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
Shirley, you’ve identified the problem exactly. The fact is, propaganda works. When the Berlin wall fell, East Germans were astounded to learn that West Germans were better off than they were. Everytime East Europeans liberated themselves they had the same discovery. Today, North Koreans are starving but they believe the South Koreans are worse off.
Anti-nuclear groups have succeeded in convincing people that they are the chief defenders of the environment. The facts prove otherwise, that they’ve succeeded only in enriching themselves. Here’s a critique. But they’ve promoted themselves so successfully that someone like Pern or the Green Party can toss out misinformation without offering any basis for it whatsoever and someone like you who’s never been exposed to real information just gravitates to it because it fits the misinformation you’ve always been exposed to. Pern didn’t even say Sweden is using a lot of renewable energy, just that it could. Actually Sweden uses a lot of nuclear energy; I think that next to France it’s the most nuclear country in Europe.
Are you aware that thousands of Americans die every month from the air pollution generated by coal-burning power plants? Please see the Abt report, “The Particulate-Related Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant Emissions.” [http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/particulate-related.pdf]. It’s a long report, very technical; if you like, you can just look at the results table Coal pollution is the main source of lead in the ocean; fish now are so poisoned with lead that people are advised to limit their consumption. When whales beach themselves and die the corpses have to be treated as hazardous waste because of the heavy metals they contain.
Why don’t anti-nuclear groups tell you this? Well, it’s pretty obvious. Their opposition to nuclear energy has devastated the environment and they don’t want you to know. Millions of people have died world-wide, the environment has been irreversibly altered, and now we see that the climate has changed. What do you expect them to do? Should they admit that their dishonesty has led to tragic consequences on a global scale? Or should they keep on lying and pretend it’s someone else’s fault? Easy question.
Hi,
There is indeed a large misinformation campaign going on against nuclear. First, let me adress about some concerns:
a. Nuclear power “waste” can be used to make nuclear bombs.
No, not really. The “waste” that can be used is plutonium (Pu239). It comes from the transmutation of U238 in the fuel. But in a spent fuel rod of a power plant it is at a slightly higher level than U235 is in natural uranium. But in a spent fuel rod it is very contaminated with Pu240, and that isotope “poisons” a nuclear weapon. It can’t really explode, but can be “burnt” in a nuclear reactor. It’s also impossible to separate Pu240 from Pu239. It would be much easier to make a bomb from U235, which is contained at 0.7% in natural Uranium ore. Enrichment as fuel is only to 5%. For a weapon it needs to be enriched to 80-90%. Not easy to do.
2. Waste is a long term problem.
No, not really. Current reactors use only 2-3% of the potential energy in the fuel. The rest is “waste”. New reactors (various breeder designs) exist that can burn up up to 80-90% of the fuel energy. This of course creates much smaller amounts of waste with shorter half-lives of only 30 years or so. Which means after 300 years it has decayed to the radioactivity of natural uranium ore found in many places on earth.
3. Nuclear power has a large carbon footprint.
No, not really. Yes if you believe some of the reports and formulas from anti-nuke people. The most common formula from a report there has been applied for example to a uranium mine in Namibia with the result that the projected energy use of that mine alone exceeded the total energy use of the whole country of any form of energy (incl. the mine) by a factor 2.6. Same result as example for a mine in Australia. These examples were used because the energy usages of the mines were known exactly.
The fact is that current uranium prices are at about USD40.- per kg. That is low. Especially considering the amount used by a nuclear station, which is measured at a few tons per year, compared to hundreds of thousands of tons for a coal plant.
4. Nuclear power stations need massive amounts of concrete for construction.
No, not really. Compare it to the amount of concrete used per kWh produced in hydroelectric or wind. Don’t underestimate the amount of concrete needed for the foundation of a wind tower. It has to withstand hurricane forces and needs massive foundations. Mutiply that by a few thousand times just to get the equivalent energy out of wind that a nuclear reactor uses.
5. Hydrogen can be made from wind and solar power.
No, not really effectively. Electrolysis, which would and could be the only way with all alternative energies, aside from nuclear, has an efficiency of less than 50% in respect to hydrogen energy content to electrical energy to produce it. Advanced nuclear reactors run at high enough temperatures to allow thermal cracking of hydrogen. With 80%+ efficiency.
