Nuclear
energy has always had something of a bad reputation—a volatile, barely
containable force that nobody wants in their neighborhood. But with
the planet heating up, the economy floundering, and the world economy striving
for safer energy alternatives, it's time to ask: does nuclear power really deserve its negative stigma, and does it hold promise as a renewable alternative to fossil fuels?
Nuclear
Plant Safety
Safety
has always been a concern regarding nuclear plants, and one of the primary
factors motivating people to keep nuclear plants away from their homes. Three
Mile Island and Chernobyl
are two of the first things that come to mind when many consider hosting a
nuclear power plant, and neither are particularly cheering images. When
compared to other power plants, however, nuclear energy is actually one of the
safest options. According to a study by the
Paul Scherrer Institute, there have been only seven major nuclear accidents
ever, accounting for approximately 64 deaths and 220 latent fatalities.
The
primary risk with nuclear plants is not of death, but of the need for
evacuation. Chernobyl forced about
135,000 citizens to move, permanently, while Three Mile Island
temporarily displaced 144,000.
While
these numbers may seem staggering, they pale in comparison to other energy
sources, such as coal energy, which has a significantly worse death records. In
2008 alone, 3200
men died in the coal extraction process. Pollution from these plants account
for 30,000
deaths per year. However, because these deaths are the result of slow accretive
build-up rather than spectacular accidents conjuring nightmare-words of
“meltdown” and “mushroom cloud,” for many they are less viscerally threatening.
Nuclear
Power and the Economy
If
safety were the only concern, then coal plants would be nonexistent, but
carbon-burning plants hold a major economic advantage over nuclear plants.
Construction time can be a deciding factor for many investors—fossil fuel
burning plants can be finished in a year or two, while wind turbines can be
erected in a matter of days.
Constructing
nuclear plants, on the other hand, is an arduous process. Japan
has erected smaller plants at a comparatively blazing speed of three years.
Larger and more traditional plants can take up to a decade to finish. To top it
all off, the United States Nuclear Reactor Commission (NRC) demands a licensing
procedure that lasts 43 months, though they are attempting to shorten it to
20-30 months.
According
to an Organisation for Economonic Co-operation and Development (OECD) study, nuclear power
also suffers a disadvantage in construction cost, amounting to $1,300-$1,500
per kilowatt (kW); coal and wind plants cost $1250/kW, while gas costs $750/kW.
Nuclear
power may be pricy in the early stages, but it actually begins to pull ahead
once the turbines start spinning. Nuclear energy is the cheapest to produce at
2 cents/kWh. Coal is a close second at 2.6 cents/kWh, wind requires 4.2
cents/kWh, gas demands 8 cents/kWh, and oil requires a whopping 18 cents/kWh.
There
are similar trends with external costs, the amount plants would need to devote
to health and environmental concerns. Wind energy leads at a mere 0.13 cents/kWh.
Nuclear and hydroelectric energy follow with 0.55 cents/kWh, while coal averages
7.1 cents/kWh.
Of
course there are other costs to fossil fuels used for energy. These
conventional energy sources require a constant replenishing of raw materials extracted
through environmentally destructive mining and drilling. While coal is shipped
by the train car and oil is priced by the barrel, hydro, geothermal, and wind
resources are essentially free. As
with fossil fuels, nuclear plants must still focus on obtaining resources, but
they are not nearly as restricted as fossil fuel plants. While oil is in high
demand, estimations of uranium supplies have grown dramatically.
In
fact, nuclear plants depend so little on its central resource that resource
price fluctuations have an insignificant impact. The World Nuclear Association
posts that, were the price of each plant’s respective fuel source to double,
nuclear electricity would rise a mere 9% in cost, while coal would increase by
31%, and gas by 66%.
So,
after all the investments and questions of efficiency, how valuable is the
final product? The Connecticut Integrated Resource Plan took a look at projected
capital, calculating the numbers for the most expensive nuclear plant
imaginable. Even then, they found the cost of electricity from nuclear plants
to be second best at 8.34 cents/kWh behind the 7.6 cents/kWh of gas. Coal and other
carbon capture storage plants had to charge as much as 14 cents/kWh.
An
extensive
study by MIT and Harvard combined the initial investment, operating cost,
capital, and a variety of other factors to determine the overall cost of
production. They found that nuclear costs a total of 4.2-6.7 cents/kWh, while
fossil fuel plants cost 3.8-5.6 cents/kWh.
The
bottom line still favors fossil fuel, but that may be a temporary advantage.
The introduction of a cap and trade system, the same study concluded, would
wildly shift that statistic. Fossil fuel costs could almost double, rising to
an average cost of about 9 cents/kWh.
In
a nutshell, nuclear plants demand a more intensive initial investment of time
and money than all other plants, but their various operating costs tend to be
either competitive or among the best.
Plant
Production: Electricity, Greenhouse Gases, and Pollutants
Unfortunately,
power plants produce much more than electricity and money. It’s all the byproduct,
the pollution and particulate matter, that spurs the rest of the debate.
Fossil
fuels, the MIT study projects, truly are as dangerous as environmentalists
claim. Carbon emissions from plants will account for 40 percent of global
greenhouse emissions.
Ozone-burning
carbon is only one of several harmful emissions. As stated above, the 30,000
deaths per year from are due to the release of mercury, sulfur dioxide, and
nitrous oxide in coal burning. In this case, that which doesn’t kill only makes
people sicker; mercury limits the human immune system while altering gene and
enzyme systems.
It
is plainly evident that fossil fuel burning is harming both humankind and the
planet. Nuclear power avoids these harmful byproducts, but creates radioactive
waste, instead.
There
are a variety of ways to handle spent rods. The most efficient option it to
convert the spent rods into a reusable energy source, a procedure that France’s
La
Hague plant has been doing for decades.
A
more common option is dry
case storage, wherein the rods are locked into barrels. These cases are frequently
kept on site to avoid the risks of accidents while in transit.
A
third option is subterranean storage in the self-sealing salt caves of Yucca
Mountain, but President Obama intends to phase it out, having
allocated a record low sum of $196
million to fund the dump site.
When
looking at a plant’s production, though, it is always imperative to examine
electricity output in conjunction with pollution output. Solar
and wind plants are equally productive, depending on location and acreage. Solar manages 1
megawatt (MW) per 5-10 acres, while wind
boasts 1 MW per 4-8 acres.Coal
plants tend to generate MW in the hundreds range, but some
can produce as much as 1,500 MW, burning millions of tons of coal in the
process. Nuclear plants, however, can churn out
1,000-3,000 MW
Hydroelectric
plants surpass all of the others, generating thousands of megawatts; some plants produce over
20,000 MW.
Overall,
Nuclear power may not be most powerful source of energy, but America’s
104 nuclear plants account for 19 percent of the
nation’s total electricity. Adding several hundred more could competently
supply electricity while significantly reducing global pollution. Without
doubt, as the world turns from carbon emissions and begins to favor renewable
energy, nuclear energy will need to be one of the prominent players
Also Interesting:
Get our Newsletter!
Click here to sign up and stay informed