The Misconception of Nuclear Power

On a Connecticut public radio program I listened to recently, two guests discussed their views of the growing energy problem overwhelming the US economy. Both pundits, who are political columnists for national magazines, agreed that in addition to conservation measures and an increase in renewable sources, nuclear power is a card that the US must hold in its hand in order to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and our consumption of fossil fuels. Both speakers agreed that nuclear was a good investment, as it was "clean and had almost no carbon footprint."

The contractors who build nuclear power plants, the energy companies who operate them and the banks that underwrite the bonds that fund them are hoping to take that misconception straight to the bank.

Nuclear power is viewed as problematic typically due to issues involving public health and safety. Grave concerns linger to this day about how to safely dispose of nuclear waste. Since 9/11, security issues dominate much of the debate. Many who are more in tune with the realities of how nuclear power is actually produced in the US currently worry about catastrophic breaches of reactors. They also state, with real evidence on their side, that no level of exposure to ambient radiation produced every day at utility sites is healthy for humans, particularly pregnant women and young children. However, many are now willing to ignore, or at the very least table, serious action on these issues because of the false notion that nuclear power is clean.

Even opponents of nuclear power get it wrong on this issue. At a forum held at the Time Warner offices in New York, Chairman Richard Parsons hosted then Democratic candidate John Edwards in a conversation that included Edwards' opposition to expanding America's nuclear capacity. But even Edwards failed to address the question of "how dirty is the mining and processing of uranium?"

The answer is very dirty. The mining of uranium, like the excavation of any other resource that must be discovered, torn out of the ground and carted away, along with the handling of excess rubble, by heavy equipment, could not be any more polluting. The precious uranium must be taken, by truck, to facilities that themselves require enormous amounts of power in order to process and enrich the radioactive ore into the fissionable material that is used in the reactor that is operated by a utility as a "clean" source of power. The retrieval of any energy resources, whether it be oil, coal or natural gas, requires enormous amounts of energy itself. Even gasoline itself is delivered by trucks that are powered by gasoline. But, along with coal, nothing compares to the mining and processing of uranium. It is an overwhelmingly dirty process on a carbon footprint basis.

Energy companies that are investing in nuclear power by seeking the renewal of the licenses of some of America's aging reactors are counting on the current economic downturn and War-for-Oil fatigue to make the case not only for status quo nuclear capacity, but also for a major expansion of utility reactors across the country. The claim that nuclear power is clean is a lie. And not only due to the carbon-heavy mining and refinement processes, but also due to the complete and incomprehensible avoidance of what to do with the ever-increasing stockpile of its deadly radioactive waste.

In my next post on this subject, I want to share with you some of the work I have been involved with, since 1996, in closing specific reactors, utility and otherwise, and the politics involved with opposing the nuclear industry and their allies in Washington and state houses across the country. In particular, I would like to tell you about Tom's River, New Jersey, the home of Excelon's Oyster Creek reactor, one of the most compromised and dangerous nuclear facilities in the US and what Governor Jon Corzine is doing, and is not doing, to protect the health and safety of the residents of his state.

Comments

[Spiriteddona]

iI am humbled. My comments which are respectful,but my link, which I accidentally copied twice,, yesterday, have not always made Huffington Post, but Doofus is rocking the blog! I bow to you, Doofus with Irish envy! Alec says the World Needs More Patti Lupone! A blog about her! http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/spiriteddona/CNQx

[Doofus]

Wow. Thanks! Hopefully they will name a reactor after me. Or a windmill.

[Peddler]

Let's see.......the US has a nuclear Navy......France is 80% dependent upon nuclear energy.....with the technology of today, they are built better and almost fool proof.......It sounds like you want your cake and eat it too......be fortunate that you don't have to kill the food you eat.......because you would find fault in that......everything in life has a risk......all you want is the benefits without the risk........good luck

[research]

That's why nuclear power plants can't get insurance? Because they are fool poof?

France is a tiny country. If we the whole world goes nuclear, the fuel will be gone in 13 years. And we will have more Chernobyls and three mile islands and worse.

[LeftRight]

Let's see, the nuclear navy is 11 aircraft carriers and 68 submarines. Out of all those, we are looking at less fuel than 2 nuclear power plants, since they aren't as large as a city.

