Nuclear Power

In 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama remarked, “To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It’s that simple.” This built upon his predecessor’s comments that, “the 103 nuclear power plants in America produce 20 percent of the nation’s electricity without producing a single pound of air pollution or greenhouse gases.” Experts in the nuclear energy field, both for and against nuclear energy, find the latter statement by former President George W. Bush lacking credibility, and not only because the number of operating plants in the United States was actually 104 at the time.

Nuclear energy critics cite the significant amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) produced by the nuclear fuel cycle in aggregate. Proponents of nuclear power generation focus on the reactors, which produce nothing but water vapor emitted from the cooling towers.

Nuclear Power and the Environment

Nuclear reactors do not emit GHGs. The nuclear reaction is contained in a controlled environment and the heat generated is used to boil water to spin turbines and produce electricity. Instead of a chemical reaction, an atomic reaction is required, produced by a process of fission applied to uranium fuel. Because of the splitting of atoms and the radioactive movement of neutrons, no carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, or other GHGs are produced. However, the radioactive waste byproducts are toxic, requiring storage for thousands of years. Analyzing the entire nuclear cycle, including the upfront uranium mining and refining, reveals that a large amount of fossil fuels are required. In part, this is where the GHGs originate. Such steps are also required to produce aluminum; however, the difference is that aluminum-based products can be recycled and reused in other forms.

Such recycling with uranium is impossible, because the atomic alteration undertaken by this heavy element in order to boil water cannot be reversed. Like fossil fuels, uranium is a nonrenewable resource. Reports by the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) highlight that the mining of “easy” uranium in places like Saskatchewan, Canada, and Australia will all but run out within the next decade, while the cost to extract it will rise significantly. This uranium supply aspect of the nuclear cycle can be compared to today’s disappearing petroleum feed stocks.

The cost will rapidly increase to find more of the resource, while the risk of environmental damage will correspondingly increase. Another aspect of nuclear power production is the dangerous chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) dumped into the atmosphere during the enrichment of uranium, a complex technique needed to make the uranium suitable for use in fission reactors.

It is so complex that only the United States, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Russia export enriched uranium to other countries for use in their reactors. Regardless of the source, the enrichment process produces CFCs, which destroy the ozone layer. The nuclear industry, like the oil industry, is highly subsidized. This was reinforced in the U.S. Energy Act of 2005, which allocated subsidies across all facets of the nuclear cycle. One of the rationales given is that nuclear-generated electricity will wean Americans from dependence on oil and strengthen national security. Electricitygenerating statistics published by the Department of Energy (DOE) refute this argument. 

In 2010, petroleum products fueled less than 1 percent of electrical consumption, as the bulk of the nation’s petroleum is used for transportation and not for the production of electric power. In this energyhungry sector, gas–electric hybrids and revitalized electric vehicles are called upon to reduce petroleum consumption.

Nuclear power supplies 14 percent of the world’s electricity, with countries like France deriving over 75 percent of their supply from this source. In America, no new plant has been brought online since 1996, even as 20 percent of U.S. electrical production is derived from nuclear power. However, the dynamics of the nuclear industry have intensified with the rising public awareness of global warming and the March 2011 catastrophe at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear complex. However, nuclear power is a kinder, gentler source of power for the climate. With this in mind, and its desire to meet its Kyoto commitment, Finland approved the world’s largest nuclear reactor—at 1,600 megawatts (MW)—in 2005. It was intended for an online date of 2009; however, cost overruns and delays have pushed commercial operation to 2013. Furthermore, in a deal struck in 2006, the United States committed its nuclear technology to India in support of that country’s plans to generate over 9,300 MW. India will invest up to $51 billion to have 20 gigawatts (GW) of nuclear capacity operating by 2020.