|
Nuclear
Energy and the Environment
Nuclear energy poses challenging questions across all
fronts: How environmentally friendly is it? What are
the alternatives? What are the proliferation concerns?
How will waste disposal occur? The pressing question is
this: how can these issues be adequately addressed
without putting the risks on future generations or
reverting to fears about a technology that is not well
understood?
By Nathaniel Skinner
Nuclear energy has sprung into the forefront of the
environmental debate as a clean energy source. This
article will analyse nuclear energy within the broader
context of alternative clean energy sources, energy
security, and energy policy. These three frameworks will
help provide a better understanding of the challenges,
risks and benefits that expanding nuclear power may
incur.
Powerful propositions
There are several forms of alternative energy currently
in use. Prime amongst these are solar, wind, and
nuclear, with tidal power entering into serious
consideration but not currently available on a
commercial basis. Geothermal is not considered here due
to strong restrictions on its placement, often in
locales not very populous.
Solar and wind are both primarily decentralised power
sources, useful as an addition to more centralised
sources like nuclear, coal, gas, oil and hydro power.
While there are several large-scale solar and wind
projects underway globally, most provide power in the
tens or hundreds of megawatts and not thousands of
megawatts like more traditional energy sources
provide.[1, 2]
Nuclear power alone can provide power in the hundred to
thousands of megawatts range. This fact is important, as
a single atomic power plant is capable of providing the
entire energy need for most countries, as compared to
the widespread construction needed to bring solar or
wind power to regions lacking electricity.
The decentralised nature of solar and wind power, as
operational today, does not require the massive
construction projects needed to provide remote outlying
areas with connectivity to the energy grid that large
projects like coal, natural gas, or nuclear need.
Virtues in abundance
Still, several benefits are derived from nuclear
energy. It is a relatively clean source of non-renewable
energy in terms of emissions: it is undeniable that
nuclear power is more environmentally friendly than
coal, oil, or gas from an emissions standpoint. Like
renewable energy, nuclear energy does not emit
greenhouse gasses during power generation.[3]
When nuclear energy is compared with coal, it emits 0.85
tons less carbon dioxide, over 2 kilograms nitrogen
oxides, and nearly 3 kilograms of sulphur dioxide for
every megawatt hour of energy produced.[4] Countries
burning dirtier coal in less efficient and dirtier power
plants are likely to see higher emissions than these.
Other coal-fired power plants are likely to have higher
emissions if their technology and scrubbing techniques
are not as advanced as Canadian ones.
Coal is utilised here for reference, even though both
oil and natural gas are cleaner burning sources, due to
coal's wider availability and use, with supplies
estimated to last over two centuries.[5] Coal is also
the fastest growing energy source, according to the
International Energy Outlook 2006, surpassing even
natural gas.[6] In this way nuclear energy is more
environmentally friendly.
It also, as advocates are quick to point out, is the
only major clean-burning, always-available power source.
Unlike solar or wind power, nuclear energy is available
day or night, regardless of meteorological conditions.
It also does not cause problems similar to hydro-power
where new reservoirs need to be dug with large water
supplies, or the very location-specific requirements of
geothermal power. Nuclear power construction can occur
nearly anywhere a site large enough can be found.
The last comparison is between energy source costs.
Energy prices (cents per KWh): Coal 4.8-5.5; Nuclear
11.1-14.5; Gas 3.9-4.4; Hydro 5.1-11.3; Wind 4.0-6.0;
Solar 15-30; and Geothermal 4.5-30.[7] Combined with
this is the differing incentive system rate, or
subsidies given by governments. In the US, an estimated
$644 billion dollars in subsidies have been received by
the energy industry between 1950 and 2003. Of that sum,
oil received nearly half, nuclear, hydro, coal, and
natural gas took over 40pc, and the less than 10pc that
remained went to renewable energy and geothermal power.
These costs, while relatively small on a kilowatt hour
basis, do add to the overall cost for these energy
sources and help distort market development. Excluding
the environmental harm caused by each energy source into
the cost consumers pay distorts the market even more
greatly and hides the pollution cost from the buyer.
