Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth About Nuclear Power

[kristopher]

From Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR):

The nuclear industry seeks to revitalize itself by manipulating the public’s concerns about global warming and energy insecurity to promote nuclear power as a clean and safe way to curb emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce dependence on foreign energy resources. Despite these claims by industry proponents, a thorough examination of the full life-cycle of nuclear power generation reveals nuclear power to be a dirty, dangerous and expensive form of energy that poses serious risks to human health, national security and U.S. taxpayers.

Nuclear Power is Dirty

Each year, enormous quantities of radioactive waste are created during the nuclear fuel process, including 2,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste(1) and 12 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste(2) in the U.S. alone. More than 58,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel already has accumulated at reactor sites around the U.S. for which there currently is no permanent repository. Even without new nuclear production, the inventory of commercial spent fuel in the U.S. already exceeds the 63,000 metric ton statutory capacity of the controversial Yucca Mountain repository, which has yet to receive a license to operate. Even if Yucca Mountain is licensed, the Department of Energy has stated that it would not open before 2017.

Uranium, which must be removed from the ground, is used to fuel nuclear reactors. Uranium mining, which creates serious health and environmental problems, has disproportionately impacted indigenous people because much of the world’s uranium is located under indigenous land. Uranium miners experience higher rates of lung cancer, tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases. The production of 1,000 tons of uranium fuel generates approximately 100,000 tons of radioactive tailings and nearly one million gallons of liquid waste containing heavy metals and arsenic in addition to radioactivity.(3) These uranium tailings have contaminated rivers and lakes. A new method of uranium mining, known as in-situ leaching, does not produce tailings but it does threaten contamination of groundwater water supplies.

Serious Safety Concerns

Despite proponents’ claims that it is safe, the history of nuclear energy is marked by a number of disasters and near disasters. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine is one of the most frightening examples of the potentially catastrophic consequences of a nuclear accident. An estimated 220,000 people were displaced from their homes, and the radioactive fallout from the accident made 4,440 square kilometers of agricultural land and 6,820 square kilometers of forests in Belarus and Ukraine unusable. It is extremely difficult to get accurate information about the health effects from Chernobyl. Government agencies in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus estimate that about 25,000 of the 600,000 involved in fire-fighting and clean up operations have died so far because of radiation exposure from the accident.(4) According to an April 2006 report commissioned by the European Greens for the European Parliament, there will be an additional 30,000 to 60,000 fatal cancer deaths worldwide from the accident.(5)

In 1979, the United States had its own disaster following an accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor in Pennsylvania. Although there were no immediate deaths, the incident had serious health consequences for the surrounding area. A 1997 study found that those people living downwind of the reactor at the time of the event were two to ten times more likely to contract lung cancer or leukemia than those living upwind of the radioactive fallout.(6) The dangers of nuclear power have been underscored more recently by the close call of a catastrophic meltdown at the Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio in 2002, which in the years preceding the incident had received a near-perfect safety score.(3)

Climate change may further increase the risk of nuclear accidents. Heat waves, which are expected to become more frequent and intense as a result of global warming, can force the shut down or the power output reduction of reactors. During the 2006 heat wave, reactors in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Minnesota, as well as in France, Spain and Germany, were impacted. The European heat wave in the summer of 2003 caused cooling problems at French reactors that forced engineers to tell the government that they could no longer guarantee the safety of the country’s 58 nuclear power reactors.(3)

Proliferation, Loose Nukes and Terrorism

The inextricable link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is arguably the greatest danger of nuclear power. The same process used to manufacture low-enriched uranium for nuclear fuel also can be employed for the production of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. As it has in the past, expansion of nuclear power could lead to an increase in the number of both nuclear weapons states and ‘threshold’ nuclear states that could quickly produce weapons by utilizing facilities and materials from their ‘civil’ nuclear programs a scenario many fear may be playing out in Iran. Expanded use of nuclear power would increase the risk that commercial nuclear technology will be used to construct clandestine weapons facilities, as was done by Pakistan.

