Nuclear energy: Is it good or bad?

Like a neutron colliding with an atom, two factors are igniting Americans, and particularly environmentalists, into reconciling a messy question: Do we or don’t we want to develop nuclear power? Eight years of the Bush Administration’s heavily pro-nuclear policies with billions in government subsidies have roused the ailing nuclear industry. Simultaneously, our search for clean, greenhouse gas-free energy sources has turned urgent in the face of climate change. The mix of influences is propelling nuclear energy into the lime light for serious reconsideration.

But many of the old concerns remain. Since the accident at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island power plant in 1979, no applications for new nuclear power plant building permits were submitted for almost 30 years. While no one was killed or even hurt following the reactor’s partial meltdown, the public glimpsed the potential for disaster.

Nonetheless, the industry has persevered, claiming improved oversight and potential to improve air quality, although it has found no long-term solution for disposing its radioactive waste. Today, 104 nuclear reactors in 31 states supply 20 percent of our electricity, making it our second largest energy source after coal.

Things began to heat up for the industry within two weeks of President Bush taking office in January 2001. He formed the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPD), headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, which produced a National Energy Policy report by May of that year, recommending “the President support the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States as a major component of our national energy policy.”

Following a long legal battle to force the release of NEPD documents to the public, environmental lawyers at Natural Resource Defense Council uncovered that industry lobbyists were integral in forming the president’s energy policy and his decision to launch a so-called ‘nuclear revival’. Over eight years the nuclear industry has received billions in government funds, while construction and operating license applications for 30 new reactors are in the works. Such support would likely increase if Arizona Senator John McCain takes office next year. He recently said, “… the French are able to generate 80 percent of their electricity with nuclear power. There’s no reason why America shouldn’t.”

Meanwhile, research has mounted documenting current and potential impacts of climate change. The IPCC found the world must drastically and quickly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases expelled into the atmosphere in order to avoid the worst impacts of a warmer planet, which include rising oceans, more severe weather, destruction of ecosystems, and the spread of animal- and insect-borne diseases.

But there are no easy, off-the-shelf technologies currently available to enable such reductions. Research is underway, alternatives are being built, and waste-cutting efficiencies implemented although none can yet accomplish the necessary cuts while feeding the world’s voracious and growing use of electricity. Accept for maybe nuclear power.

In the coming week, we’ll delve into some of the arguments for and against increasing nuclear energy, but here we’ve briefly summed up some of the hot topics:

Emissions: Compared to other major existing energy sources, such as coal and oil, nuclear power emits almost no greenhouse gasses, or nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, the primary components of air pollution.

Energy independence: Increasing American nuclear energy enables the country to reduce the amount of oil it imports from other parts of the world and provides reliable base-load power. However, there are limited stores of uranium isotope U-235, which is required for nuclear fission and is largely found in Canada, Australia, and Niger.

Cost: The expense of building two advanced technology nuclear reactors was originally estimated at around $7 billion. The price tag recently rose to $14 billion and construction hasn’t even begun. Champions of wind, solar, and other forms of alternative energy argue high cost and government support for nuclear are gobbling up money that could help develop less established industries.

Environmental health and safety: The risk of a catastrophic reactor accident, as well as significant waste disposal problems, hangs around nuclear power’s neck like a noose. Uranium mining can also endanger the health of miners and people living near mines, as well as the environment, as radioactive ore waste has been shown to contaminate surface and groundwater.

Security: Underlying a nuclear chain reaction in both an energy reactor and weapon is an isotope called uranium-235. Reactor grade uranium requires a 3-5 percent concentration of U-235, while weapon grade needs 90 percent concentration. Therefore anyone possessing U-235 and the necessary equipment can make either nuclear energy or bombs.

Impact on natural resources: The Union of Concerned Scientists calculated that to keep cool a typical 1,000 megawatt reactor requires approximately 476,500 gallons of water a minute be pumped through its system, a number that could nearly triple in some of the new, larger facilities. In some systems, the warmed water returned to its source – lake, river, ocean—contains low level radioactivity. Also aquatic life circulated through the cooling system can be killed.

Posted on May 27, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Comments

I think you're trying to be objective about this, but bad habits are hard to give up. So your objectivity tends to be selective.

For example, you've warned that nuclear energy construction costs have risen quickly, and cited a reference article in support. But that article points out that the costs have risen because of increased labor and material costs. Those increases also apply to renewable energy sources and, to a lesser degree, fossil-fired power plants. The closing sentence from your source article is, "But at $66 per megawatt projected for 2020, no other low-carbon power source will beat the price of nuclear."

