Nuclear Energy

Proponents of nuclear energy stress that they believe nuclear power to be a sustainable cost effective energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil. Global warming is an undeniable and urgent problem.

However, nuclear power cannot rescue us from climate change. Sustainability relates only to its fuel source when in operation and as a minor cost component. Generally Nuclear power generation facilities are not portable.

The nuclear industry is attempting to promote nuclear power to revive a dying technology, crowding out new forms of renewable energy in the process. The apparent cost efficiencies reflect substantial government subsidies, denying the costs of waste "disposal" over the longer term. Serious depletion of increasingly scarce aquifer fresh water supplies for cooling is becoming a major problem.

Proponents also claim that the risks of storing waste are small and can be further reduced by the technology in the new reactors, and the operational safety record is already good when compared to the other major kinds of power plants.

Climate Change.

Some two to three thousand reactors would need to be built worldwide, say one a week for the next 40 years. This is not a feasible proposition even for the United States to meet its domestic requirements. It would require exorbitant government (taxpayer) subsidies and stress the declining numbers of nuclear engineers, safety inspectors, and necessary specialized building materials. In addition to the construction of nuclear plants, this huge amount of worldwide nuclear capacity would require 11–22 large fuel enrichment plants, 18 fuel fabrication plants, and 10 more waste disposal sites the size of Yucca Mountain.

Nuclear energy is claimed to be the answer to our climate problems since it is clean–burning. However, a life–cycle analysis, which takes into account the energy–intensive processes of mining and enriching the uranium ore, constructing and dismantling the nuclear plant, and disposing the hazardous waste, shows that nuclear is definitely not carbon–free. In fact, emissions from a nuclear plant in the U.S. can range from 16–55 grams of CO₂ per kilowatt–hour over the lifetime of the plant. Compared to wind (11–37 grams CO₂/kWh) and biomass (29–62 grams CO₂/kWh). Nuclear is no cleaner than renewable sources.

Nuclear power plants are a "slow" technology that cannot address global warming in a short enough time period. The nature of climate change demands that we begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions now and continue doing so over the next few decades. NASA scientist James Hansen says that we have a 10–year window before global warming reaches its tipping point and major ecological and societal damage becomes irreversible. Even if a nuclear energy project were given government approval today, it would take at least 10 years for the plant to start delivering electricity. Before that time, emissions would increase from construction, speeding up the process of global warming.

A Council on Foreign Relations report explains that even if the production of nuclear energy remained at its current capacity in the U.S., just replacing the current fleet over the next 40 years would be extremely difficult given our 30–year nuclear hiatus.

Nuclear power might be a reasonable option to solving climate change if it were the only alternative to burning hydrocarbons (oil, coal and natural gas). Fortunately, cleaner, cheaper, quicker solutions to global warming are already available. We can also take advantage of huge potential energy savings through efficiency. That doesn't mean being forced to do without; it simply means going further with each kilowatt of electricity.

Sustainability.

Nuclear power will only become more polluting in the future since increased nuclear production will decrease the supply of high–grade uranium and much more energy is required to enrich uranium at lower grades. At the same time, the International Atomic Energy Agency has already acknowledged that current uranium resources are not sufficient to meet increased demand in the future. A report from The Oxford Research Group predicts that in 45 to 70 years, nuclear energy will emit more carbon dioxide than gas–fired electricity generation.

Environmental issues.

The majority of public interest and environmental groups are adamantly opposed to nuclear power. Over 300 national, state, and local organizations have endorsed a statement clearly outlining why nuclear power is not a viable solution to global warming. Major objections attend the use of water for cooling nuclear plants and disposal of residues containing hazardous quantities of Carbon 14.

Reportedly, the two plants proposed for Levy County, for example, will require 26 mgd, supposedly taken from Gulf waters and returned thereto via the barge canal. The uptake from the Floridian Aquifer to dilute the cooled water before discharge could become a serious issue, depleting fresh water supplies needed by nearby spring out–flows (into the Rainbow and Crystal River systems) hazarding the economic health of communities which depend upon those sources of fresh water.

An additional hazard involves the destruction of sea grass habitat both offshore and in the rivers by both the raising of ambient water temperature and the spilling of pollutants into aquifer feeds. The ecological damage of transmission line corridors extending many miles across Florida is both deplorable and very costly.

Safety issues.