In addition to uranium, plutonium can also be used to make a nuclear bomb. Plutonium, which is found only in extremely small quantities in nature, is produced in nuclear reactors. Reprocessing spent fuel to separate plutonium from the highly radioactive barrier in spent fuel rods, as is being proposed as a ‘waste solution’ under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, increases the risk that the plutonium can be diverted or stolen for the production of nuclear weapons or radioactive ‘dirty’ bombs. Reprocessing is also the most polluting part of the nuclear fuel cycle. The reprocessing facility in France, La Hague, is the world’s largest anthropogenic source of radioactivity and its releases have been found in the Arctic Circle.

In addition to the threat of nuclear materials, nuclear reactors are themselves potential terrorist targets. Nuclear reactors are not designed to withstand attacks using large aircraft, such as those used on the September 11, 2001.(7) A well-coordinated attack could have severe consequences for human health and the environment. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that a major attack on the Indian Point Reactor in Westchester County, New York, could result in 44,000 near-term deaths from acute radiation sickness and more than 500,000 long-term deaths from cancer among individuals within 50 miles of the reactor.(8)

Nuclear Power Doesn’t Mean Energy Independence

Assertions that nuclear power can lead us to energy independence are incorrect. In 2007, more than 90 percent of the uranium used in U.S. nuclear power reactors was imported.(9) The U.S. only has the ninth largest reasonably assured uranium resources in the world.(10) Most of it is low to medium grade, which is not only more polluting but also less economical than uranium found in other nations. The U.S.’s high-priced uranium resources and world uranium price volatility mean that current dependence on foreign sources of uranium is not likely to change significantly in the future.

One country that the U.S. continues to rely on for uranium is Russia. The Continuing Resolution signed into law in September 2008 extended and expanded the program to import Russian highly enriched uranium that has been down-blended for use in U.S. commercial reactors. This program, which was set to expire in 2013, has been extended through 2020 and expanded to allow more uranium imports per year from Russia. While the program is an important non-proliferation measure (highly enriched uranium can be used to make a nuclear weapon), it means that the U.S. will continue to rely on Russia for a significant amount of uranium for commercial nuclear reactors.

Nuclear is Expensive

In 1954, then Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Lewis Strauss promised that the nuclear industry would one day provide energy “too cheap to meter.”(5) More than 50 years and tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies later, nuclear power remains prohibitively expensive. Even among the business and financial communities, it is widely accepted that nuclear power would not be economically viable without government support.(11) Despite this poor economic performance, the federal government has continued to pour money into the nuclear industry the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included more than $13 billion in production subsidies, tax breaks and other incentives for nuclear power.

The most important subsidy for the nuclear industry and the most expensive for U.S. taxpayers comes in the form of loan guarantees, which are promises that taxpayers will bail out the nuclear utilities by paying back their loans when the projects fail. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the failure rate for nuclear projects is “very high well above 50 percent.”(12) The nuclear industry is demanding $122 billion in federal loan guarantees for 21 reactors. If these guarantees were authorized, taxpayers would be on the hook for at least $61 billion.

Making the Safe, Sustainable Investment

It is clear that alternatives to fossil fuels must be developed on a large scale. However, nuclear power is neither renewable nor clean and therefore not a wise option. Even if one were to disregard the waste problems, safety risks and dismal economics, nuclear power is both too slow and too limited a solution to global warming and energy insecurity. Given the urgent need to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the long lead times required for the design, permitting and construction of nuclear reactors render nuclear power an ineffective option for addressing global warming.

Taxpayer dollars would be better spent on increasing energy conservation, efficiency and developing renewable energy resources. In fact, numerous studies have shown that improving energy efficiency is the most cost-effective and sustainable way to concurrently reduce energy demand and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Wind power already is less expensive than nuclear power. And while photovoltaic power is currently more expensive than nuclear energy, the price of electricity produced by the sun, as with wind and other forms of renewable energy, is falling quickly. Conversely, the cost of nuclear power is rising.(3,11)

When the very serious risk of accidents, proliferation, terrorism and nuclear war are considered, it is clear that investment in nuclear power as a climate change solution is not only misguided, but also highly dangerous. As we look for solutions to the dual threats of global warming and energy insecurity, we should focus our efforts on improving energy conservation and efficiency and expanding the use of safe, clean renewable forms of energy to build a new energy future for the nation.

