Nuclear energy: the greenest source of power?

The nuclear industry has succesfully managed to portray atomic power as a 'greener' form of energy than conventional fossil fuels. The claim that nuclear power is 'climate friendly'  has been used as a powerful justification for the industry's rebirth and was reiterated today by business secretary John Hutton.

But does this argument really stack up? On one level, yes. Certainly, it's true that nuclear energy can provide large amounts of electricity with relatively low emissions of carbon dioxide. Government figures suggest the estimated full life cycle of carbon emissions from a nuclear power station are equivalent to between 2 per cent and 6 per cent of those of a gas-fired station for every unit of electricity generated. This includes all emissions from uranium processing, through construction and decommissioning to the management of radioactive waste.

But a green source of power? This, surely, is stretching the argument too far. Uranium mining and milling have a variety of potentially harmful environmental side effects including the creation of run-off and dangerous waste liquors that can pose serious hazards. Large numbers of fish are also killed because of the vast quantities of water required to cool nuclear reactors. Then of course, there is the issue of nuclear waste - much of which remains dangerously radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.

None of this necessarily means nuclear energy is the wrong choice. After all, every form of energy including renewables such as wind and wave power have environmentally damaging side-effects. There are also ways of limiting the environmental impact of nuclear power through proper planning and long-term policies to handle waste and guarantee the safe mining of uranium. 

But this does not address what is is perhaps the most compelling argument of all against nuclear power - that by allowing the technology to proliferate we could usher in its misuse in the future by a rogue state or terrorist and that this could pave the way for a nuclear catastrophe - on both a human and environmental level.

This depressing argument is probably the only one that the UK government has not really even attempted to tackle in its current push for new build nuclear. What do you think?

Comments

[G]

While I am a proponent of nuclear energy as PART of an overall global energy solution I think it is worth pointing several things out.
1) The amount of time needed to approve the building of a new nuclear reactor is roughly 20 years give or take (taking into account the need for environmental assessment and political debate before construction even begins.
2)Stable, democratic countries who take the care to meet standards of nuclear development is one thing..........developing countries building nuclear reactors willy nilly is completely different and not the kind of world I'd like to live in.
3)All it takes is one nuclear accident to derail the modicum of public support that exists. This has to be taken into account when governments weigh the risks and benefits of relying heavily on nuclear development as an alternative energy source.

On the other hand:
1) there are new and interesting disposal methods - i.e. burying spent fuel rods in the Canadian Shield - a relatively safe option that also allows one to retrieve those partially spent rods if technology improves.
2)Aside from the 20+ year time span to build new reactors, nuclear energy really is the only viable alternative we currently have to replacing GHG intensive energy sources. And by viable I'm referring to the fact that it, unlike wind or solar energy (that at max can only currently replace about 10% of energy needs), nuclear can meet an enormous amount of our energy needs.

An interesting debate..............in the end, nuclear just happens to be one of many alternatives that are used in a wide variety of policy alternatives. Better to have a diversified energy portfolio rather than relying solely on one method.

[Christopher Reeve]

Alex | 15 Apr 2008 18:33:21 your example is not correct. If something has a long half-life it does not imply it is not very radioactive. It just means that it will decay at a lower rate and will be around for longer. For your example of a half-life of 250 thousand years just a hand full of such material would produce 10^10 Bq (ten to the power of ten counts per second). Ouch!

The calculation: Assume 10^23 atoms N in a handful (yes that many) then the rate is,
log_e(2) x 10^23 / 250000 / 365 [days/year] / 24 [hours/day] / 3600 [seconds/hour] .

I don't know all the quantities of the different isotopes, but personally I can't accept nuclear power as good option. It is too centralised, it is too complicated and has the potential of being too dangerous. Just like building taller skyscrapers, if something goes wrong it goes very very wrong. Lets push ahead with sustainable solutions.

[Alex]

Lots of interesting fact free comments here, like: "Waste has a half-life of 250,000 years" (grnwtch). If it really were 250,000, it wouldn't really be radioactive.

In short, no body wants nuclear, but we ought to want coal, Russian gas, and blackouts a lot less.

Steve Howard | 10 Apr 2008 09:41:13 presented some logical arguments against, which deserve to be countered:

1. Nuclear power can be made safe. (Making it safe for fish is a trivial in comparison.) Catastrophic melt downs are physically impossible and pressure vessel explosions can be contained. There is a very small risk of something like 3-mile Island, but that killed substantially fewer people than an average Chinese coal mine.

2. Waste: This should be stored securely on site for about 30 years and then deep buried, unless a better solution comes along in those 30 years. Deep geological disposal is perfectly safe for the required 1,000 - 2,000 years.

Besides which, waste is a problem we have now. Renewing our nuclear capacity will increase the amount of waste by about 10%.