France is taking their spent fuel and reprocessing it, and then once THAT'S used (and MUCH more radioactive!) they are mixing it with glass and then burying it in the ground. The glass works at most for 50 years.

Yeah, that's safe enough!

[joanndarc]

Alec, we almost all have a alot of respect for you but.. the "nuclear power" question is a very complex question.
"Both pundits, who are political columnists for national magazines, agreed that in addition to conservation measures and an increase in renewable sources, nuclear power is a card that the US must hold in its hand"
The problem is that some journalists, pundits or worse polititians are trying to discuss the subject they do not specialize at. When was the last time you have heard a radiochemist or a nuclear physicist discuss the topic? My answer for that question is simple: "I can't recall."
I only hear nonsense, one speculation built on another.
BTW, there is 25-50 times more Uranium on Earth then Lead. Plutonium could be used in nuclear power reactors. Plutonium is produced in "breeders" (type of reactors) from cheap U238.
Waste reprocessing needs to be redeveloped thus needs alot of investment, something that has not been done for decades.
Thank you for the article.

[research]

We can make limitless energy from the fusion using dueterium from the osceans..

except::

Nobody has a working fusion reactor, nor do commercial breeder reactors exist

see my profile for all the links you need to see that nukes will take decades to install, provide only 13 years of the worlds energy, then start the uranium wars. Why? when solar and wind are cheaper and faster with free fuel forever?

Provide links to evidence or shut up.

[WhoneedsGoverment]

I welcome all citizens of the United States.

Do you know we are the insurance company for nuclear plants?

NOW, if we could only do that for our health.

.

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

thanks alec, for knowing what time it is. it is disturbing to hear all the calls for nuke power, when the fact is that it will not be a viable solution to our energy needs.

another thing - one of the excuses that is being used for cranking up the nuclear machine is to "get off our dependence on foreign oil." well the us has 5% of the worlds uranium reserves, and already uses 30% of the worlds uranium. so we trade dependence on foreign oil for dependence on foreign uranium for energy? it's a lose-lose situation.

if the taxpayers are going to fund the creation of new energy sources to get us off our oil dependence, then these energy sources should be renewables (excluding biofuels). it's 2008, for christs sake, our "leaders" need to stop pushing solutions from the past.

[FrankenPC]

I tend to enjoy Mr. Baldwins comments, but In this case, I totally disagree.

#1) Fast reactor technology and sodium cooling have made reactors nearly fool proof and the waste material can line the reactor walls where it is bombarded with gamma rays and deactivated totally. Zero residue.

#2) Existing waste can be buried a mile below the earths surface in abandoned salt mines. The salt collapses over time and grinds the waste to a pulp re-incorporating it into the earths mantle where it came from.

Things have changed. Reactors produce HUGE quantities of energy with zero emissions. We need to keep this technology in mind. Because it's available right now. Waiting for things to change so we can wean ourselves off coal is suicidal.

[pashupat]

Ah, plutonium doesn't come from the Earth's mantle. Plutonium is man-made. We are talking about elements here--they are indestructible (except through nuclear fusion and fission, ie. nuclear power, nuclear bombs, etc.)! Do you really want radioactive waste shooting out of volcanoes?

[shel3364]

make something fool proof and only a fool will want to use it.


Seriously, NOTHING is fool-proof.

[research]

1. please link to operational commercial system. Don't bother, there are NONE. They have been trying to get Breeder fast reactors practical for 50 years, and it may take another 100 years to they make it work, if they were working on it.

2. Salt deposits are formed by rivers. How many times will Yucca flood in a million years?

Things have not changed: it's the same old deadly dirty reactors.

Link to evidence or shut up.

See my profile for all the links you need on nukes, solar, wind and batteries.

Nukes are deadly boondoggle.

[lenski]

I am not religiously anti-nuclear, and I would live within 5 miles of a nuclear plant (though I would be a bit lonely, my wife would *never* do that...).

Having said that, I would no live within 200 miles of a fuel enrichment plant, or the mining of uranium.

Support for nuclear power must include TOTAL LIFECYCLE, not just the plants themselves. One of Alec's points is that even if (big IF) the waste problem is solved, there's the mining and production safety problem. Studies have been done (SciAm 2-3 months ago) describing spent fuel and the plutonium cycle as difficult to do efficiently, and be tempting targets for "terrists". According to those reports and others: uranium is hard to form into bombs, plutonium is easier. I cannot comment personally on the veracity of those claims.

