000 people have died in total from that accident (Mettler). This is less than the amount of people who die in one year of burning coal in just the U.S. However, fear of catastrophic nuclear accidents often overrides the reality of how safe nuclear power plants actually are. Reactors of more recent vintage are built in ways much safer than the Chernobyl reactor was. In several meta-analyses, it has been demonstrated that, including all of the nuclear accidents that have occurred since nuclear power came online in the 1950s, nuclear power is the safest overall source of electricity, even safer than renewable sources such as PV (Starfelt and Wikdahl). Only wind power has been demonstrated to be safer. These studies take into consideration the full life-cycle of the energy source. Challenges can be overcome with modern designs Most environmental criticism of nuclear power is directed at the current LWR design of nuclear power plants, and rightly so. Infinitely radioactive waste that must be stored indefinitely is a huge problem. However, there is an alternative design that ran successful-

ly in Idaho for thirty years that produces almost none of the radioactive waste that a typical LWR produces. This type of 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 fuel that is put inside them, and also create more fuel from the original fuel, hence the name breeder reactor. Their only byproduct is a small amount of radioactive material that has a half-life of 100-300 years that can be stored onsite, as opposed to the radioactive actinides produced by LWRs that last over one million years. Not only do IFRs use up all of the fuel that is designed for them, but they can burn the radioactive spent fuel rods from the LWR reactors as well. Thus, they are a solution for the existing radioactive waste. This waste could power IFRs for 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 for the lifetime of the planet, making them a truly renewable resource (Cohen). IFRs also have built in passive safety features, which mean that possibility of meltdowns, such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, is virtually nil.

tion of these subsidies were redirected toward developing Generation IV reactors, like the IFR design outlined above, the costs could become more palatable with the added benefit of jumpstarting a portion of the economy. Taking into consideration wider economic factors, however, the costs can begin to look even more appealing. According to a study by the European Commission called ExternE, if all of the externalities of power generation and the complete life-cycle of the fuel are reviewed, including loss of life, pollution cleanup, mining and waste disposal, even including accidents, nuclear power comes out to be far cheaper in the long run than fossil fuels and is comparable to other renewable energy sources such as solar and hydroelectric power (Starfelt and Wikdahl).

Social equity perspective

Economic perspective

There is a lot of conflicting data regarding the economics for nuclear power. In terms of straight cost estimates, nuclear power does not look very good, as nuclear capital costs are very large. In Europe and the U.S., nuclear power has been given a bad rap. Thus, development 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 of nuclear power have caused Western governments to redirect funding away from nuclear power. Yet, on the other side of the world, in China, India and Russia, nuclear power is experiencing a minor renaissance (International Energy Agency (IEA)). Many new nuclear power plants are being built in these countries, some of 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 fossil fuels (Environmental Law Institute). These fossil fuel subsidies are shown to be harmful to the economy and encourage continued reliance on these toxic forms of energy (International Energy Agency (IEA)). If a por-

In this day and age, access to abundant, affordable electricity to power our lives has become a necessity. From food storage and life-saving medical devices to heating and cooling, artificial light, and the computers that bring efficiency to every area of our lives, electricity is the backbone that makes the world what it is today. But the fossil fuels we rely on to provide this electricity are rapidly taking a toll on our biosphere and our ability to enjoy the fruits of our labors. The industrialized nations are the biggest consumers of electricity and also the largest contributors of GHGs to the environment. Thus, for the good of all people on the planet, it is incumbent upon the industrialized nations of the world to change course away from fossil fuels, as rapidly as possible. A contribution from nuclear energy can make this possible. Social equity challenges There are a couple of social challenges that need to be overcome for nuclear power to go forward in an socially and environmentally positive way. First is the public perception of safety. 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 filled with waste rolling through their town. Others fear that a nuclear power plant may be built in their town. And of course the biggest fear: What if there is an accident? These are legitimate concerns. A second factor, which drives nuclear policy much more than people realize, is proliferation concerns and perception of nuclear security risks. What if nuclear technology falls into the wrongs hands?

