Nuclear Power: The Sustainable Energy of the Future?

Keti Shea

Abstract: The ratification of the Kyoto Protocol marked a significant step in international environmental governance and demonstrated to the world community that degradation to the environment is a global concern. Importantly, the agreement upheld the idea of sustainable energy sources which can meet rising energy demands in a cost-effective and environmentally-sound manner. Attention has begun to focus on the potential of nuclear power for mitigating pollution and the effects of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Although it did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the United States is a vocal participant in the debate on nuclear power, expressing concerns of dependence on foreign energy sources which are vulnerable to fluctuating prices. In the current era of a neoliberal, free market economy, nuclear power must be cost-efficient, economically competitive with fossil fuel technologies and attractive to investors in order to survive. It must also continue with technological advancements and research projects which might enhance safety features and reactor efficiency while reducing their construction and maintenance costs. As these new technologies appear on the market, they must be demonstrated to the public in order to reverse any popular misconceptions of nuclear power and its dangers. In conclusion, the debate on nuclear power includes political, environmental and technological elements. If the nuclear power industry hopes to make a comeback on the basis of being a sustainable energy source, it must firmly and unambiguously reaffirm the credentials of nuclear power: clean, cheap and safe.

Introduction: Many European countries, both nuclear and non-nuclear states, have begun extending nuclear plant lives or planning the construction of new nuclear power facilities. The Belgian government, where 60% of electricity comes from nuclear power, just recently reaffirmed its commitment to nuclear power and French plans for its European Pressurized Water Reactor have set a construction date for 2007 (Anonymous 2) . China plans to build five new nuclear power stations by 2010 and by 2020, plans to expand its nuclear generating capacity from 6.5 gigawatts to 36 gigawatts (Jing 1). According to the Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense, China will build 40 new stations with a combined maximum generating capacity of 40,000 megawatts in the next 15 years (Jing 1). Finland is currently constructing Olkiluoto-3, the first nuclear power station built in Western Europe in the past decade. Even in the United States, where public opposition to nuclear power remains much higher than in Europe, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved thirty separate extensions for nuclear plant licences for a period of twenty years each (Ritch 45). Why are so many countries focusing on nuclear power now? The answer is that both government leaders and nuclear industry representatives have begun to promote nuclear power as a clean energy source for the future due to the fact that it releases very little atmospheric pollutants in comparison to coal and gas-fired plants. International attention has now become focused on the deleterious effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the damage it causes both to humans and to the environment. An additional concern is the volatile situation in the Middle East and in other oil-exporting countries, leading to heightened calls for decreased dependence on foreign energy sources. The success of “pro-nuclear” forces in this debate will depend on a number of factors: the ability of nuclear power to compete in the market with fossil fuels, whether technological innovations in nuclear reactor design can increase safety while decreasing cost, and the extend to which pro-nuclear forces in powerful nations can change negative public opinion plaguing the nuclear industry.

The 1992 Rio Conference on global climate change illustrates the degree of international attention now paid to questions of energy and environmental degradation. There is an emphasis on “sustainable” energy which can “expand fast enough to meet the increasingly urgent goal of sustaining modern industrial economies while reducing climate-threatening emissions” (International Atomic Energy Agency 2) The passage of the Kyoto Protocol means that an economic value has been attached to greenhouse gas emissions, making nuclear power more economically competitive with fossil fuels. This is because nuclear power stations have always had to pay the cost of waste disposal while gas- and coal-fired plants have been allowed to emit pollutants without having to account for these wastes monetarily: “In the past, the virtual absence of restrictions or taxes on greenhouse gas emissions has meant that nuclear power’s advantage, low emissions, has had no tangible economic value” (Evans 45) The ExternE Program carried out under the European Commission estimates the total cost of environmental damage from the nuclear power industry worldwide is about $0.003 per kilowatt-hour. This is comparable to the estimated damage costs of natural gas combined cycle plants but is much less than the estimated figure for coal steam-electric plants (United Nations World Energy Assessment 23). However, new improvements in fossil fuel technology such as coals systems involving fuel decarbonization and carbon dioxide sequestration will pose further problems to the competitiveness of nuclear power. Operation and maintenance costs of nuclear power stations will also remain high due to restrictive safety regulations and the large operating staffs required- usually 800-900 personnel for a 1,000 megawatt power station (International Atomic Energy Agency 3). In addition, analysts project that the industry will have to be expanded by at least an order of a magnitude for there to be any significant decrease in GHG emissions (United Nations World Energy Assessment 56).