3. Transportation - this is in highly secure flasks which need to be monitored closely. As long as sensible procedures are followed, stealing a cask is a lot more difficult than a securicor van.

4. Insurance - That is an issue because the insurance industry is not good with minute risks of major events. As with terrorism insurance, the Government steps in. Yes its a subsidy, but wind power is also (quite rightly) subsidised.

The argument of article about proliferation is a valid argument, but it really makes no difference what we do. Lots of Asian countries are building reactors, including some rather nasty regimes.

[Alex]

Lots of interesting fact free comments here, like: "Waste has a half-life of 250,000 years" (grnwtch). If it really were 250,000, it wouldn't really be radioactive.

In short, no body wants nuclear, but we ought to want coal, Russian gas, and blackouts a lot less.

Steve Howard | 10 Apr 2008 09:41:13 presented some logical arguments against, which deserve to be countered:

1. Nuclear power can be made safe. (Making it safe for fish is a trivial in comparison.) Catastrophic melt downs are physically impossible and pressure vessel explosions can be contained. There is a very small risk of something like 3-mile Island, but that killed substantially fewer people than an average Chinese coal mine.

2. Waste: This should be stored securely on site for about 30 years and then deep buried, unless a better solution comes along in those 30 years. Deep geological disposal is perfectly safe for the required 1,000 - 2,000 years.

Besides which, waste is a problem we have now. Renewing our nuclear capacity will increase the amount of waste by about 10%.

3. Transportation - this is in highly secure flasks which need to be monitored closely. As long as sensible procedures are followed, stealing a cask is a lot more difficult than a securicor van.

4. Insurance - That is an issue because the insurance industry is not good with minute risks of major events. As with terrorism insurance, the Government steps in. Yes its a subsidy, but wind power is also (quite rightly) subsidised.

The argument of article about proliferation is a valid argument, but it really makes no difference what we do. Lots of Asian countries are building reactors, including some rather nasty regimes.

[Christopher Reeve]

I'm sure we do have the technology to handle nuclear fuel safely, but there is no guarantee what might happen to our economy in the future so there is no doubt that maintaining their safety will not always be financially possible.

What concerns me more though is why we continue to think that we should have the right to use such a potentially risky technology when developing countries can't afford that option or we don't trust them with it.

Surely it is best to invest in technologies that will benefit the whole world, not just our local economy.

[Peace3000]

I don't like IT when you say nuclear energy is harmful because of the waste and at the end you paint some rosey color about IT...what am I missing here? Why can't you decide? wrong or right? Binary!

[Peter Ravine]

Although the nuclear lobby tries to make you believe otherwise, the UK has an abundance of renewable energy resources, mostly in its offshore waters. It does not need nuclear power.
Nuclear power provides technology and opportunity for nuclear weapons. They are a human health hazard. Can France’s preponderance of nuclear power plants be related to its penchant for nuclear weapons?
What the world needs now is to wean itself from nuclear weapons, sooner rather than later. To do so, successfully, it needs to phase out nuclear power stations as soon as it can and accelerate the deployment of renewable energy, together with appropriate renewable energy storage facilities.

Peter Ravine

[michael alderson]

I greatly opposed nuclear energy until I read "The revenge of Gaia" by James Lovelock. Now, i've got to admit i'm very impressed with the facts provided by one of the most respected ecologists in the world suggesting that Nuclear is the way to go. Just have a read and you'll know what i mean. GREAT BOOK!

[grnwtch]

Nuclear waste has a half-life of 250,000 years. What other argument against it is necessary? Don't create what you can't get rid of.

[grnwtch]

Nuclear waste has a half-life of 250,000 years. What other argument against it is necessary? Don't create what you can't get rid of.

[True Friend of the Earth]

Electricity can be missused by tyrants to power lathes to make AK47's and the like, lets do away with electricity altogether!! You can all have free power, I do and have done so for most of my life! And will someone please tell me how we are going to dispose of all those dirty wind turbines??

[Steve Howard]

There is no excuse for us not putting our efforts and money into wind and solar. The only reason we haven't to any large degree is the petrochemical, coal and nuclear money interests OBVIOUSLY don't want us to.

Now, as for a few things that should be obvious to some people posting support for nuclear but apparently isn't obvious here's just a handful of reasons not to support any nuclear power plants:

1) Accidents happen. Anything mechanical and anything involving humans can go wrong. Let's see how much you support it if there is an accident near you.

2) Production of the waste will safely be disposed of....where exactly? (Please remember it's going to remain dangerous for years after you are gone and I doubt if that waste becomes a problem that your kids will thank you for the mess you left them)

Which leads us to...

3) transportation of the waste is a perfect time for anyone that would like to get a hold of some for use in a dirty bomb.

and

4) The insurance industry will not insure a reactor.....that means WE subsidize the plant even more by having to insure it.