Call the Capital Switch Board (1-202-224-3121) to ask for your Congressional Representative and your Senators and urge them to oppose subsidies to the dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear industry.

http://www.psr.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Nuclear_power_fact_sheet

[Karenina]

1. I've been asking this question nigh 50 years...

:freak:

WHAT IS NOT TO GET HERE?

:freak:

[backwoodsbob]

2. solar has been ten years away for what?

40 years now?

[Karenina]

3. You remember the FIRST THING Reagan did

to Carter's energy improvements to the WH, I'm sure... :argh:

[angryfirelord]

4. I call BS

France has been using nuclear for years and I've yet to see another Chernobyl. They've improved the ability to reuse rods, so if they're recycling rods, then less uranium needs to be mined. Nuclear power plants are built to be extremely safe from any threat, so the likelihood of a "terrorist" getting hands on a nuclear device is very slim to none.

Now, it's true that building the plants are expensive, but the plants pay for themselves. In term of kilowatt hours, nuclear scales up extremely well and is by far much more cheaper than wind or solar power. The only renewable at this point that can compete is geothermal, but that only works in a few areas. Wind and solar still have a ways to go, not to mention that neither of the two can generate consistent power 24/7.

So, let's cut the Greenpeace BS and implement a comprehensive energy plan that is the most practical, not what is most ideal. If you want a clear form of clean energy away from coal, nuclear is the way to go, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

[DCKit]

5. No, it's not Chermobyl, but insidious, all the same.

They're polluting the groundwater.

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=44937

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2006/2006-05-29-02.asp

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/nuclear-waste-crisis-france.pdf

I'd give you points for trying, but refuting you claim of clean, French nookulur power took a grand total of forty seconds.

[NNadir]

6. On what fucking planet do you believe that dangerous fossil fuels don't pollute

ocean water, ground water, river water, pond water and rain water?

Couldn't care less?

Why am I not surprised?

If you get your science from Greenpeace, you don't get ANY science whatsoever, just moronic selective attention.

Nuclear power need not be perfect to better than all of the stuff dumb anti-nukes don't care about. In fact, it need not be perfect to better than everything else.

It merely needs to be better than everything else, which it is, by a long shot.

I note, with due contempt, that the anti-nuke cults couldn't give a fuck what happened to the ground water under San Jose because of the "green" semiconductor industry that operated there.

The waste profile of the stupid failed solar industry, which hasn't produced even one exajoule of the 500 exajoules used by humanity is identical to the crap that destroyed the ground water under San Jose forever.

[angryfirelord]

7. I stand corrected

That's why I'm not going into environmental science. :)

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/power-010709.html

Although I still think we should leave nuclear on the table until wind and solar catch up.

[kristopher]

9. Nuclear and ethanol least effective climate change solutions

Review of Solutions to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security

Mark Z. Jacobson Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,

Energy Environ. Sci., 2008, doi:10.1039/b809990C In press, October 30, 2008

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-E85 and cellulosic E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. ...

Summary
This paper evaluated nine electric power sources (solar-PV, CSP, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with CCS) and two liquid fuel options (corn E85, cellulosic E85) in combination with three vehicle technologies (BEVs, HFCVs, and E85 vehicles) with respect to their effects on global-warming-relevant emissions, air pollution mortality, and several other factors.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type were considered in all. Among these, the highest-ranked (Tier 1 technologies) were wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.

Tier 2 technologies were CSP-BEVs, Geo-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.

Tier 3 technologies were hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.

Tier 4 technologies were corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs performed best in six out of 11 categories, including mortality, climate-relevant emissions, footprint, water consumption, effects on wildlife, thermal pollution, and water chemical pollution. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 5.5-6 orders of magnitude less than that for E85 regardless of its source, 4 orders of magnitude less than those of CSP-BEVs or solar-BEVs, 3 orders of magnitude less than those of nuclear- or coal-BEVs, and 2-2.5 orders of magnitude less than those of geothermal, tidal, or wave BEVs.

