Nuclear energy policy: Encyclopedia II - Nuclear energy policy - Discussion of nuclear energy

Nuclear energy policy - Discussion of nuclear energy

(see also: Nuclear power and Nuclear power phase-out#Pros and cons of the phase-out)

Nuclear energy policy - Arguments against nuclear energy

Anti-nuclear politicians state environmental concerns with nuclear power as arguments for a phase-out. A main concern against the use of nuclear power for energy production is primarily safety of the environment and people. Activists refer to nuclear accidents in the past that have released large amounts of radioactive contamination killing and hurting many people and rendering large amounts of land unusable for the next few centuries, like e.g. the zone of alienation. [40][41]

Environmental groups criticize the environmental aspects of radiation. They criticize mining, enrichment and long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel and the disposal of nuclear waste. Groups warn from radioactive contamination and demand a strict adherence to the precautionary principle where technologies are rejected unless they can be proven to not cause significant harm to the health of living things or the biosphere. ([42])

Plutonium, which is contained in the fuel rods, is extracted in COGEMA La Hague site (France) and Sellafield (Great Britain). In this process great amounts of radioactive waste have in the past been dumped in the sea. The practice of ocean floor disposal is now banned ([43]).

Nuclear power plants cannot be insured solely by private insurers, because of the possible high costs in case of a severe accident. For ths reason governments must back the insurance (see for example the US's Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act). This practice is similar with banks, who are also backed with government guarantees.

Nuclear power plants have also frequently been speculated to be possible targets for terrorist attacks (e.g. in Germany [44]).

It is not decided in some countries, who should pay for the supervision of areas where nuclear waste is stored. At the moment it seems likely, at least in Germany, that the costs caused by direct waste (burned rods), contaminated materials from power plants and from the extraction of plutonium and uranium, as well as other nuclear waste, and costs for storage of contaminated waste will be paid for by the state, because the industry has only insufficient resources. [45] In the US, utility companies pay a fixed fee per kilowatt-hour into a disposal fund administered by the Department of Energy.

Another argument against nuclear energy is the potential for close connection of civil and military usage (which in most countries are kept strictly separate). In manufacturing nuclear fuel rods, the fraction of the fissile uranium isotope 235 has to be (except in CANDU reactors) increased from originally 0.7 % to up to 5 % in order to be able to create a chain reaction. A station for the enrichment of uranium (German station at Gronau) could - with extreme difficulty - increase the amount of U-235 to above 80 % so it could be used as a weapon. Therefore, some of the techniques of uranium enrichment are kept secret (e.g. gaseous diffusion, gas centrifuge, AVLIS and nuclear reprocessing).

Opponents of nuclear power argue it is not possible to discern between civil and military usage, and therefore that nuclear power contributes to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This has happened in Israel, India, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and South Africa (which later gave up its nuclear weapons). Plutonium in high concentration can be used for building nuclear weapons, but in practice it has been used again in nuclear power plants in MOX fuel rods. [46]

Nuclear energy policy - Arguments for nuclear energy

There is recently a renewed interest in nuclear energy as a solution to dwindling oil reserves and global warming because electricity demand is increasing and nuclear power generates virtually no greenhouse gases It has been argued for nuclear power as a solution to the greenhouse effect (e.g. "nukes are green" NYT editorial and [47], [48]). This has been disputed by several environmentalist organizations (e.g. [49]. It remains a fact that nuclear power produces less greenhouse gases than popular alternatives, such as coal.

Germany has combined the phase-out with an initiative for renewable energy and wants to increase the efficiency of fossil power plants in an effort to reduce the reliance on coal. According to the German Minister Jürgen Trittin, in 2020, this will cut carbon dioxide emissions by 40 % compared with 1990 levels. Germany has become one of the leaders in the effords to fulfill the Kyoto protocol. Critics of the German way however, have called it a contradiction to abandon nuclear power and build up renewable energy as both have very low CO₂ emissions. [50]

Nuclear reactors do not emit greenhouse gasses or ash during normal operation; however the mining and processing of uranium involves emissions. Emissions that arise from whole life cycle are well comparable to wind energy.[51]. Nuclear reactors and other types of power plants raise the temperature of the rivers used to cool them, which can pose a health hazard for fish in certain eco systems. This can include species of fish already near extinction as a consequence of hydropower and other human activities. This can be greatly reduced by using cooling towers, which are deployed in places where excessive warming is deemed unacceptable. All waste products are contained and stored. This is opposite to other energy sources (e.g. Coal, Gas, Oil) where pollution is pumped directly into atmosphere. Without [Nuclear Power Plants] [USA] would have released nearly 700 million metric tons more carbon dioxide into the air each year. That's about the same amount of carbon dioxide that now comes from all USA's cars and trucks [52].

Nuclear waste becomes less radioactive over time. After 50 years 99.1% [53] of radiation disappears. This is in sharp contrast with arsenic and other chemicals that are stable and will exist forever and are released burning coal. Despite being most controversial, proponents of nuclear energy contend that the underground solution for permanent disposal of waste is well tested and proven. They point out the natural example of Oklo, nature’s own nuclear waste repository, where waste was stored for millions of years.[54]. Nuclear waste is small in volume and nuclear waste accounts for less than 1% of heavily toxic waste in industrial countries [55]. 96% of high nuclear waste could be recycled and reused, were the additional risks of proliferation deemed acceptable. [56].

In some nations there may be no viable alternatives. In the words of the French, "We have no coal, we have no oil, we have no gas, we have no choice." Critics of a phase-out everywhere argue that nuclear power stations could not be compensated for and predict an energy crisis or argue only coal could possibly compensate for nuclear power and CO₂ emissions will increase tremendously or an increase in energy imports either of nuclear power or of natural oil. Nuclear power has been relatively unaffected by embargoes, as uranium is mined in reliable countries such as Australia and Canada unlike, for example, some large natural gas suppliers, which include states of the former Soviet Union ([57][58], pdf).

An argument for proponents of nuclear power is energy economics. They state that nuclear energy is the only power source which explicitly factors the estimated costs for waste containment and plant decommissioning into its overall cost, and that the quoted cost of fossil fuel plants is deceptively low for this reason. Also, the cost of many renewables would be increased if they included necessary back-up power sources due to their intermittent nature. It has been calculated that wind power, one of the major hopes for proponents of the phase-out, costs three times as much as average electricity in Germany. [59]

Proponents of nuclear energy state nuclear plants are safe and protected against attacks. Containment buildings are strongly reinforced and highly guarded (see [60]and [61]).

Proponents of nuclear power also believe that the Chernobyl accident was unique and occurred only because of a combination of poor design and unauthorized tests - also, the Chernobyl reactors did not have full containment buildings. They point out that no such accidents have occurred in Western reactors, which are now by far the most common design. A commonly cited example is the Three Mile Island accident, which did not release significant amounts of radioactive particles despite a nuclear meltdown comparable in magnitude to Chernobyl; this is attributed to better design and containment at Three Mile Island. These are two only major accidents in civilian nuclear power plant accidents. [62]

Proponents of nuclear energy also point out the great safety level for workers in the industry. Nuclear power resulted in 8 immediate deaths per TWy of electricity. That is significantly lower than the figure for Coal 342, Natural Gas 85, and Hydro 883. Data is gathered in period 1970-1992 [63]

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Discussion of nuclear energy", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki