a case aganist nuclear power

The lesser evil: Nuclear Energy

Asad Choudhry
999071668
October 15, 2014
Professor Karen Ing
Introduction:
The increased urgency to combat climate change has led to renewed interest in nuclear energy. To simplify a nuclear energy facility or a nuclear reactor is very much like any other power plant except that it produces heat through a process called nuclear fission. The heat produced from the nuclear fission is done through a radioactive element called uranium. The heat created is turned into steam which then powers a turbine, to generate electricity. This process is purported to be carbon emission free compared to traditional non-renewable energy sources such as coal; which is why some see it as an effective method to reduce carbon emissions by replacing our carbon heavy economy. However Nuclear power’s efficacy compared to renewable energy sources does not stand up to criticism. Allegations from the fission side are low cost (alleging that infrastructure and technology already exist for nuclear but not for renewables), as previously mentioned carbon free (alleging that life cycle studies of nuclear power plants compared to renewable energy sources is better for the environment), and a consistent source for energy (compared to renewables which are seen as non-intermittent energy source). Low Cost:
Nuclear power cost analysis reports are faulty in their methodology, therefore not low cost compared to renewable energy sources. Most reports are funded by nuclear industry and are not published in peer reviewed journals. There were twenty nine major nuclear cost analysis reports done by the nuclear industry from 2000 on and all had faulty assumptions (Shrader-Frechette, 2011). They have five faulty methodological assumptions firstly nuclear liability costs which most reports assume to be zero however that obviously should not be the case and studies done by EU, which take into account the liability costs, substantially increase the costs (Shrader-Frechette, 2011). Secondly, Interest rates during construction are again assumed to be zero as if built over night. The reports do not use the correct 15 percent standard rate for projects this size. Thirdly, the time it takes for reactors to be built is again assumed to be zero, where it should be approximately 10 years. Fourthly, nuclear capacity factor (ratio of actual output of energy to maximum output of energy if operated at full capacity) they are assumed to be ninety five percent instead of 71 percent which is an international standard. Finally, nuclear life expectancy purported to be 40-60 years compared to the actual twenty years. If a proper report is done with appropriate value, the cost increased about 700 percent from 15 cents per Kwh which was reported with faulty methodology. Therefore the price comes out to be $1.05/Kwh, and its rising compared to solar-PV (photovoltaics – converting sunlight to dc electricity). According to US department of Energy (which are funded to write pro nuclear papers) reported solar-PV costs to be around 5-10 cents/Kwh by 2015. Currently Solar-PV costs are 15 cents/Kwh, which are getting cheaper by the month (Solarbuzz, 2012). As more and more tax subsidies move to renewables and the gap widens the real cost of nuclear energy shows to be $1.50/Kwh (Sovacool, 2008).
Nuclear energy has received much of the tax payer’s money, only recently has renewable energy been given a chance. MRG Consultants says that over the last century, US has given thirty three times more subsidies compared to all renewable sources combined ($165 billion vs. $5 billion) (Shrader-Frechette, 2011). Moreover if all the indirect and direct subsidies are accounted for, nuclear industry has received subsidies over 200 times greater than wind and solar combined. ($1 trillion dollars over fifty years for nuclear energy). Nuclear energy has a massive lobby which trim data and do not satisfy rigorous studies done by independent bodies and spread misinformation to the public about the real costs of nuclear energy (Lenzen, 2008).
Carbon free:
The common public misperception is that nuclear energy is carbon free or low carbon technology. Similarly to the low cost claim, faulty methodology is used to purport that nuclear power is carbon free technology. Similar to cost projects, 29 big studies were done on nuclear emissions. 18 of which were funded by nuclear industry and none of them are published in peer reviewed journals (Shrader-Frechette, 2011). Nuclear funded emission reports only count emissions from stage one instead of multiple stages which are counted by independent peer review journals. The nuclear fuel cycle is long and complex. The primary fuel for nuclear power plants is uranium which is distributed in the earth’s crust and ocean in extremely small quantities, with the exception of concentrations rich enough to make up a mineral that contains a commercially useful material. Uranium is mined at the surface and underground, and after removed it is crushed, grinded into slush, and drained in sulfuric acid. Uranium is then recovered from a liquid mixture and concentrated into a solid uranium oxide which is then converted into hexafluoride and heated. Next, hexafluoride vapor is filled into cylinders where it is cooled and changed from a vapor into a solid, making it smaller, before it undergoes enrichment through mixing gases in a gas centrifuge. This initial process is first biggest carbon emitter (Sovacool, 2008). Second biggest emitter in the process is the milling process. Mined uranium must go through a series of purification processes to crush, screen, and wash the naturally occurring solid material from which a metal or valuable mineral can be extracted(Ore), which lets the heavy uranium settle as the lighter waste is guided away. Next, the mill is where the acid baths drain the uranium out of the processed ore, producing a yellow powder, called “yellowcake”, that is about 75% uranium oxide. In the instance where ores have a concentration of 0.1%, the milling must crush 1000 ton of rock to extract 1 ton of yellowcake. The oxide and the 999 ton of remaining rock remain radioactive, the phenomenon of spontaneously emitting radiation resulting from changes in the nuclei of atoms of the element. Acids must be neutralized with limestone, a hard rock made up mainly of calcium carbonate, and be made incapable of being dissolved with phosphates (Sovacool, 2008). To further explain nuclear plant is not in itself emitting the emission rather, through plant construction, operation, mining and decommissioning of plants. Studies done by independent party looked at uranium mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, reactor construction, fuel processing, fuel conditioning and finally storage The independent studies disqualified studies that did not take into account the above processes especially the mining and reported a mean value of 66 grams of carbon per Kwh, compared to coal and oil generators which emitted far more with 443g – 1050g of carbon/Kwh. However renewable energy sources (solar-PV, wind) emitted 35 grams (Sovacool, 2008). Therefore nuclear energy is no way carbon free and the independent research shows this misconception is purported by research done in non-peer review journals. Independent peer review studies found 85% of the studies done on this issue dubious in the methodology and clear bias. Therefore, nuclear power is not as carbon free as it is purported to be compared to renewable energy.
Intermittent Energy: comparing nuclear and wind vs solar-PV:
Nuclear power is again seen as a constant source of power and claimed as “operating around the clock, 24/7” by Nuclear Energy Institute furthermore, renewables are seen as not reliable and therefore a conclusion is reached that nuclear power is only feasible way to combat climate change. Current reactors present in United States and the United Kingdom reveal that they run at 71% average reactor load factors (percent of time the reactor operates). During the 1980s this number was 51%, meaning the reactors were not working half the time (Shrader-Frechette, 2013).
One of the biggest intermittent issues with nuclear technology come up during a heat wave. Nuclear reactors placed near rivers used the water bodies nearby to cool the reactors, during a sudden heatwave causes the temperature of water to rise and reactors can no longer be cooled. This brings the reactor to a complete halt creates a big gap for energy which is filled by traditional non renewable energy sources. For example four nuclear power plants had to be shut down in France which then had to buy coal fueled energy from United Kingdom (Godoy, 2006).
The constant high temperatures, the high pressure, and short material life spans make it so plants have to shut down to meet safety requirements. To keep up plants United States regulatory commission reported at least 28 percent of United States nuclear operators have covered up faults and defects to keep plants running. Therefore claims like “operate around the clock” are demonstrably false and promote unsafe practices that could lead to disaster. Department of Energy reports that offshore wind have no downtime (DOE, 2011). In conclusion inconsistent is not a problem with renewable energy.