One thing that we know: People responsible for the financial performance of large, highly capitalized industries have never once resisted the temptation to externalize as much risk and as many costs as possible. Therein lies the the real problem with nuclear. As bad as coal and gas are, their dangers remain diffuse, where cutting corners in nuclear concentrates the danger.

Until we find a way to "persuade" managers of nuclear infrastructure that such risk and/or cost externalization cannot work, I believe we should look very warily upon suggestions to use nuclear.

[Doofus]

It seems that 'fast breeder reactor technology' is actually NOT working well so far, according to a post in 'truthout' last year by an environmental group.

http://www.truthout.org/article/environmentalists-oppose-governments-investment-nuclear-energyy]

... 'The theoretical advantage of FBRs is that they generate fuel by producing more fissile material than they consume. This should improve efficiency and avoid the problem of disposal of radioactive waste.

But the actual technology has so far prevented commercial use of FBRs. Practically all FBRs tested around the world have been shut down, or work under constant alerts due to repeated accidents or technical deficiencies.

The French Super Phenix power plant was intended to produce about 20 percent more fuel than it consumes. But the reactor never functioned commercially, and the French government ordered its closure in 1998.

The reactor cost around 12 billion dollars, and never produced a watt of electricity. The Japanese FBR Monju had a similar fate. After numerous accidents, it was closed in 1995.' ...

[FrankenPC]

Ouch! Too bad. Thanks for the link.

Let's go wayyyy back now... when the anti-nuke hippies killed nuclear power production research. No, let's go back 10 years ago when our buddy: Clinton killed nearly ALL the money going toward nuclear research (see DOE cutbacks to "balance" the budget). None of these very sophisticated machines can simply magically work. They need research dollars and effort.

Reality is this: If effort had been put into nuclear energy 30 years ago, then the entire world would be better off from an emissions standpoint. Yes, you still have dirty excavation/processing and this is not something we can't live with going forward. But, the overall emissions situation would be much better. No one can deny that.

As far as the other comment about the deep salt mines and rivers. The remarks are amusing. I would rather risk a "magic" river or (LOL!!!!) a volcano pulling up powered uranium than the current global catastrophe which is in our face.

Seriously...it's time to stop with the ULTRA-lame "STOP DOING THIS!" hippy talk to: "Let's start doing this" reality talk. Petroleum will not simply go away overnight. We need intermediary technologies.

If people keep bickering on this point, guess what's going to happen next? Think about it... Offshore drilling and the psycho GOP laying waste to Alaska. Is that what you want? The "STOP DOING THIS" mentality is lethal.

[DryBrook]

To be sure, mining operations for nuclear are dirty and have carbon costs. So are mining operations for every other fuel-based power production method. Having no carbon emissions makes nuclear better than any of them.

Of course we must build wind, solar, etc., but those sources don't work on a windless night. We must have nuclear in the mix.

Or, would you rather have coal?

[LeftRight]

And yet if you have enough solar and wind, coupled with a storage facility to keep what's being made, but not used during the windy day, solar and wind, plus hydro electric, and other sources of "cleaner" energy ARE enough to remove us from fossil fuels WITHOUT switching to nuclear!

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

your moniker brings up another point, thanks.

reactors require huge amounts of water to operate. here in the southeast, a few months back they were saying that they might have to close one of the reactors here if the drought continued, because there would not be enough water to operate the plant.

how wise is it to go down this road, when we know that the population growth of this country is already beginning to strain our water supplies?

[girlwild]

I wrote a term paper in 1981 that detailed the problems with storing nuclear waste. In all of that time, 27 years, NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE ABOUT THIS PROBLEM. It remains a clear problem yet it is never discussed in the wider drum banging for building nuclear reactors.

Thank you, Alec, for bringing attention to this important issue.

BTW, did anyone see Cindy McCain on McCain's foray into a nuclear reactor? She knows better than to enter one.

[MaureenSharkey]

We are facing the most difficult time in the industrial age.

We have to make the transition to alternative energy as least bumpy as possible.

And we have to get our act together on this immediatly!

