Nuclear power irrelevant, counter productive, to addressing climate change

NUCLEAR POWER AND CLIMATE: WHY NUKES CAN’T SAVE THE PLANET TOO MANY REACTORS; NOT ENOUGH CARBON REDUCTIONShttp://www.climatecollective.org/media/uploads/resources/nukesclima.pdf

Major studies (from MIT, Commission on Energy Policy, and International Atomic Energy Agency, for example) agree that about 1,500-2,000 large new atomic reactors would have to be built for nuclear power to make any meaningful dent in greenhouse emissions.

Operation of that many new reactors (currently about 440 exist worldwide) would cause known uranium reserves to run out in just a few decades and force mining of lower-grade uranium, which itself would lead to higher greenhouse emissions. If all of these reactors were used to replace coal plants, carbon emissions would drop by about 20% worldwide. If used entirely as new capacity, in the place of sustainable technologies like wind power, solar power, energy efficiency, etc., carbon emissions actually would increase.

TOO MUCH MONEY

Construction of 1,500 new reactors would cost trillions of dollars (U.S. reactors going online in the 1980s and 90s averaged about $4 billion apiece). Use of resources of this magnitude would make it impossible to also implement genuinely effective means of addressing global warming.

Energy efficiency improvements, for example, are seven times more effective at reducing greenhouse gases, per dollar spent, than nuclear power. Yearly costs per 1000 kg avoided CO2 emissions are $68.9 for wind and $132.5 for nuclear power

TOO MUCH TIME Construction of 1,500 new reactors means opening a new reactor about once every two weeks, beginning today, for the next 60 years—an impossible schedule. The world’s nuclear reactor manufacturers currently are capable of building about half that amount. Since reactors take 6-10 years to build (some U.S. reactors that began operation in the 1990s took more than 20 years), we are already that long behind schedule and will fall farther behind. Addressing the climate crisis cannot wait for nuclear power.

TOO MUCH WASTE Operation of 1,500 or more new reactors would create the need for a new Yucca Mountain-sized radioactive waste dump somewhere in the world every 3-4 years. Yucca Mountain has been under study for nearly 20 years, has been vigorously opposed by the State of Nevada for just as long, and remains at least a decade from completion.

The odds of identifying numerous new scientifically- defensible and publicly-acceptable waste dumps are slim. International efforts to site radioactive waste facilities are similarly behind schedule and face substantial public opposition. For this

reason, the U.S. and other countries are attempting to increase reprocessing of nuclear fuel as a waste management tool—a dangerous and failed technology

that increases worldwide nuclear proliferation risks.

TOO LITTLE SAFETY Odds of a major nuclear accident are on the order of 1 in 10,000 reactor-years. Operation of some 2,000 reactors (1500 new plus 440 existing) could result in a Chernobyl-scale nuclear accident as frequently as every five years—a price the world is not likely to be willing to pay. Reactors of similar

designs likely would close following a major accident, making nuclear power a risky proposition as a climate solution. And more reactors means more potential terrorist targets.

TOO MUCH PLUTONIUM Operation of 1,500 or more new reactors would

require a dozen or more new uranium enrichment plants, and would result in the production of thousands of tons of plutonium (each reactor produces about 500 pounds of plutonium per year), posing untenable nuclear proliferation threats.

NUKES EMIT CARBON TOO! While atomic reactors themselves are not major

emitters of greenhouse gases, the nuclear fuel chain produces significant greenhouse emissions. Besides reactor operation, the chain includes uranium mining, milling, processing, enrichment, fuel fabrication, and long-term radioactive waste

storage, all of which are essential components of nuclear power. At each of these steps, construction and operation of nuclear facilities results in greenhouse gas emissions.

The uranium enrichment plant at Paducah, Kentucky, for example, is the largest U.S. emitter of ozone-destroying ChloroFluoroCarbons (CFCs)—banned by the

Montreal Protocol (the Paducah plant was grandfathered by this treaty).