Conclusion: The public has been grossly misled about nuclear energy. People see it as carbon free, low cost alternative to fossil fuels and consistent source of energy which might be half-truths but they do not solve climate change. The current Canadian conservative government is highly anti climate and therefore it makes sense to subsidize nuclear over renewable energy sources. It shows to the public they are ‘fighting’ climate change (which is not the case) while still appealing to their conservative base. Virtually all of data reported is done by pro-nuclear industries which makes it very difficult to find flaws in nuclear energy. Nuclear power has many other problems that this paper did not focus on, increase nuclear arming of the world, energy per area, and increased nuclear waste. The arguments presented above are most commonly used in support of nuclear energy but peer reviewed studies show that wind and solar-PV, are low cost, more consistent and low carbon compared to nuclear plants and more reliable in fighting climate change.

References
Godoy, J. 27 juillet 2006 : IPS (Inter Press Service) Paris - Heat wave shows limits of nuclear energy. Sortir Du Nucleaire.
Lenzen, M. (2008). Life Cycle Energy And Greenhouse Gas Emissions Of Nuclear Energy: A Review. Energy Conversion and Management, 2178-2199.
Shrader-Frechette, Kristin. 2011. What Will Work: Fighting Climate Change with
Renewable Energy, Not Nuclear Power. New York: Oxford University Press
Shrader-Frechette, K. (2013). Answering “Scientific” Attacks on Ethical Imperatives: Wind and Solar Versus Nuclear Solutions to Climate Change. Ethics and the Environment, 1-17.
Solarbuzz. 2012. Solar Market Research and Analysis, Solar Electricity Prices.
Port Washington, NY: NPD Group
Sovacool, B. (2008). Valuing The Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Nuclear Power: A Critical Survey. Energy Policy, 2950-2963.
Sovacool, B. (2008). Valuing The Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Nuclear Power: A Critical Survey. Energy Policy, 2950-2963.
United States Department of Energy (DOE). 2011. Electric Power Annual 2010.
Washington, DC: DOE. Accessed June 1, 2012 at www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/ electricity/epa/epa_sum.html.

References: Lenzen, M. (2008). Life Cycle Energy And Greenhouse Gas Emissions Of Nuclear Energy: A Review. Energy Conversion and Management, 2178-2199. Shrader-Frechette, Kristin. 2011. What Will Work: Fighting Climate Change with Renewable Energy, Not Nuclear Power Shrader-Frechette, K. (2013). Answering “Scientific” Attacks on Ethical Imperatives: Wind and Solar Versus Nuclear Solutions to Climate Change. Ethics and the Environment, 1-17. Solarbuzz. 2012. Solar Market Research and Analysis, Solar Electricity Prices. Port Washington, NY: NPD Group Sovacool, B. (2008). Valuing The Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Nuclear Power: A Critical Survey. Energy Policy, 2950-2963. Sovacool, B. (2008). Valuing The Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Nuclear Power: A Critical Survey. Energy Policy, 2950-2963. United States Department of Energy (DOE). 2011. Electric Power Annual 2010. Washington, DC: DOE