Galasso 1

Christopher Galasso

Professor Raftery

English Composition II: ENG-102-OL1

6 February 2010

Nuclear Power for the Nuclear Power

We are now at a time called peak oil. This means that the 30 billion barrels the world

produces and consumes this year will be the most we are capable of producing. It will be

downhill from here, and our demand will certainly not be going down to match. Just over a

century into the oil age, even conservative estimates have us running out by the end of this one.

The green revolution is firmly upon us, and everyone is looking with hopefulness to improved

solar and wind technologies. Solar and wind will be an important part of the future energy mix of

the United States, but both technologies suffer from irreconcilable issues that make them unable

to produce a consistent, large baseline energy supply. The need for a greenhouse gas reducing,

price stable, baseline energy supply to run underneath renewable sources is essential, and calls

for a full revival of nuclear power use in the United States.

The US Government has recently appropriated many billions of dollars toward the

deployment of renewable energy technologies. Combined they currently account for only a few

percentage points of US electric generation. Solar and wind power’s primary problem is in the

inconsistent nature of the availability of the resource. The sun does not always shine and the

wind does not always blow. Efficient methods to store very large amounts of power have yet to

be practically demonstrated, and the use of chemical battery systems usually involves toxic
 Galasso 2

chemicals that have their own ecological issues; hence the need to find an earth-friendly

alternative.

Most of the electricity in the US is generated by coal and natural gas burning power

plants. Prices of these commodities have remained relatively stable and they are available in

large quantities in this country. Recent oil price spikes have shown us how relying too much on a

single energy source leaves us vulnerable to economic instability. “Dependence on energy

imports carries a large risk of disrupted power supplies. Whether such disruption is caused by

political events such as the oil embargo of 1973, physical events such as severe weather

phenomena, or commercial events such as price disputes, the importing country will have to rely

on its fuel reserves to avoid large negative economic impacts” (Kessides 5150).

Over-reliance on oil has had other negative consequences. It is reasonable to assume that

we are fighting a war in Iraq, in part, to try to stabilize a region that provides a significant portion

of the world’s oil supply. Much like renewable energy, nuclear power has the ability to reduce

this dependence. “The geopolitics of uranium are substantially more attractive than oil, since the

leading uranium suppliers are among the world’s most stable democracies. Australia, the second-

largest uranium exporter after Canada, will expand output 20% over the next three years…”

(Steiglitz 21).

The US currently has 104 operating nuclear power plants. They produce the same

percentage of electricity now as they have for the last 20 years, about 19%. “Even though we

have six fewer reactors than a decade ago and even though total US electricity [demand] has

increased by 25 percent in the period” (Wallace 223). This is because existing plants are

becoming more productive, according to Michael J Wallace, “Nuclear power has maintained its
 Galasso 3

market share thanks to dramatic improvements in reliability, safety, productivity and

management” (Wallace 223). These improvements come partially in the form of “uprates,” or the

faster processing of fuel and resultant steam. The obvious pun of stepping on the gas is

appropriate. Any uprate is only granted after careful review by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC), the government agency tasked with the oversight of US nuclear power. The

NRC initially grants operating licenses for 40 years, but are allowing plants to renew for an

additional 20 years, again following an exhaustive review process. All the reactors in the US

fleet are aging without replacement; “despite the impressive gains in reliability and output, there

are obviously limits to how much we can derive from our existing nuclear power plants”

(Wallace 224).

Nuclear power plays a strategic role in US energy policy. Where else are we going to get

that additional 19% from without belching disgusting amounts of carbon? We need a solution;

we are at the point now where we need to put policy drivers in place to spur reactor replacement.

Like the renewable energy sector, a nuclear renaissance will have the benefit of creating jobs.

