Nuclear
After a general introduction to nuclear energy, the pros and cons of nuclear are listed in the table below.
In a nuclear-powered electrical generating plant, uranium fuel roads are brought together under highly controlled conditions to create an atomic chain reaction that produces great heat. That heat is transferred to water, changing it to steam, which turns turbines to generate electricity.
Globally, 12% of the world's electricity and 5% of the total energy are nuclear generated. Some nations derive much more of their energy from nuclear plants: France, for example gets 77% of its electricity from nuclear plants, Belgium 56% and Sweden 49%. There are currently 442 reactors operating worldwide. Asia is the only region where the nuclear-power industry is expected to expand significantly in the foreseeable future. The UK also made recent announcements. In 1980, 3.6% of all the energy consumed in the U.S was produced by nuclear power plants. Today this is about 20% in the U.S. which now has 103 operational nuclear power stations.
The arguments for and against nuclear power taking up the slack as energy from petroleum production declines are given in the table below. Most of the information in the table comes from Richard Heinberg's book “The Party's Over”;
|
|
For Nuclear |
Against Nuclear |
|
Abundant |
There is a virtually limitless supply of fuel (assuming breeder reactors, which reprocess spent fuel) |
The fuel supply for nuclear is virtually limitless if fast-breeder reactors are used to produce plutonium. Only a few fast-breed reactors have been constructed and they have proved to be prohibitively expensive, largely as a result of the need for special safety systems. These reactors generate an extraordinary amount of heat in a very small space and use molten metals or liquid sodium to remove the heat. Designing reactors to take these properties into account has made them costly to build and maintain. It also makes them susceptible to serious fires and long shutdowns: the French Superphoenix reactor operated for less than one year during the first ten years after it had been commissioned. France and the UK, despite having pursued breeder programs for several decades have no plans for constructing more such plants. Japan has not restarted its Monju reactor, which was shut down after a sodium fire in 1995. Among countries that have constructed breeders, Russia alone supports further development. It is also possible to reprocess spent fuel into a form known as MOX (mixed oxide), which consists of a mixture of plutonium and uranium. Only two MOX plants have been built (one in the UK and another in France) and both have turned out to be environmental and financial nightmares. Uranium – the usual fuel for conventional reactors must be mined and it exists in finite quantities. The US currently possesses enough uranium to fuel existing nuclear reactors for the next 40 years. The mining process is wasteful, polluting and dangerous: the early New Mexico uranium mines, which employed mostly Navajo workers, ruined thousands of acres of Native lands and poisoned workers and their families. |
|
Clean |
It is non-polluting, having no CO2 emissions; wastes are produced in small quantities and the problem of their disposal will be solved once a single permanent repository is created. |
The nuclear chain reaction itself does not emit any carbon dioxide but mining uranium ore, refining it and concentrating it to make it fissionable are all highly polluting processes. If the whole fuel cycle is taken into account, nuclear power produces several times as much CO2 as renewable energy sources. The assertion that nuclear waste is only produced in small quantities is misleading. Direct wastes include roughly 1,000 metric tons of high and low level waste per plant per year – hardly a trivial amount, given that much of this waste will pose hazards for thousands or tens of thousands of years to come. Furthermore this figure does not include uranium mill tailings, which are also radioactive and can amount to 100,000 metric tons per nuclear power plant per year. No country has yet succeeded in building a permanent high-level nuclear waste repository. Moreover, the transporting of wastes to such a central repository would create extra dangers. |
|
Practical |
Nuclear fuel has the highest energy density of any fuel; furthermore, nuclear power is inexpensive, the produced electricity being cheaper than energy from coal |
It is true that nuclear fuel has an extraordinary high energy density but this is the case only for uranium that has already been separated from tailings and been processed – which itself is a far more hazardous and energy-intensive procedure than drilling for oil or mining coal. The costs typically quoted for nuclear-generated electricity are operating costs only, including fuel, maintenance and personnel. Fully costed nuclear is by far the most expensive conventional energy source. Indeed, total costs are so high that, following the passage of energy deregulation bills in several states in the U.S, nuclear plants were deemed unable to compete and so utility companies like California's PG & E had to be bailed out by consumers for nuclear-related “stranded costs”. Germany has decided to phase out nuclear power for both economic and environmental reasons. |
|
Safe |
It is safer than many people believe and is becoming safer all the time. The likelihood of a person dying from a nuclear accident is already far lower than that of dying in an airplane crash, while new technology on the drawing boards will make nuclear power virtually 100% safe in the future. |
For the general public, safety is probably the foremost concern about nuclear power. Siting nuclear plants has always been a challenge, as communities typically fear becoming the next Three Mile Island or Chernoybl. Earthquake zones must be ruled out, along with urban areas (due to evacuation problems). While the statistical likelihood of any given individual dying in a nuclear accident is quite low, if a truly catastrophic accident were to occur, many thousands or even millions could be sickened or die as a result. Nuclear power's record of mishaps is long and disturbing. It is a telling fact that the industry in some countries has required special legislation (e.g. the Price-Anderson Act) to limit the liability of nuclear-power plant operators in the event of a major accident |
|
Cheap |
Today, electricity from nuclear plants is inexpensive – the industry sometimes cites costs as low as two cents per kilowatt-hour |
In the 1950s, promoters promised that nuclear power would be so cheap as to be essentially free; but experience proved otherwise. Today, electricity from nuclear plants is inexpensive – the industry sometimes cites costs as low as two cents per kilowatt-hour – but this is true if only direct costs are considered. If the immense expenditures for plant construction and safety, reactor decommissioning and waste storage are taken into account, nuclear power is very expensive indeed. In the energy shortage of the 1970s conservation of energy proved to be more cost effective than nuclear energy. The prime reason for this were the expenses of providing safety measures against the hazards of radiation release. |