The leaking of Tritium into the environment with risks of cancer, birth defects and genetic damage in humans poses a significant health risk.

Increased risks of nuclear weapon proliferation. Safety hazards and security against terrorist attacks will pose security risks for years to come.

Electromagnetic emissions, probably cancer causing, need to be contained especially in regard to busing of children underneath the transmission lines every day.

Economic issues.

(October 28th, 2008. The Earth Policy Institute  comments upon The Flawed Economics of Nuclear Power.)

Since 1990, about half of our increased energy demand worldwide has been met with increased efficiency, not new generation. New nuclear plants cannot attract private capital as they are considered to be too risky. One consequent aggregious iniquity (allowed by a late line item added to a Florida law) is the charging of existing customers a surcharge to cover costs of building future Nuclear generating capacity. Especially when costs and timetables are uncertain, and the plants might never be built or come in time to benefit those paying the costs. This together with passing on "rising fuel costs" is planned to cost Progress Energy customers a 37% increase in monthly electricity charges in 2009, tantamount to an energy tax by a corporation.

Each 1,100 MW Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor proposed by Duke Power and Progress Energy will cost $7 billion ($6.36 per watt) to build. In March 2008 Progress Energy announced that its two new Westinghouse AP1000 units on a greenfield site in Florida would cost it about $14 billion, including land, plant components, cooling towers, financing costs, license application, regulatory fees, initial fuel for two units, owner's costs, insurance and taxes, escalation and contingencies. If built within 18 months of each other, the cost for the first would be $5144 per kilowatt and the second $3376/kW, say $9.6 billion. Interest adds about one third to the combined figure – $3.2 billion, and infrastructure – notably 320 km of transmission lines – about another $3 billion. A grand total of $15.8 billion. All being well, the units would be expected to be online in 2016 and 2017.

The U.S. atomic 'renaissance' has no tangible approved design (not even the AP 1000 unit), and no firm construction or operating costs to present. However, a 2007 EU study suggested that all–in–all cost for nuclear generated electricity would be between US c/kWh 5.4 to 7.4.

For nuclear power plants any cost figures should include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power (ie they have to be paid or set aside securely by the utility generating the power, and the cost passed on to the customer in the actual tariff). Decommissioning costs are about 9–15% of the initial capital cost of a nuclear power plant. But when discounted, they contribute only a few percent to the investment cost and even less to the generation cost. In the USA they account for 0.1–0.2 c/kWh, which is no more than 5% of the cost of the electricity produced. The back–end of the fuel cycle, including used fuel storage or disposal in a waste repository, contributes up to another 10% to the overall costs per kWh – less if there is direct disposal of used fuel rather than reprocessing. The $26 billion US used fuel program is funded by a 0.1 c/kWh levy. The current practice of storing spent fuel in on site ponds exposes it to an untenable longer term security risk.

A report from the McKinsey Global Institute stated that the installation of highly efficient light bulbs and appliances nation–wide could displace the equivalent output of more than 60 large nuclear plants. Clearly, there's room for efficiency improvements.

The primary argument made for the necessity of increased energy demand is to fuel economic growth, when forcasting economic growth is an uncertain science. However, we can still achieve much economic growth without building new power plants except to replace ones that retire. The principal reason for energy corporations to want to invest in nuclear generation is to preserve their monopoly supply and resist putting the means of generating electricity into the hands of their customers with, for example, solar panels.

The principal drawbacks of nuclear power includes the costs and time to build each plant measured in billions of dollars and a decade to build. Coupled with costs of disposal of the toxic waste, which remains active for hundreds of thousands of years.

Summary

In the larger picture, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission revealed on June 27, 2008, that there is no finalized design, and no firm price tag. Southeastern U.S. citizens are being billed to pay towards a second generation of nuclear power plants for which ultimate costs are not known and certainty of their provision is questionable. Increased fuel costs are already causing bills to skyrocket. These reactor projects cannot get private financing, and cannot proceed without either massive federal subsidies and loan guarantees, or a flood of state–based (taxpayer) give–aways. They cannot get private insurance against future melt–downs, and also have no solution for the radioactive waste problem. Current estimates for finishing the proposed Yucca Mountain national waste repository, also yet to be licensed, are soaring toward $100 billion, even though it too, may never open.

Energy efficiency is not only the cheapest and easiest way to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions; it will actually save consumers money.