Uranium supplies are expected to last until the end of
the century.[8, 9] The creation of international fuel
banks and uninterrupted fuel supply access concerns many
nations. Several initiatives have begun to address this
issue globally. These include the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP), INFCIRC/640 Supply Assurance
Proposals, the Russian Nuclear Centers Supply, the World
Nuclear Association Proposal, the Six Countries'
Reliable Access to Nuclear Fuel Proposals, and the IAEA
Controlled Uranium Fuel Bank amongst other
proposals.[10] These proposals are all designed to
reduce proliferation risks through fuel-cycle expansion
and potentially create a commercial market for
processing and/or reprocessing.
Hazardous waste
Nuclear energy, however, has two drawbacks, one of which
no other energy source has. These two drawbacks are
linked directly to each other and the nature of
radioactive materials. The first is the mining needed to
extract uranium. This brings uranium to the surface and
the leftover material is dumped out in radioactive
tailings.[11] Tailings are mining waste and by-products.
These tailings are toxic not just through radioactivity
but also through other means. Russia threatened halting
uranium mine-tailing imports due to environmental
concerns.[12] Tailings left in Kyrgyzstan threaten
health and water supplies downstream in Uzbekistan and
Tajikistan as well.[13]
The second drawback is the lifespan of nuclear waste.
While carbon dioxide produced from traditional energy
sources can remain active for decades, and nitrous
oxides over a century, nuclear waste can remain
radioactive and deadly for thousands of millennia.[14]
No country has to date discovered a way to deal
effectively with this threat.
Carbon may one day be sequestered and even used to
increase pressure to further oil and gas extraction, and
sulphur and nitrogen can be removed through scrubbing
systems. We do not yet possess the technological means
to safely eliminate the nuclear waste threat. Even the
best solutions in the United States rely on long-term
sequestration in Yucca Mountain, Nevada, or another
location similar to it. Many countries lack even serious
debate or the geological conditions necessary for deep
disposal.
International and national laws and environmental
principles all play into the nuclear power cycle and
process. The only country now supporting nuclear waste
importation for reprocessing is Russia. Even there the
waste from abroad cannot be stored permanently, only
kept and held for several decades as part of the
reprocessing cycle.
International law restricts the spread of dual-use
technologies those which are usable for both peaceful
and weapon missions. Environmental principles extending
from the 1972 Stockholm Declaration also are applicable
to the nuclear energy debate. The second principle
states, "The natural resources of the earth
must be
safeguarded for the benefit of present and future
generations through careful planning or management as
appropriate."[15]
Nuclear waste, regardless of the source, fits perfectly
into this definition. It is a natural resource product
that must literally be safeguarded both now and in the
future through careful planning and management. The use
and resulting nuclear energy waste creation can last
thousands of years, negatively impacting everything from
the land to the oceans to humans. Even nuclear waste
storage facilities are subject to irradiation. The Lepse,
a Russian vessel where the Northern ice breaker fleet
nuclear waste is stored, has become so radioactive that
even the ship will require dismantlement prior to final
disposal.[16]
Furthermore, "in most countries, nuclear power
generation and other applications of radioactive
materials started before plans for the disposal of the
resulting radioactive waste were well developed"
demonstrating a lack of proper planning before spreading
its use.[17] This situation holds true today, with
countries seeking power or nuclear power expansion while
still not possessing methods for safe management and
disposal.
Bury it deep
Key dangerous nuclear waste elements include Stronium-90
and Cesium-137. Strontium-90 has a half-life of
twenty-five years while Cesium-137's half-life is
thirty-three years.[18] The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission reports that Plutonium-239 has a half-life of
24,000 years. In addition some radioactive waste is so
harmful that "ten years after removal from a reactor,
the surface dose rate for a typical spent fuel assembly
exceeds 10,000 rem/hour, whereas a fatal whole-body dose
for humans is about 500 rem". In other words, it is 20
times the lethal dose.[19] One way to reduce this risk
is deep geological disposal, which is, according to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the best
currently available nuclear waste disposal method.[20]
In deep geological disposal, sites are analysed and
verified as geophysically secure from earthquakes or
other events. A hole is then dug to a depth dependent on
local geological conditions and nuclear waste stored
within. In the Norwegian Himdalen facility it is 50
metres deep, while in New Mexico's Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant it is 650 metres.[21] Seven European countries,
the US, and Canada have examined geological disposal
sites.[22]
No country yet possesses a functioning full-scale
facility. These sites must also meet further geological
requirements, including naturally-occurring
radiation-resistant material layers such as nearly
perfect clay, or fluorite-containing materials.[23]
Geological storage's advantage is that it is secure from
almost all forms of tampering. Natural forces should,
according to recorded observations, be unable to touch
them, radiation should not leak out and threaten life,
and human interference is unlikely until such a time as
better methods are available.
