Is Nuclear Power the Answer to Climate Change?
A growing chorus of voices is touting nuclear power as the energy solution that can help curb global warming. I’ve never been one to sing that tune, but I’m no longer as certain as I once was.
My doubts arose after reading James Lovelock’s “The Revenge of Gaia: Earth’s Climate Crisis & the Fate of Humanity” (2006, Basic Books). In it, Lovelock warns that, within this century, climate change could very well end civilization. He also argues — more persuasively than I expected — that nuclear power is the only energy source today that will let us both stop pumpking lethal amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and preserve modern life as we know it.
I’ve heard that argument before, though never as eloquently as Lovelock puts it. But even if nuclear energy is as safe and reliable as Lovelock says, I still question whether it’s as low-carbon as its advocates make it out to be.
For one, there’s the matter of mining uranium for fuel and transporting it to reactor sites — that requires fossil fuels, doesn’t it?
Then there’s the construction of the nuclear plants themselves, with all their thick concrete shielding. The cement-making process creates a lot of carbon dioxide … possibly as much as a ton of carbon dioxide for every ton of cement produced, according to George Monbiot’s book “Heat.”
Assuming we could muster the will and finances needed — and overcome the guaranteed public objections — to embark on a nuclear plant construction spree today, wouldn’t we just be sending our carbon emissions into overdrive, at least until the reactors are up and running? Is it worth the risk, or do we have no other choice?
Photo courtesy of Tristan Nitot, posted on Wikimedia Commons
I’ve come down on the same side you’re leaning toward. Is nuclear power the answer to climate change? No, but it’s an essential part of the answer.
There aren’t any quick easy solutions to climate change. For example, a big wind turbine (rotor-tip height ~ 450 feet) would be rated at 1.5 MW and its average output would be about 500 KW. A 1000-MW nuclear power plant would average about 850,000 KW, so 1 nuke = 1700 big wind turbines. A 1-sq-meter solar panel would average 0.04 KW in the US and less in Europe, so 1 nuke = more than 21 million square meters.
Some studies have been done to compare the life-cycle CO2 emissions of different energy sources, which include mining, transportation, concrete, etc—everything that relates. Here’s an example. All the studies (not counting the ones done by adversarial groups like Greenpeace) show that nuclear ranks about the same as windpower and considerably better than solar power.
But, as Lovelock points out, the biggest problem is that the world won’t depend on part-time energy sources. If there isn’t enough nuclear energy then people will keep burning fossil fuels whenever the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.
This really matters because part of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions is converting fossil-fuel applications to electricity (for example, battery-powered cars). This only works if we increase the reliable supply of electric power from non-fossil sources.
redcraig, thanks for the engineering study link — I’ll read through it for more info.
As you said, Lovelock makes a compelling case for why nuclear is better than wind/solar/etc. But I think his argument is based upon today’s conditions for construction: if we scale up a massive nuclear plant construction project, it seems like the global demand for cement and other construction materials will go through the roof, driving up prices big-time … which makes nuclear economically less feasible.
Again, like you said, part-time energy sources aren’t good enough (at present) to supply today’s energy needs. But one alternative that’s not really in the public eye much yet — underwater Gulf Stream power — might be promising (that is, if melting icecaps don’t shut down the ocean’s conveyer belts!)
If you ignore the cost over-runs, the shutdowns, the tax funded mining cleanup, the tax funded waste storage and the occasional world-wide disaster, then yeah, nuclear looks pretty good!
Wind and thermal solar are safe and don’t polute.
Wind and thermal solar total lifecycle costs are better than than nukes or coal.
Shirley, thanks for the link to the article (there’s a slight error in the URL). These kinds of projects are exciting (well, if they’re the sort of things that excite you). Oregon is looking at doing something similar to extract tidal energy at the mouth of the Columbia River.
As far as the construction materials problem goes, we won’t avoid it by looking at other energy sources. I mentioned the scale of construction needed for solar and wind farms; the same will apply to new alternatives, assuming they can be made to work. Consider the maintenance problems of ships working in the ocean. What would be the maintenance problems of undersea turbines?
I see it slightly differently. The existing coal-fired plants will have to be replaced with something when they wear out anyway. To replace them with nuclear plants or wind farms or, perhaps, undersea turbines, will be somewhat greater but not extravagantly greater. If we can do it for coal certainly we can do it for other sources. But the point you’ve made is a very powerful argument for conservation and energy efficiency.
Sorry about the URL error, redcraig — it’s fixed now.
Ugly American, I do feel the same way as you: despite Lovelock’s well-reasoned argument, nuclear power still gives me the heebie-jeebies for all the reasons you mentioned.
(Plus, my reaction while reading “The Revenge of Gaia” was, “Well, if civilization is on the line and we don’t succeed even with a nuclear build-out, aren’t we risking even greater disaster in the future? Just imagine all those reactors left unattended as sea levels rise, or if conflict breaks out because of millions of climate refugees.”)
Even if we could overcome those objections, there’s another problem. As the Keystone Center reported in a study last year, achieving enough carbon reductions for even one Pacala-Socolow wedge would “require the industry to return immediately to the most rapid period of growth experienced in the past (1981-90) and sustain this rate of growth for 50 years.”
Not encouraging, is it?
Shirley, I’m disappointed. From your article I thought you were serious about this. If you become serious in the future, read Power to Save the World by Gwyneth Cravens. She started out with the same misunderstandings but researched the subject very thoroughly, going herself to see where the work was being done, and changed her view completely. I can’t tell if you’ve read the comments I made earlier. I’ll try it again. Whatever way we deal with global warming will take considerable effort. But the effort will only be somewhat larger than the effort it would take to replace coal burners as they wear out. Which do you think is more practical, 1 nuke, 1700 big turbines, or 21 million square meters of solar panels?