France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, and other power hungry nations are going

full steam ahead with plans for new reactors. By 2020, China plans a fivefold increase in nuclear

capacity, India will have 20 new reactors, and Russia will build 11 new plants (Steiglitz 20). Are

we willing to fall behind these nations on yet another crucial piece of technology? “American

businesses and manufacturing companies will be at a distinct competitive disadvantage if they

are forced to rely on electricity generated by comparatively more expensive energy sources”

(Candris).
 Galasso 4

Nuclear is set to play a role in sustainable development. While it does not meet the strict

definition of “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability

of future generations to meet their own needs,” it does meet the tenet of using matter and energy

resources more efficiently, and reducing unnecessary consumption of coal and natural gas. It has

a low overall environmental impact, requires only moderate land disruption and water pollution,

and requires only moderate land use (Miller). The demand for electricity is projected to rise by

about 20% over the next 20 years. The demand for oil will actually start to fall as consumers start

plugging in their electric and hybrid-electric vehicles. “A 21% growth in demand for electric

power, compounded by the need to replace aging power plants, is too great to satisfy with energy

efficiency and conservation alone” (Candris). “No energy system is without costs,” notes Karen

Charman, “In the end, the case for nuclear power hinges on an evaluation of its costs and

benefits compared with those of the alternatives” (Charman 237).

Those against nuclear power point out that it is more expensive than traditional fossil-fuel

types of power. This is true, if you look at the sources without taking into account the ecological

cost associated with greenhouse gases. “If a tax on carbon dioxide emissions is instituted, that is

likely to add 0.5 to 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh)…the price of gas-fired power could make

nuclear power look very attractive” (Wald 73). Most of the price of building a new reactor is up

front. In addition to increased federal subsidies, industry is looking for the passage of some type

of risk mitigation law from Congress. Investors who lost large amounts of money after various

court challenges put a stop to construction already underway now shun the industry. Michael

Wallace notes, “The industry is not seeking a totally risk-free business environment; it is seeking

government assistance in containing those risks that are beyond the private sectors control”

(227). Once built, the cost to operate a reactor is very price stable. We would be able to forecast
 Galasso 5

the cost to produce electricity very precisely well into the future. Because of the high energy

density of nuclear fuel, it is possible for countries to stockpile uranium to operate their systems

for many years and thus weather any realistic supply interruption (Kessides 5150).

The positive impact that nuclear power would have on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

cannot be overstated. The 443 existing plants worldwide account for a 10% reduction of GHG’s

spewed into the atmosphere. The effects of that additional 10%, multiplied exponentially, would

mark a significant increase in global warming potential. The complete nuclear power chain, from

uranium mining to waste disposal, and including reactor and facility construction, emits 30g of

carbon dioxide per kwh—compared with over 950g per kwh emitted by coal, and just under

450g per kwh by gas-fired plants (Kessides 5151). As we shift from oil to electricity, the amount

of avoided carbon emissions has the potential to be staggering.

Opponents also point out there is no current solution to the waste problem. Unfortunately,

this is their best argument. Recently political events have all but stopped development of a

national storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, based on the danger of leakage. Michael

Mariotte, director of the Nuclear Information Resource Service says, “The Energy Department

was admitting that the mountain offered no protection: The casks (concrete entombments)

offered 99.5% of the protection. If that’s the case, you might as well put the waste on the White

House lawn” (23). The “out of sight, out of mind” for now approach is definitely not a long-term

solution. The US already had produced waste with the WWII weapons programs, so the problem

will need to be faced in the future regardless of the continuance of nuclear power. Quoting from

Kassides’ report “Energy Policy”:

 Galasso 6

It is important to keep the issue of radioactive waste management in perspective.

Although such waste is dangerous, its volume—about 12,000 metric tons a year from the
world’s nuclear power plants—is small relative to waste produced by fossil fuel plants.
These latter release, every year, enormous amounts of ash, diverse air pollutants, and a
large portion of a total of about 8.5 billion metric tons of carbon directly into the
atmosphere. Nuclear waste can be put in glass or ceramic containers, further encased in
corrosion-resistant containers, and isolated geologically.