A geological time bomb
There has been no Chernobyl or Three Mile Island
accident with nuclear waste, but it is only a matter of
time. The Kola Peninsula boasts the greatest nuclear
materials concentration and waste in the world.[24]
Other sites like Hanford occasionally have waste
leakages into major rivers like the Columbia,
endangering not only humans but also threatened species
like salmon. As the IAEA has concluded, "the safety of
geological disposal has been widely accepted amongst the
technical community" and as such is a viable option,
tempered by reliance on finding areas where the waste is
disposable and the local communities agree to accept
it.[25]
Other disposal options like oceanic dumping occur in
Russia, sometimes on purpose, other times accidentally.
Yet without workable nuclear waste solutions, it is
impossible to recommend the expansion of nuclear power.
Science first created the nuclear waste disposal problem
in 1942 with the US Manhattan Project.[26] In that year,
at the Chicago Fermi pile, the first sustained nuclear
reaction occurred. Three years later, in the New Mexico
desert on July 16, 1945, the first nuclear weapon in the
world was detonated at the White Sands Missile Range.
"It also promised 'peace through strength' and energy
'too cheap to meter'."[27]
At that time the stage was set for today's nuclear waste
problems by failing to create a solution when the
problem arose and passing the burden to future
generations. Nuclear waste disposal was "recognised as
an issue to be resolved, but of no pressing
urgency."[28] Today, 65 years later, it is still too
easy to say that it is an issue needing resolution but
of no pressing urgency.
Securely nuclear?
The last nuclear energy pillar discussed here is energy
security. Nuclear energy proponents cite it as an energy
source more secure against supply disruptions than gas,
oil or coal. This security is false, unless security
means only energy-resource diversification. Just like
coal, oil and gas, uranium is a finite natural resource
which is in only a few countries. The major suppliers
according to the OECD NEA & IAEA Uranium 2005:
Resources, Production and Demand are, in order of
supplies; Australia, Kazakhstan, Canada, the US, South
Africa, Namibia, Brazil, Niger, Russian Federation,
Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Jordan, India, and China.[29, 30]
Of these Russia, Canada, the US, Kazakhstan, and
Australia are also in the top 20 oil exporters
globally.[31]
This diversity provides the illusion of increased
security. Nuclear power expansion threatens the
expansion of nuclear technologies and potentially
weapons in an age where nuclear terrorism is of great
concern. More widespread nuclear power generation may
even shift potential terrorists away from the Middle
East to other areas that are unstable or face increased
Russian influence, such as Uzbekistan and the Ukraine.
In the balance
Nuclear energy has its benefits and costs. The
question is if the benefits exceed the costs, and that
is open to debate. It offers essentially a devil's
bargain of cleaner air and reduced greenhouse gas
emissions for long-term nuclear waste health hazards,
increased nuclear terrorism risks, and the risk for
another Chernobyl-style accident. Regardless of the
benefits, it is not an immediate panacea for energy
problems. Nuclear energy complexes require years before
they are operational and there is no foreseen shortening
of this time.
Relying on nuclear energy provides false hope toward
reducing global warming impacts from energy creation.
Instead, efforts should and must be focused on reducing
greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants
globally, reducing energy use through efficiency
measures, and beginning to use renewable energy more
broadly. Only when combined with these other measures
can nuclear energy contribute to reducing human impacts
on the earth.
References
[1] Renewable Energy Access, "Wind Riding Favorable
Policy Breeze Toward Record Year", 5 June 2007. http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=48795
<Accessed 10 June 07>;
[2] SEIA, "Solar Energy Types". http://www.seia.org/solartypes.php
<Accessed 6 Aug 2007>.
[3] Nuclear Energy Institute, "Clean-Air Benefits of
Nuclear Energy", http://www.nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/cleanair/
<Accessed 3 Sept 07>.
[4] Canadian Nuclear FAQ, "Monthly Nuclear Generation in
Canada", 2007 Summary, http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/nuke-gen-monthly.htm
<Accessed 4 Aug 07>.