Similarly, you've pointed out the subsidies given to nuclear energy, but ignored the subsidies given to all the other energy sources, both hydrocarbon and renewable. The topic of subsidies has been greatly abused. Please take a look at Bafflegab: Energy Subsidies.

Nonetheless, it appears you're making an earnest effort to cover the subject fairly. Don't give up.

Posted by:Red Craig |May 28, 2008 1:05 PM

By the way, I think the author of the referenced article meant to say $6300 per kilowatt, not $66 per megawatt. No doubt the blog gremlins attacked his article.

Posted by:Red Craig |May 29, 2008 12:45 AM

How Different The World Would Be Today
By Ralph Andrews

How different the world would be today if 40 years ago we had replaced all fossil fuels with nuclear power. We wouldn’t be at war in the Middle East….There would be no power shortages….Our electric bill would be a small fraction of what it is today….we would all be driving cars, riding trains, and flying planes powered by hydrogen. There would be no water shortages or hunger and nobody would be worrying about global warming.

Now that’s the Real “Inconvenient Truth.”

Let’s take a look at those statements one at a time.

We would now have no need nor use for oil, and therefore we would have no need to deal with the major oil producing countries, particularly those in the Middle East. Most people today believe that the wars in the Middle East are triggered by oil. Since we won’t be using oil for any purpose the need for us to become involved in the Middle East, except maybe as a tourist, will have been eliminated.

Since all our electrical power will be generated by nuclear energy, there would never be a power shortage. We would never be asked to shut down our air conditioners during a heat wave and we would never be asked to conserve water. Our use of electricity will have increased dramatically, but the cost of that electricity will be but a small fraction of what it is today.

All cars, trains and planes in use today could easily run on hydrogen right now (In fact I have recently driven the new BMW Hydrogen7 12 Cylinder Sedan with an internal combustion engine that is for sale now in Germany and most other European countries.) The problem is that hydrogen is very expensive to produce. The standard method of extracting hydrogen out of water is electrolysis….that is, the use of electricity to separate the hydrogen and oxygen from water. The process will be very affordable when all our power comes from nuclear, thereby making it practical to power all our means of transportation by hydrogen. This will have been made possible because of the almost negligible cost of hydrogen. A major bonus from all of this, of course, is that air pollution and all other forms of pollution from fossil fuels will be, for all practical purposes, eliminated.

Also eliminated would be the need for water, and, thereby, the hunger and famines associated with severe water shortages. We’ve often asked ourselves how could thousands of people, adults and children, die of hunger every year when three quarters of the earth is covered with water. Again, a problem solved by nuclear power.

Desalinization of salt water is now a very simple process. The salt water is boiled and then condensed, leaving separated salt-free water and plain salt, which can be returned to the ocean or sold to stores. The problem today, however, is that the process is far too expensive to solve the starvation problems of African Countries like Somalia….even though it has almost 1500 miles of ocean frontage. Like the method of extracting hydrogen from water described above, the desalinization of ocean water will become affordable and practical due to the massive use of nuclear energy.

Posted by:Ralph |May 29, 2008 6:42 PM

Here's the text of a letter I recently sent to Anne Lauvergeon, The most powerful woman in the world when it comes to nuclear power:

Anne Lauvergeon, Chief Executive Officer
AREVA
27 – 29 rue Le Peletier
75 433 - Paris cedex 09
France

Dear Ms. Lauvergeon:

I am the president and co-founder of Nuclear Green, Incorporated, an environmental organization founded in 1992 and dedicated to advancing the understanding and acceptance of nuclear power. We believe it to be the safest, cleanest and most inexhaustible source of power that exists. We also believe, firmly, that nuclear power is not just the best way to stop global warming...IT IS THE ONLY WAY!

I’ve enclosed a copy of my book, NUCLEAR GREEN. I hope you’ll have the opportunity to read it....when your busy schedule will permit, of course. I have devoted a chapter to AREVA/Framatome. I am currently making preparations for an updated 2nd edition. I would appreciate any criticisms or suggestions that you or your staff might have so that I can be confident that my updated book will be an improvement.

I would like to also invite you to visit my website, www.nucleargreen.org. You’ll find a lot of information about and links to AREVA. I hope that, one day, I will have the pleasure of meeting you in person. I have enormous respect and admiration for you and for your organization. More than any other industry I can think of, AREVA is changing the World and making it a better and safer place to live.

Very truly yours,

Ralph H. Andrews
www.nucleargreen.org
ralph@nucleargreen.org

Posted by:Ralph |May 29, 2008 6:55 PM