Whatever happened to hydrogen fuel cells? That sounded like the best idea to me. The only emmission is pure clean oxygen.

A must see: A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crisis.

Google it.

Its a documentary that shows the crisis we're really in. It says 1 tea cup of oil has more energy in it than anything else, and that even if we built many more nuclear plants, it wouldn't come near solving our energy needs.

[LeftRight]

Hydrogen Fuel Cells have as their only two emissions heat and Water, not oxygen. Having said that, the only two problems that we have with Fuel Cells is the fact that the cheapest way to make hydrogen is to "crack" hydrocarbons, specifically Natural Gas. The other problem with it is the STORAGE of hydrogen, since it is EXTREMELY flammable!

[MaureenSharkey]

hydrogen is a natural componant of water---H2O

We have plenty of water.

Hydrogen extremely flammable!?---well, so is gasoline.

we should google it---looks like we all need a little more information.

[joanndarc]

Don't be an idiot (sorry), you need electricity to produce hydrogen!

[LeftRight]

And solar and wind can PROVIDE that electricity! Place a few solar panels on your roof, maybe a wind turbine (they are coming out with a new generation which takes up no more space than a six foot tall man standing straight) or two, and there you go. You now have enough electricity producing capacity to provide all the hydrogen that your vehicle will EVER need. You may even be able to produce enough electricity to power your house during the day, and maybe produce enough hydrogen to run a fuel cell during the night!

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

Thanks for this much more comprehensive review of nuclear energy as opposed to the nuclear trolls about.

You also don't even address the economic side of nuclear energy which is still the most subsidized energy per kilowatt. Or how if it was such a good option why investors have almost entirely refused to invest in new nuclear plants for decades now?

The fact is that these nuclear trolls (you can tell them from ordinary trolls by their multiple heads and the green glow coming off of them) are either part of or deluded by those who stand to make a lot of money if we invest in the technology that was once hailed as able to produce "energy too cheap to meter" but even today produces energy too costly to rationally consider.

Can anybody contest these points from

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/07/nuclear_energy.html

-We import 92% of our uranium.

-Construction estimates have at least doubled in recent years to somewhere around 7 billion US Dollars for a new reactor putting per kW averages at 12-17 cents per kW when operating costs are considered as well as current subsidy levels - still well above today's average. (mine was recently as high as 9.6 cents per kW)

[mayzebra]

So, we would go from being dependant on foreign oil to being dependant on foreign uranium. Very nice.

[joanndarc]

Uranium is quite cheap, its cheaper to import it then mine in US lately.

[LeftRight]

Uranium is INCREDIBLY expensive!!! The only reason that current nuclear power plants can afford to operate AT ALL is because they are HEAVILY subsidized by the federal govt!!!

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

you think it's going to be cheap once the market place controllers realize it is our sole source or even the largest source of our energy?

[luziannagirl]

Two questions:

What exactly does France do with what must be a large quantity of radioactive waste generated by their many nuclear power plants?

And, we all hear that conservation of energy is a big part of any plan, yet, I see no real movement in that direction, and hear nothing about how that will be done.

When it's all about maximum profits based on unlimited growth and expansion of business activity, which is ultimately based on continued growth of world human population and human consumption, there's no real incentive to do things differently.

Why is neither candidate talking about establishing and participating in a new sustainability-based world currency and economic model?

Aren't we voters tired of being pandered to and treated like children?

[LeftRight]

In answer to your first question, they are mixing it with glass, and then burying it. This works just fine in the short term, but the indications are that in less than 50 years they will begin to have MAJOR leaks in the storage system, as the glass breaks down, and all that radioactivity will be unleashed upon the countryside.

And as far as your second question, there are many things that you can do TODAY to improve your energy usage. The largest area for energy conservation is in your home. Improve your insulation, and you will find that you use less than half the energy to heat and cool your house. Go for a tankless water heater, and you will spend almost 70% less on that source. Even better, place an inground HVAC system in your yard, and you will spend less than 20% what you currently do on your heating and cooling costs.

[joanndarc]

France reprocesses nuclear waste, part of it reused the rest is stored untill the short half-life elements decay and radiation levels subside.

[rue]

We haven't been able to maintain our road system in good condition for 50 years, how will we maintain a storage system for nuclear waste for thousands of years?