- Klaus
[...] I never thought I’d consider nuclear power a desirable solution to climate change until I read James Lovelock’s latest book, “The Revenge of Gaia: Earth’s Climate Crisis & the Fate of Humanity” (see my previous post on the issue here). [...]
redcraig, in homage to your extensive documentation on the pro side for nuclear power, I’ve attempted further to persuade myself here. Thanks for providing so much helpful information!
Shirley, that’s a magnificent article.
One small difference: I don’t consider anti-nukes to be environmentalists. Many environmentalists have been misled on the subject, but the people who started the opposition to nuclear energy had an agenda only a minority of environmentalists favor: forcing population control and lower consumption levels. Amory Lovins and Paul Ehrlich were early prophets of the ideology.
Real environmentalists favor the Simpler Living approach. People can be persuaded to shrink their footprints and this movement has accomplished wonderful things. The originators of the anti-nuclear-power movement simply forced the world to use more fossil fuels.
Thanks, redcraig. I agree with you re: the Simpler Living approach. I try to follow that philosophy every day, and work constantly to reduce my own footprint.
Still, though, without some mandated limits on consumption, I can’t escape the feeling that those of us who are trying to reduce, reuse, conserve and do without are in some way suckers.
Consider, for example, the wealthy Atlanta man living in a mansion with seven bathrooms and consuming 60 times as much water as the average resident. How much are we low-flow toilet owners helping the planet when others can consume so profligately?
Shirley, that’s a great question. I don’t pretend to have a good answer; we know that we all have to restrain our use of the world’s resources but we learned from the examples of communism that coercion leads to a distorted economic structure which ultimately fails.
What you describe is exactly right. Consider the people who ride buses or bicycles to minimize their footprints and watch others squander fuel. When Senior Bush was President the country faced a serious shortage of motor fuels: people couldn’t get fuel to get to work but he drove his cigarette boat around on the ocean for relaxation.
No doubt there will have to be different parts to the solution. But the first part should be to offer attractive alternatives. For example, taking the bus stinks. Unless you live on a bus route that takes you to work, buses are slow. Even if you do they’re inconvenient, uncomfortable, unreliable and unsanitary. But light rail can work and has worked where it’s been put in place. In contrast, HOV lanes are aimed at punishing people who don’t have decent bus service and can’t carpool; they interfere with traffic and waste both time and fuel, not to mention raising air-pollution levels. So I think we should focus on positive measures, such as improving public transportation and establishing safe bicycle routes.
Some services, such as water or electricity, can be billed differentially, depending on when and how much people use them. But there will always be Bill Gates Jr’s who don’t care about cost. I don’t think long-term rationing will work; even if politicians were willing to vote rationing in the voters would replace them with other politicians. Also, people will never agree on which rationing scheme is fair.
But efficiency standards would be an important part of the solution. Building energy codes already accomplish much; possibly the codes could be made stricter for bigger houses. Still, residential energy-use only accounts for about 6% of the country’s CO2 emissions (that is, if electricity comes from non-fossil sources). Gasoline accounts for about 33% and for sure, a lot could be done with fuel-efficiency standards; the present targets are way too slack.
But what about recreational use of motor fuel?
People buy RVs because national and state parks don’t have the amenities that make tent camping comfortable. RV owners don’t care about the cost of fuel because RVs don’t make economic sense anyway. Maybe the solution is to provide more lodges and cabins. Or at least hot showers and maybe rain shelters over the tent pads.
What about boats and personal aircraft? For about a hundred reasons the number of private pilot licenses needs to be restricted. Maybe there should be a law requiring boats to have at least enough sails to propel themselves.
I think in the end there always will be selfish people who abuse the world’s resources. But if we societally offer people good alternatives then we personally will take advantage of them.
This is a really tough question. I’d be glad to learn your thoughts.
[...] I’d also like to recommend two recent articles on this subject by Shirley Siluk Gregory: Is Nuclear Power the Answer to Climate Change? [...]