The unfortunate reality is that in the current nuclear paradigm, these challenges are unlikely to be overcome. Radiation is invisible, and thus the fear of it is hard to curb, even in the face of scientific facts. Even though the crude design of LWRs can contribute greatly to reducing climate change, have lower externalized and long term costs, and are generally safer than almost all other power sources, it is doubtful that the public will ever accept them. The other regrettable reality of nuclear power is its relationship with nuclear weapons. One of the reasons LWRs were selected over alternative breeder reactor designs that produce no waste, is fear of nuclear proliferation (Blees). It was claimed that LWRs have a lower chance of their fuel falling into the wrong hands and being used for a nuclear weapon. As time has progressed, however, it has been made apparent that these fears were unfounded. Ironically, LWRs double as weapons factories. In a breeder reactor, all the fuel gets used up if operated correctly leaving no fuel for nuclear weapons. But in an LWR, they can strip out the plutonium to be used in nuclear weapons, and thus, render a portion of the fuel unusable for nuclear power. Conversely, nuclear power can provide energy independence for industrialized nations, promoting greater geopolitical stability. With greater geopolitical stability comes less fear of conflict or the need for nuclear weapons. As countries become more stable and involved in the global community, industrialized nations can help bring the technology safely to developing nations, ultimately reducing concerns of proliferation.

through the full life cycle from mining to manufacture to distribution to decommission nuclear power comes out slightly ahead in terms of safety and economically, but not by much. An interesting challenge for both nuclear power and solar and wind power is obtaining land for power plants. Many new solar farms in the Southwestern U.S. have been blocked by environmentalists on the grounds that they threaten animal habitat and wind farms face challenges from noise, line-of-sight and bird deaths (Stein). Nuclear power needs to be renewed if we are to avert a major climate crisis. Nuclear power should be leveraged alongside investments and development in solar power, wind and other renewable energy resources. Nuclear energy can augment these other renewable energy sources by providing consistent, safe, affordable, clean baseload power to the global energy grid. In order for nuclear power to be successful, however, 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 produce very little waste, are passively safe, do not melt down and pose no greater proliferation risk than LWRs. A large capital investment, with subsidies and rebates from government can help jumpstart this renewal, much as it did in the 40s and 50s. It would provide skilled jobs opportunities and contribute to strengthening energy independence and greater global geopolitical stability. Fossil fuels are an unmitigated disaster for humanity. Even with the few risks and problems of nuclear power as they are right now, it still provides a much better energy option than fossil fuel combustion.
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 <http://www.iaea.org/>. MIT. The Future of Nuclear Power. Cambridge, 2003. Sachs, Susan. Nuclear powers green promise dulled by rising temps. 10 Aug 2006. 26 Sep 2012 <http://www.csmonitor.com/>. 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. PNAS 10 2 2009: 1704-1709. Starfelt, Nils and Carl-Erik Wikdahl. Economic Analysis of Various Options of Electricity Generation - Taking into Account Health and Environmental Effects. Otwock: Management of Health and Environmental Hazards, 2001. Stein, Steve. The Environmentalists Dilemma. Policy Review 174 (2012): 49-62. Business Source Complete. Web. 28 Sept. 2012. U.S. Energy Information Administration. International Energy Outlook 2011. 19 Sep 2011. 26 Sep 2012 <http://www.eia.gov>. University of Chicago. The Economic Future Of Nuclear Power. Chicago, April 2004. Wang, Brian. Deaths by TWH by energy source. 03 Mar 2011. 26 Sep 2012 <http://nextbigfuture. com/>.

Conclusion

Nuclear vs. Renewables Sources Blees, Tom. Prescription for the Planet. BookSurge Publishing, 2008.

Do we even need nuclear power with advances in solar and wind power? It is debatable. Looking at them each

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Electricity Overview. June 2011. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. 26 Sep 2012 <http://www.c2es.org>. Cohen, Bernard. Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source. American Journal of Physics. PDF file. 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 <http://www.eli.org>. EPA. Inventory Of U.s. Greenhouse Gas Emissions And Sinks: 1990-2010. PDF file. Washington , 15 April 2012. Fthenakis, Vasilis and Hyung Chul Kim. Greenhouse-gas Emissions from Solar Electric and Nuclear Power: A Life-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 <nytimes.com>. IEA. Key World Energy Statistics. PDF file. 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 Power Plants Pollutions and Their Environmental Effects. Journal of Energy and Power Engineering. EL Monte: David Publishing Company, 30 Sep 2011.