Taken together, the fuel chain greenhouse emissions approach those of natural gas—and are far higher than emissions from renewable energy sources, not to mention emissions-free energy efficiency technologies.

NOT SUITED FOR WARMING CLIMATES Unlike solar power, nuclear power does not work well in warming climates. The summer of 2004’s heat wave across Europe not only killed thousands of people, but because of dwindling river levels caused many reactors to reduce power levels and even shut down entirely. Reactors require vast quantities of water to keep the core cool; changes in water levels, and even water temperatures, can greatly affect reactor operations. Reactors in the U.S. have similarly been forced to close during heat waves.

CAN”T TAKE US TO THE MALL Nuclear power, which can only produce electricity does not address emissions from automobiles and other components of the transportation sector— probably the largest source of carbon emissions

WHAT WE CAN DO: 30 TERRAWATTS BY 2050 Major investment in energy supply will be needed to meet growing energy demand and address the climate crisis at the same time—perhaps even as much as building 1,500 new reactors would cost.

But investing the money differently gives us much more bang for the buck: instead of a 20% reduction in carbon emissions, we can get an 80% reduction!

By 2050, the world will need about 25-30 Terrawatts of energy, or the equivalent of 25-30,000 nuclear reactors. Clearly it is not possible or affordable to build that many reactors. But it is possible to build that much capacity through energy

efficiency improvements, and sustainable energy sources including wind, biomass, geothermal, and especially solar power—if we start making the necessary investments now. It won’t be cheap or easy, but the payoff is huge: safe, clean energy that helps alleviate rather than contribute to the climate crisis.

Our choice is stark: we can choose nuclear power, or we can address global warming. We can’t do both. Fortunately, the choice is an easy one.

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340

Takoma Park, MD 20912

301-270-NIRS; www.nirs.org; nirsnet@nirs.

January 18, 2014 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized

5 Comments »

Christina, you really need more balance in your articles. Like your site for it’s information but not for its tone.

Comment by Chris Cavanagh | January 19, 2014 | Reply
I value this site massively. There are plenty of places to go on the internet if other people want pro-nuclear articles. I don’t. This is one where I actually find out stuff I didn’t know and probably wouldn’t ever have found out. This is also a very good article. Thank you.

Comment by June Birch | January 19, 2014 | Reply
It’s not quite that easy. Wind and solar are very limited and expensive, and can suffer from long periods of no wind and rainy weather. They are never likely to be any more than expensive grid supplements. At best, solar is only available for 25% of the time. We still need a main grid with reliable power backup.

The technology for the others is still under development, and not looking too promising at industrial capacity. The only technology available now, and probably in the near future, is nuclear. We could be better off directing research money into nuclear fusion research. Why isn’t this possibility mentioned?

What about doing something about the increasing demand due to population growth. Do something about the problem rather than its effects.

Comment by R James | January 19, 2014 | Reply
- Solar IS getting cheaper. And it’s fuel is FREE – think how cheap that is, in the long term.
  Nuclear research takes money, energy and attention away from clean renewable technologies, and from energy efficiency research.
  Nuclear fusion is but a super-expensive gleam in the eye of nuclear physicists – again, prolonging the nuclear dream, and distracting from cheaper and faster to deploy renewables. In theory fusion would be good – but still it’s a big centralised energy form – hasn’t the advantages of small solar and wind technologies. As to population growth – yes indeed – it IS teh basic problem. The solution – always is raising the living and educational standards – moves that are opposed by the rich and by particular religions.
  
  Comment by Christina MacPherson | January 19, 2014 | Reply
[…] Nuclear power irrelevant, counter productive, to addressing climate change […]

Pingback by Nuclear energy is not an alternative to energies that increase global warming, because nuclear increases global warming. When high-grade uranium runs out, nuclear will be worse for CO2 emissions than burning fossil fuels. | Family Survival Protocol - Micr | January 28, 2014 | Reply