Opponents would further point out that you need look no further than the accident at

Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and the Chernobyl disaster to assess the safety of nuclear

power. The Chernobyl disaster was caused by faulty design. The Russians chose to build without

requiring a containment vessel, because they had calculated the risk of a major accident to be so

small as to not economically justify one. Three Mile Island was caused by malfunctioning valves

and was partly mitigated by a better design, although there were operator errors. There were no

direct releases of radioactivity from the facility, and no fatalities are attributed to the accident.

Proponents might even look at the event as a crucial learning experience for the industry. In his

article “Why the World May Turn to Nuclear Power,” consultant and nuclear engineer Richard

G. Steiglitz makes some excellent points on safety:

The safety record of the 104 nuclear reactors operating in the United States
today, all of which were built at least 30 years ago, is enviable. Despite consumers' fears
of nuclear plants' radiation, it has not seriously injured, let alone killed, a single U.S.
consumer - and that includes the accident at Three Mile Island reactor #2. The #1
reactor at Three Mile Island continues to safely provide 800 megawatts of electricity. In
fact, the average person is more likely to suffer from radiation emitted by the sun.

Furthermore, the reactors now under construction throughout the world are
based on advanced designs that virtually eliminate the risk of accidents like Chernobyl
and Three Mile Island. New reactor plants are smaller and designed specifically to
withstand earthquakes, airplane collisions, and terrorist attacks.

The workforce at nuclear plants has also undergone significant upgrades… each
site is inspected every two years by a team of peers from other nuclear plants.
Experience is also a factor in increased safety. There are 26 utility companies operating
nuclear plants in the United States today, down from 51 in the 1970s. The consolidation
 Galasso 7

has enabled nuclear utilities to allocate the resources and expertise required to ensure
safe nuclear power. "Today's companies have many years of experience in operation,
and they have dedicated resources to improve operation and maintenance," a report
states.

Every human activity involves some risk. Comparing deaths based on one terawatt-year, coal

caused 342, hydropower 883, natural gas 85, and nuclear power just 8 (Kassides 5161)! Nuclear

opponent Michael Mariotte, states, “Granted, any technology improves over time. Cars are safer

now than when they first came out…people still manage to die on the highways.” Exactly, we

have determined the benefits of using the automobile outweigh the risks.

As for the risks to public health and welfare generated by nuclear power, they are mostly

overblown and not correctly understood. Consider this: each year in the US, air pollutants from

burning coal prematurely kill at least 23,500 people, cause an estimated 38,200 non-fatal heart

attacks and 554,000 asthma attacks. In addition to billions of dollars per year in property

damage, coal is responsible for one-fourth of atmospheric pollution from toxic mercury, and it

releases far more radioactive particles into the air than normally operating nuclear power plants

(Miller)! In terms of human welfare, the growth of nuclear power is desirable as reflected in the

strong correlation between electricity consumption per capita and the United Nations’ human

development index, which combines indicators of health, education, and economic prosperity

(Holton 743).

The risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons is an important issue. As many as 40 nations

have petitioned the United Nations for the start of a nuclear power program. Some say that

proliferation is inevitable, but the spread of nuclear power does not have to directly coincide with

proliferation. Uranium needs to be enriched to make bomb-grade material. Careful control and

monitoring of enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing facilities can help curtail the spread of
 Galasso 8

nuclear weapons. To that end, there is a proposal to set up a worldwide bank for uranium. This

would allow for monitoring of the resource and ensure that all amounts that go out come back

into the bank as spent fuel. “It is useful to summarize what safeguards can and cannot do. They

can provide a technical verification of material balance, but they cannot prevent diversion of

materials or search for clandestine materials or facilities. They do not provide complete

assurance of compliance, but they can identify violators and provide credible sanctions.