Now, all I said is logical and based in fact.

Which means nothing to a very many people, so either use logic and priorities, or get mad and sound like someone from Faux News and/or someone working for the nuclear power industry and/or your average gas guzzling truck driving too big a house buying non recycling person who thinks ANYTHING that is done or is proposed to be done is great and will believe any "scientific" paper as to it's safety and necessity without looking into who this or that expert is and who pays their salary and who would never consider doing independent research on their own.

How much does everyone here want to bet that the majority of the people supporting nuclear plants also blindly support the war on Iraq (which never attacked the US and had nothing to do with 911), blindly believe anything their Dr. tells them and thinks politicians and CEOs are all saintly and would never, ever, ever lie to us.

[Steve Howard]

There is no excuse for us not putting our efforts and money into wind and solar. The only reason we haven't to any large degree is the petrochemical, coal and nuclear money interests OBVIOUSLY don't want us to.

Now, as for a few things that should be obvious to some people posting support for nuclear but apparently isn't obvious here's just a handful of reasons not to support any nuclear power plants:

1) Accidents happen. Anything mechanical and anything involving humans can go wrong. Let's see how much you support it if there is an accident near you.

2) Production of the waste will safely be disposed of....where exactly? (Please remember it's going to remain dangerous for years after you are gone and I doubt if that waste becomes a problem that your kids will thank you for the mess you left them)

Which leads us to...

3) transportation of the waste is a perfect time for anyone that would like to get a hold of some for use in a dirty bomb.

and

4) The insurance industry will not insure a reactor.....that means WE subsidize the plant even more by having to insure it.

Now, all I said is logical and based in fact.

Which means nothing to a very many people, so either use logic and priorities, or get mad and sound like someone from Faux News and/or someone working for the nuclear power industry and/or your average gas guzzling truck driving too big a house buying non recycling person who thinks ANYTHING that is done or is proposed to be done is great and will believe any "scientific" paper as to it's safety and necessity without looking into who this or that expert is and who pays their salary and who would never consider doing independent research on their own.

How much does everyone here want to bet that the majority of the people supporting nuclear plants also blindly support the war on Iraq (which never attacked the US and had nothing to do with 911), blindly believe anything their Dr. tells them and thinks politicians and CEOs are all saintly and would never, ever, ever lie to us.

[Steve Howard]

There is no excuse for us not putting our efforts and money into wind and solar. The only reason we haven't to any large degree is the petrochemical, coal and nuclear money interests OBVIOUSLY don't want us to.

Now, as for a few things that should be obvious to some people posting support for nuclear but apparently isn't obvious here's just a handful of reasons not to support any nuclear power plants:

1) Accidents happen. Anything mechanical and anything involving humans can go wrong. Let's see how much you support it if there is an accident near you.

2) Production of the waste will safely be disposed of....where exactly? (Please remember it's going to remain dangerous for years after you are gone and I doubt if that waste becomes a problem that your kids will thank you for the mess you left them)

Which leads us to...

3) transportation of the waste is a perfect time for anyone that would like to get a hold of some for use in a dirty bomb.

and

4) The insurance industry will not insure a reactor.....that means WE subsidize the plant even more by having to insure it.

Now, all I said is logical and based in fact.

Which means nothing to a very many people, so either use logic and priorities, or get mad and sound like someone from Faux News and/or someone working for the nuclear power industry and/or your average gas guzzling truck driving too big a house buying non recycling person who thinks ANYTHING that is done or is proposed to be done is great and will believe any "scientific" paper as to it's safety and necessity without looking into who this or that expert is and who pays their salary and who would never consider doing independent research on their own.

How much does everyone here want to bet that the majority of the people supporting nuclear plants also blindly support the war on Iraq (which never attacked the US and had nothing to do with 911), blindly believe anything their Dr. tells them and thinks politicians and CEOs are all saintly and would never, ever, ever lie to us.

[David S]

My suggestion would be to let the "greens" have their way:
Shut down the coal, oil and gas fired plants because they all produce CO2.
Shut down the nukes because of radiation concerns.
Then sit back and watch as the lights go out. Watch the refrigerators shut down, the furnaces stop running, the air conditioners stop, all appliances stop, and most businesses too.

A year or two of that should convince most folks that those evil power plants aren't so bad afterall.

[Greg]

We should be making advances in real renewables such as solar and wind. Both Britain and the US are getting left behind with both of those promising energy sources.

[D K]

"Perhaps the most compelling argument of all against nuclear power - that by allowing the technology to proliferate we could usher in its misuse in the future by a rogue state or terrorist ..."

Oh yes ? Here is the basis for the deeply political opposition by so many in the inherently hard-Left 'green' movement, who are happy to abandon or distort environmental solutions when they conflict with their primary ideological motive of viciously undermining the West.