Ugly, you’re just recycling the same misinformation that got us into this dilemma. You won’t but if anyone reading this wants to know the real scoop, he can read the European Commission’s report on external costs of energy. It shows that solar, wind, and nuclear all run under 1 eurocent per KWH, compared with 2 to 15 eurocents for fossil fuels. That takes into account all the pollution, illness, and injuries. There is no reputable analyst anywhere who will say wind or solar costs out cheaper than nuclear. Here’s a better example.
redcraig, I am serious … just very ambivalent. As I said, Lovelock makes a strong case for nuclear — one that I found quite persuasive. The links you’ve provided do so as well. It’s just that, “Yes, but … ” factor that bothers me.
As George Monbiot put it in “Heat,” “I hate this topic (nuclear power) partly because it is charged with more anger than any other; partly because every fact is fiercely contested.”
Even giving nuclear power all the benefits of the doubt, the greatest problem seems to be one of implementation: as the Keystone Center study said, we’d have to ramp up nuclear power development to historic peaks and keep building that way for the next 50 years to even make a dent in carbon emissions. That’s a Marshall Plan on a global scale the likes of which we’ve never seen before.
Before we could have even reasonable hopes of such a program getting underway, I’m afraid, we’ll probably have to see the effects of climate change get far worse and really scary around the globe (not just in places like the Marianas, Tuvalu, Bangladesh and Shishmaref) … which means much valuable time will pass.
I wish I could believe that was really your only concern, because it’s easy to address, but the history of this is that people have been hammered over the years with so much distortion in the news and outright misinformation from political groups that when a person’s concerns have been answered the same person will invariably say that, well, his/her concern really is —.
First, there is an assumption made here that the earlier construction rate represented some kind of maximum rate beyond which the world couldn’t build new plants and so it’s hopeless to believe the world could do more now. That was not the case; what set the rate of construction was the demand for new plants, not the capacity for building them.
Second, the new designs that are being proposed are simpler than the earlier designs. The designers have incorporated features into them that make them inherently safer so that the risk of accident is lower even while the safety systems are less complex. Furthermore, manufacturing and construction technology has advanced in the intervening decades. Just as office buildings can be put up faster and cheaper, so can power-plant structures. Computers and laser-guided machine tools have revolutionized the manufacture of heavy machinery. New testing techniques ensure quality control both cheaper and more thorough.
Third, no one is proposing that nuclear is the sole means of minimizing global warming. The program for building new plants can be ramped up at a manageable rate. As new plants are being built, the number of companies who concentrate on building them will rise so the rate of construction will accelerate. In the meantime, solar and wind farms can be built to reduce the load on fossil-burning plants and conservation can also help. You’ll remember that Lovelock’s objection to solar and wind is that they require fossil-fuel backup. In the near term, the fossil-fuel backup exists anyway, so any energy the alternatives produce will reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. When the world reaches the point where no fossil fuels are used to generate electricity whoever is around will be able to decide what to do at that point; they will know much more than we do because of the experience they will have gained.
Here I’ll offer a prediction. The only workable solution to motor fuels we can see even on the horizon is hydrogen-enriched biofuels (google H2CAR). That could work, but it would require vast amounts of hydrogen. The best way by far to produce hydrogen is with nuclear-driven thermochemistry. Imagine that when the wind is up and the sun is shining, nuclear plants could shift their production from electricity to hydrogen. That’s a way that solar and wind could generate hydrogen, by taking the load off nuclear.
As I see it, this is a plan that could work. I don’t see how any other plan could work. Failing to build nuclear plants would require fossil-fueled plants always to be standing by for when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing and so during dark and low-wind periods greenhouse gases would continue to be emitted. And the economic and environmental cost of generating motor fuels would be prohibitive.
I didn’t address your earlier question about rising sea level. You should understand that such an event is not considered imminent, but a likely result in a century or so. Existing seaside plants will have been decommissioned by then; new plants will be sited with that concern in mind.
Thanks for keeping your mind open on this. If we can make good decisions now the world will be much better off in the future.
Shirley - a brave post, if indeed that’s the word. To keep an open mind as we attempt to to lessen the planet’s fever is imperative.
As you know, the UK have just given the go-ahead for the nuclear route.
As I suggested in my post, from a UK perspective, we currently glean 4% of our energy from sustainable sources, yet live on an island that is at the mercy of strong winds and tidal currents.
Compare this with Sweden where it has been suggested that upto 50% of their energy is sustainable.
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/3273 seems a persuasive reaction to reactors if you ask me.
This is definitely an eye-opening discussion for me. I have to confess I never would have thought myself to be as open to support for nuclear power until reading Lovelock’s latest book.
You make a good point, Pem: other nations could easily follow the example of a country like Sweden if they chose to. Part of the problem, as others have pointed out before, is that there always seems to be more lobbying money and political interest for big, expensive, centralized energy plants rather than diffused, individualized solutions like municipal or home-based solar, wind, etc. The power structure in place can’t derive as much benefit from these “small,” local solutions.
redcraig, I’ve also read through your analysis of nuclear power and find your arguments both straightforward and sound. But I believe something more — not sure what — will be needed to overcome the strong (even if it’s more emotional than rational) public objections to nuclear power.
I guess the situation can best be summed up as, “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.” People can see and understand the smoke coming from a coal-fired power plant or the environmental damage caused by strip-mining. They can’t see whether a canister of waste is radioactive or not, or whether radioactive gases or water are leaking from a plant. I think it’s human nature to fear more the things that are “invisible.”