[DryBrook]

Did you commenters actually _watch_ An Inconvenient Truth? Maybe you had better watch it again.

Conservation alone will not get us all the way to our carbon goal. Wind alone will not get us there. Solar alone will not. Hydro alone will not. Nuclear alone will not. We must do ALL OF THEM if we are to reach our carbon goal. That is the message of An Inconvenient Truth.

It is indisputable that a base load of electricity (one that doesn't vary with weather, nightfall, or season) is required. Indisputable. How better than nuclear does anyone here propose to provide that base load?

[bgregs]

Actually, conservation along with Wind and Solar WILL reduce our oil and coal usages to the point where we are not adding carbon from our electricity. Add to that some alternative source for transportation, and the US could be REDUCING the carbon footprint of the world!

[pashupat]

I have never heard Al Gore propose nukes as a solution to global warming--never--and I've been listening closely. Nuclear waste will be extremely toxic to all living things for hundreds of millions of years (forever basically). Do you realize how much the planet changes in hundreds of millions of years? If we think too much CO2 is a problem, lets give a little thought to whether we really want our descendents to have to deal with plutonium, uranium-236, and the other long-lived radioactive products of nuclear power.

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

yeah it always amazes me the ease with which people are so willing to shrug off the waste problem onto people who haven't even been born yet. how irresponsible and inconsiderate is that?

[joanndarc]

People don't quite understand that an alternative to nuclear energy does NOT exist. Fossil fuels are irreplacable in nature and could not be used as fuel for much longer, the climate becomes a problem already.

[LeftRight]

BS!!! An alternative to Nuclear, Gas/Oil and Coal is already being USED!!!! The fact of the matter is that solar and wind would be MORE than enough to COMPLETELY take us off of oil, with the exception of chemistry!! We don't need any more nuke plants which take DECADES to come online, and cost MORE than Solar and Wind to create, fuel, and maintain! Not only that, but with less than HALF of the cost of ONE nuke plant we could take a city the size of New York off the grid by a combination of new solar/wind, and CONSERVATION!!!

[Dolphin]

(part 2)

There are always unknown reactions to things that man builds and creates. An example is the Oresund Bridge where the fish were disturbed by the lights on the bridge and stopped mating. No one thought of that before building the bridge because that effect was not known to the so called experts.

No matter what fuel source we will use in future, there will always be groups of living creatures that will turn up second or last because something unknown happened.

No matter how we turn around, we will always have our asses in behind.

[Dolphin]

(part 1)

Always a tricky question – if we cannot go on using oil, coal, wood or other fuel resources of that kind, what to use instead? The nuclear power is already an option that, being used and taken cared of by the correct people with the right know-how and skills and in new plants is the least unsafe to use. Also the mining of urianium can, as most things in life, get safer with the right people.

Solar and wind power plants, mentioned here previously on July 2007, may or may not be optional re how they are managed. Personally I prefer the solar power of the the two, but we must also remember that no matter what power source we prefer it always need lots of energy to construct and build.

Where do we take that energy from?

There are some, in my point of view, stupid plans in one of the south cities in my country. Some politicians have launched the idea of building wind power plants on top of the city building roofs! Since it is not April 1 I am afraid it is true and how nice, practical, noisy, safe and beautiful might that be?

Can you imagine a wind power plant on top of the Chrysler or Empire State buildings?
(continued)

[glitz]

The wind tower on top of the Empire State building cannot be as awe inspiring as laying on the beach on Dauphin Island looking at the sun setting behind drilling platforms.

[mickey27]

Nuclear energy is safe and clean. When will the liberals allow us to even come close to being energy effecient? Probably never. The left wants us to run everything on dreams that will not become reality for decades. Their answer...take America down a peg. Saddle up the horses. Get bikes. Don Quixote chased windmills too.

[LeftRight]

Nuclear energy is safe and clean ONLY as long as it is CURRENTLY being used to produce power, AND there's nothing going wrong. The fact of the matter is that the leftovers from it are among the most dangerous materials known to man, AND they are also among the most insidious at finding ways OUT of any containment that we place them in!!!

[mayahbird]

Nuclear energy is safe and clean. Really???
One good sized earthquake in that storage mountain and we won't need energy any more.