Just as the old 'Peace' Movement with its calls for unilateral disarmament joined cynical Communists with pathetically weak, naive liberals, so their successor 'Greens'
of the same combined ilk demand that the West accept responsibility for countering the alleged human causes of 'global warming'; and also work towards a 'worldwide' abandonment of nuclear power.

Even if (I say IF) 21st century marxists & liberal pacifists were right, would China and the many Muslim countries actually disarm ? And if they did, how would we withstand the enormous conventional forces they can muster instead ?

Better Red than dead ? Better Muslim than dead ? I can hear their bleating voices already.

[Educated]

I think the real shame is that we've known about free energy for 400 years, but its only being used by those who can afford to know about it. The common man isn't allowed to know about free energy because that means the economy will freeze up.

Seeing this article just reidirates my impression that pure evil has such a mighty hold on everyone. To think of nuclear power as "green", is false and total propaganda. When we rip atoms apart, they don't go back together, the wander dangerously for thousands of years.

This is just another of the millions of articles that the higher powers use to control the many. Let's start to convince the public that nuclear power is safe, then we can just do whatever we want.

I wish that people would stand for what they believe in, but society has disabled true revolution, it's no longer possible, control over every aspect of our lives is electronically possible and those in power take such horrible advantage.

Freedom is dead.

[Mark Bushell]

There is a nuclear power plant a few miles up the road from where I live. It is much smaller than coal fired power stations with their huge cooling towers and has minimal impact on the surroundings. I don't have any concerns about it and consider if far preferable to a coal or gas powered station which would almost certainly be the alternative.

[Matt Hall]

Nuclear power replaces the problem of CO2 with a more distant and dangerous problem - radiation.
Do we really want to stave off global warming, just to leave future generations with a problem of "Global Glowing?"

There are less dangerous alternatives.

[TashaL]

Firstly, How many times do you want to pay for your electricity? With almost any other power station, you will be paying twice, with nuclear - FOUR times. Tax subsidies to build it, tax subsidies to maintain it during useful life, electricity bills, and tax subsidies to decommission (those taxes will be paid by you, your children, and your grandchildren) - the government may say that it will be paid for by private industry, but if they receive any tax subsidies at all, YOU are paying.

Secondly, even if construction started today, the power stations would still not be built in time to have a significant impact on our CO2 emissions by 2020 - the government's reasons for building are a lie. It won't generate a great deal of new business or jobs, in this country, and it won't help us hit CO2 targets. Plus they'll all be owned by EDF or EON, so profits (and therefore taxes) will be going out of the country too.

Thirdly - Jeffery, I think you'll find that scientific consensus is that all the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition - NOT the aeroplanes that hit them. Check out Steven E. Jones - a physicist who can lay it all out for you.

[TashaL]

Firstly, How many times do you want to pay for your electricity? With almost any other power station, you will be paying twice, with nuclear - FOUR times. Tax subsidies to build it, tax subsidies to maintain it during useful life, electricity bills, and tax subsidies to decommission (those taxes will be paid by you, your children, and your grandchildren) - the government may say that it will be paid for by private industry, but if they receive any tax subsidies at all, YOU are paying.

Secondly, even if construction started today, the power stations would still not be built in time to have a significant impact on our CO2 emissions by 2020 - the government's reasons for building are a lie. It won't generate a great deal of new business or jobs, in this country, and it won't help us hit CO2 targets. Plus they'll all be owned by EDF or EON, so profits (and therefore taxes) will be going out of the country too.

Thirdly - Jeffery, I think you'll find that scientific consensus is that all the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition - NOT the aeroplanes that hit them. Check out Steven E. Jones - a physicist who can lay it all out for you.

[Bob Irving]

Mysteriously no one writing on this page makes any reference to the nuclear power station which is being built in Finland at the moment and, after some 2 years of build time, is about 18 months behind schedule, despite having the undivided attention of some giants of the engineering world..... And if someone wants a nice place to put a power station, there's a big useless building at Heathrow! Just please, please, get someone else to commission it...

[Wes Byrd]

While I do not necessarily think that nuclear is a long term solution, I do think it is a short term solution that needs to be available once oil starts to get scarce. There also needs to be emphasis on using and developing alternative energy sources. They may not be efficient now, but, continued development is the only path that will make them so. I guess I am saying that we need to use all sources while looking at alternatives to the status quo sources. I'd love to see a relatively clean alternative energy source that isn't nuclear. I'm saying it's coming down the turnpike if we keep working on development, but, we might have to use nuclear as a source while it gets here.

[William White]

Something that has always puzzled me, if scorched earth is a fact of nuclear waste, why are people walking around in downtown Hiroshima today?