However, formal sanctions are not a sufficient deterrent to a determined violator. Moreover,

signatories of the non-proliferation treaty have the right to withdraw from it (with six months’

notice) if their supreme interests have been jeopardized, as Korea did in 2003. Thus, safeguards

are a necessary but insufficient element in the non-proliferation effort” (Kassides 5164).

There are exciting new technologies on the horizon that may offer solutions to many of

the negative issues. Commercially viable right now are so-called Gen III+ reactors, which are

updated version of current technology. They feature simplified designs and passive safety

systems, such as gravity fed water, eliminating the need for some pumps. Although not yet fully

commercially viable, the radioactive element thorium could lead to a paradigm shift in the way

we think about nuclear power. It leaves behind a fraction of the waste that uranium does and the

waste decays in hundreds of years, not thousands. “It is only slightly radioactive; you could carry

a lump of it in your pocket without harm” (Martin 117). Thorium was looked at by the US in the

1950’s and 1960’s; we chose to go with uranium-based nuclear power for the same reason

thorium now looks so promising. Uranium can be enriched to weapons grade material, whereas

thorium generally cannot. Looking to the far future we hope to one-day see nuclear fusion power

become a reality. The lessons learned in fission reactor design may well play an important part of

our ability to engineer a fusion-based power plant.

 Galasso 9

Indeed, the public’s perception of the industry is still recovering from past events, but it

is recovering. A survey conducted in September 2008 indicated that a record-high 74 percent of

Americans favor nuclear, with only 24 percent opposed. With the oil price spike the headline of

the day, those strongly favoring outnumbered those strongly against by almost four to one

(Kessides 5152). President Obama specifically calls for the development of nuclear power in his

state of the union address to Congress on January 27, 2010. Congress and the Obama

administration are on a course to provide the industry an unprecedented financial package.

Attached to the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act is legislation that would “create a

special bank…which could potentially provide underwriting for 187 new nuclear power projects,

at an estimated cost of $10 to $14 billion each, and assume responsibility for cost overruns and

delays” (Witherspoon). “The nuclear industry needs to engage the public to describe nuclear

power’s pluses, side benefits, and innovations that make nuclear power safer, cleaner, and

cheaper” (Steiglitz 22). The US has never been closer to realizing energy independence. Nuclear

power needs to be developed in conjunction with renewable to provide the clean energy we need

to grow.
 Galasso 10

Works Cited
Candris, Aris. “Why the US Needs Nuclear Power.” Wall Street Journal 9 November 2009.

2 February 2010. < http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704224004574489702243465472.html>

Charman, Karen. “Brave Nuclear World?” Taking Sides: Clashing Views On Environmental

Issues. Ed. Thomas A Easton. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. 229-38.

Holton, W. Conrad. “Power Surge: Renewed Interest in Nuclear Energy.”

Environmental Health Perspectives November 2005: 743-48.

Kessides, I., A. Adamantiades. “Nuclear Power for Sustainable Development: Current Status

and Future Prospects.” Energy Policy 37 (2009): 5149-66. 2 February 2010

< http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V2W-4X8V596-
1/2/5215de9b8a5d36134c41e7eac37506dc>

Mariotte, Michael. “Second Thoughts on Nuclear Power.” The Futurist

November/December 2009: 23.

Martin, Richard. “The New Nuke.” Wired January 2010: 114-19.

Miller Jr., G. Tyler. Living in the Environment 15th ed. Belmont: Brooks / Cole, 2007.

Steiglitz, Richard G. “Why the World May Turn to Nuclear Power.” The Futurist

November/December 2009: 17-22.

Wald, Matthew L. “Nuclear Power Renaissance?” Technology Review

November/December 2009: 72-74.

Wallace, Michael J. “Nuclear Power 2010 Program” Taking Sides: Clashing Views On

Environmental Issues. Ed. Thomas A Easton. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. 222-28.

Witherspoon, Roger. “Nuclear Power and the Bottomless Bank.” E – The Environmental

Magazine January/February 2010. 2 February 2010.

< http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4982>