[5] Energy Information Administration, "Coal Reserves",
November 2006, http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/coalreserves.html
<Accessed 3 Sept 07>.
[6] Energy Information Administration, "International
Energy Outlook 2006", Brochure, http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/ieo2006/ieo.html
<Accessed 3 Sept 07>.
[7] PureEnergySystems, "Directory: Cents Per
Kilowatt-Hour", http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour
<Accessed 16 Sept 07>
[8] Uranium Information Centre, "Uranium, Electricity,
and the Greenhouse Effect", March 2006. http://www.uic.com.au/ueg.htm
<Accessed 19 July 07>.
[9] IAEA, "Global Uranium Resources to Meet Projected
Demand", 2 June 2006. http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/uranium_resources.html
<Accessed 10 July [10]Nuclear Fuel Supply Assurances
Seminar, Monterey Institute of International Studies, 27
March 07.
[11] Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia,
"Uranium Mine Tailings". http://www.anawa.org.au/mining/tailings.html
<Accessed 1 Aug 07>.
[12] RIA Novosti, "Russia quits uranium tailings imports
over safety concerns-1", 22 June 2007. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070622/67671389.html
<Accessed 24 June 07>.
[13] Margarita Sevcik, Uranium Tailings in Kygyzstan:
Catalyst for Cooperation and Confidence Building? The
Nonproliferation Review, Spring 2003. http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol10/101/101sevcik.pdf
<Accessed 20 July 07>.
[14] Patricia A. Michaels, "Climate Science: Greenhouse
Gases", Green Nature, 2000. http://greennature.com/article281.html
<Accessed 4 Aug 07>.
[15] United Nations. Declaration on the Human
Environment. Stockholm.
(5 June 1972 to 16 June 1972).
[16] Bellona, "Lepse-prosjektet" 13 March 2006.
http://www.bellona.no/artikler/Lepse_-_prosjektet <12
Nov 2006>
[17] IAEA, The Long Term Storage of Radioactive Waste:
Safety and Sustainability.
[18] Stanley I. Auerbach. The Soil Ecosystem and
Radioactive Waste Disposal to the Ground. Ecology, Vol.
39, No. 3, (Jul., 1958), pp. 522-529. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-9658%28195807%2939%3A3%3C522%3ATSEARW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I
<Accessed 12-10-2006>.
[19] Department of Energy, US Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Backgrounder on Radioactive Waste. (Aug.
1999). http://web.em.doe.gov/em30/waststor.html
<Accessed 12-10-2006>.
[20] IAEA. The Long Term Storage of Radioactive Waste:
Safety and Sustainability.
[21] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. Progress Towards
Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste: Where Do We
Stand? An International Assessment. (1999). http://www.nea.fr/html/rwm/reports/1999/progress.pdf
<Accessed 12-13-2006>.
[22] ibid.
[23] Science Daily. Laboratory Researchers Demonstrate
New Radiation-Tolerant Materials For Possible Nuclear
Waste Storage. (Aug. 3 2000). http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/08/000807063412.htm
<Accessed 12-13-2006>.
[24] Gwyn Prins. "Nuclear Disaster May Still Be
Averted." http://www.pugwash.org/reports/nw/nw8c.htm <2
Dec 2006>
[25] IAEA. The Long Term Storage of Radioactive Waste:
Safety and Sustainability.
[26] The Manhattan Project was a US-led atomic program
during WWII which ultimately concluded with the atomic
bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.
[27] The Seattle Times. "50 Years from Trinity." (Aug.
1995). http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/trinity/articles/part1.html
<Accessed 8 Dec 2006>
[28] Lowenthal, Micah D, Radioactive Waste
Classification in the United States: History and Current
Predicaments, Center for Nuclear and Toxic Waste
Management, Berkeley, CA http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/16339-ZtRZDZ/native/16339.pdf
<Accessed 15 April 07>.
[29] http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/uranium_resources.html
[30] Supply of Uranium, UIC Nuclear Issues Briefing
Paper #75, March 2007. http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm
<Accessed 4 Aug 07>.
[31] The CIA World Fact Book, "Rank Order Oil
exports", updated 19 July, 2007. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2176rank.html
<Accessed 20 July 07>.
|