The intermittency of wind, solar, and wave power can be reduced in several ways:
(1) interconnecting geographically-disperse intermittent sources through the transmission system,
(2) combining different intermittent sources (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and wave) to smooth out loads, using hydro to provide peaking and load balancing,
(3) using smart meters to provide electric power to electric vehicles at optimal times,
(4) storing wind energy in hydrogen, batteries, pumped hydroelectric power, compressed air, or a thermal storage medium, and
(5) forecasting weather to improve grid planning.

Although HFCVs are less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs still provide a 39
greater benefit than any other vehicle technology aside from wind-BEVs. Wind-HFCVs are also the most reliable combination due to the low downtime of wind turbines, the distributed nature of turbines, and the ability of wind’s energy to be stored in hydrogen over time.

The Tier 2 combinations all provide outstanding benefits with respect to climate
and mortality. Among Tier 2 combinations, CSP-BEVs result in the lowest CO2e
emissions and mortality. Geothermal-BEVs requires the lowest array spacing among all options. Although PV-BEV result in slightly less climate benefit than CSP-BEVs, the resource for PVs is the largest among all technologies considered. Further, much of it can be implemented unobtrusively on rooftops. Underwater tidal powering BEVs is the least likely to be disrupted by terrorism or severe weather.

The Tier 3 technologies are less beneficial than the others. However,
hydroelectricity is an excellent load-balancer and cleaner than coal-CCS or nuclear with respect to CO2e and air pollution. As such, hydroelectricity is recommended ahead of these other Tier-3 power sources.

The Tier-4 technologies (cellulosic- and corn-E85) are not only the lowest in terms of ranking, but may worsen climate and air pollution problems. They also require significant land relative to other technologies Cellulosic-E85 may have a larger land footprint and higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Mainly for this reason, it scored lower overall than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality among all technologies, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-estimate risk of mortality due to the risk of nuclear attacks resulting from the spread of nuclear energy facilities that allows for the production of nuclear weapons. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest consumers are wind-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.

In sum, the use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, solar, wave, and hydroelectric to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs result in the most benefit and least impact among the options considered. Coal-CCS and nuclear provide less benefit with greater negative impacts. The biofuel options provide no certain benefit and result in significant negative impacts. Because sufficient clean natural resources (e.g., wind, sunlight, hot water, ocean energy, gravitational energy) exists to power all energy for the world, the results here suggest that the diversion of attention to the less efficient or non-efficient options would represent an opportunity cost that will delay solutions to climate and air pollution health problems.

The relative ranking of each electricity-BEV option also applies to the electricity source when used to provide electricity for general purposes. The implementation of the recommended electricity options for providing vehicle and building electricity requires organization. Ideally, good locations of energy resources would be sited in advance and developed simultaneously with an interconnected transmission system. This requires cooperation at multiple levels of government. ...

http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLinking/DisplayHTMLArticleforfree.cfm?JournalCode=EE&Year=2009&ManuscriptID=b809990c&Iss=Advance_Article

You may want to look at table 1.

[angryfirelord]

12. Thanks!

I didn't realize wind and solar had so much potential. Looks like I'll have to do a little more digging.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. So, what's your preferred poison?

Solar? Wind? Geothermal? Hydro?

All energy production has some sort of impact on the environment: We either wait for something else to turn up, say "Bugger it" and go live in caves, or use the best technologies we've got and try to clean them up in the process.

[DCKit]

10. Until we can trust the government to police these corporations properly...

we're better off sticking with technologies embodying the least risk. If a corporation can save just a few bucks and there is little risk of getting caught, they'll do whatever it takes to improve profit. That mentality needs to go the way of the dinosaurs.

If the penalties (including substantial jail time and economic ruin) for releasing radiation and environmental toxins were anywhere equal to the potential damage, I'd be a lot more comfortable about endorsing all of the above.

The failure is regulatory.

[Dead_Parrot]

11. Yeah, deregulation's a bitch

I wish I could offer a solution (even a far-fetched, idealist one) but I rather think it's human nature.

:(