The effects of emissions are exacerbated in the developing world as it experiences rapid population growth, movement to megacities and increasing levels of poverty. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNESCO) pointed out in its 2000 Millennium Development Goals that there is unequal access to energy in the developing world and in particular, to electricity. Nuclear energy projects have been promoted for use in some mega-cities where the population density requires reliable, sustained and centralized flow of electricity (Evans 123). India is a good example of this point as it attempts to provide electricity to an increasing population without causing great harm to the environment in so doing. India is just one country that has pursued a rigorous nuclear power policy with 22 reactors in operation by the end of 2003 (Kursunoglu 10).

Renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, are also under consideration for meeting global energy needs without accruing high economic and environmental costs. These renewable sources are not, however, in such direct competition with nuclear power as are fossil fuels. This is because nuclear electricity generation can in fact enhance existing renewable programs by “filling in” for sporadic sources such as wind. Although renewable energy sources will certainly constitute part of the future global energy mix, their use alone cannot meet the growing demands for energy and the need for steady supplies of electricity. As Dr.Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated last March, “Wind power, for example, may be an excellent choice for sparsely populated rural economies, particularly if they lack modern electrical infrastructure; on the other hand, it seems unlikely that wind power will be able to support the electricity needs of tomorrow’s mega-cities” (IAEA 8). Although renewable energy sources often produce relatively affordable electricity to consumers, this is in part due to continuing government subsidies. For example, Germany invested in wind power projects on a large scale, now accounting for one half of the installed wind capacity in Europe (Kursunoglu 165). Yet wind produces only 8% of Germany’s electricity, despite the fact that the projects were heavily subsidized. Denmark is another country that has invested in large-scale wind power but decided to halt its wind programs after finding that trying to coordinate a sporadic power source (i.e. wind) with conventional systems of steady power generation translated into high costs (Pool 304). Renewable energy sources may attract interest worldwide but they are not competitive with nuclear power generation to the same extent that non-renewable sources are.

Another potential environmental advantage of nuclear power lies in its capacity to produce hydrogen. Hydrogen is being considered for use in “clean” transport and would greatly effect carbon dioxide emissions since the transportation sector contributes significantly to GHG emissions (Nuclear Energy Agency 12). But hydrogen must be cleanly-produced for its use to be environmentally beneficial. A “hydrogen economy” depends on the production of pure hydrogen and this process requires the expenditure of primary energy (Pool 12). Analysts suggests the primary energy of choice may be nuclear power because, in the words of the Director General of the World Nuclear Association, “if [the world] is going to introduce a hydrogen economy, it needs a large-scale means of producing hydrogen that doesn’t just shift the pollution from the automobile to the place where the hydrogen is made. We need to be making hydrogen cleanly. And nuclear power right now is the only technology that is proven and has the ability to make hydrogen on a large scale” (Ritch 46).

If nuclear power is to be one of the clean energy sources of the future, then technological innovations will be necessary to make it more attractive to investors. New reactor designs must continue to increase efficiency and safety while decreasing cost and construction time. One innovation is the advanced light water reactors (LWRs), part of the Generation III+ models currently on the market. Their modular design means that they can be assembled on-site fairly quickly at a lower cost than field-constructed reactors (United Nations World Energy Assessment 57). The Westinghouse AP600, for example, can be constructed in 3 years and costs 15% less than the current model of pressurized-water reactors (Energy Information Agency figures). An important feature is that these advanced LWRs are safer than previous or current designs, having both active and passive safety systems.

Additionally, these reactors can be operated on low-enriched uranium in once-through fuel cycles, making them more resistant to proliferation and diversion than the existing LWRs. Deterrence could be heightened even further if advanced LWRs were operated on a denaturated uranium-thorium once-through fuel cycle, making them more proliferation resistant as well as decreasing transuranic wastes (Pool 98). One fifth as much plutonium would be left over in the spent fuel in comparison to advanced LWRs run on low-enriched uranium (Pool 99). Furthermore, the plutonium in the spent fuel from the uranium-thorium once-through fuel cycle would contain large amounts of Pu-238. This generates heat and thereby makes weapons manufacturing more difficult (Shimbum 3). Advanced LWRs, whether operated on low-enriched uranium once-through fuel cycles or denaturated uranium-thorium once-through cycles, contain considerable disincentives for diversion which help make them an attractive investment.

An additional technological innovation is the pebble-bed modular reactor (PBMR) which uses graphite as a moderator and helium as a coolant (UN World Energy Assessment 64). Unlike LWRs, these reactors are high-temperature, gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs). Uranium fuel pellets encased in carbon or silica are brought into contact with larger fuel elements which are themselves either encased in graphite or are circulating in the core of the reactor. The safety designs for HTGRs are cheaper than those of advanced LWRs because they are passive systems. Passive safety systems offer a high degree of inherent safety and thereby bypass some of the complicated and expensive active safety controls. An additional safety feature is that the temperature in the reactor core never goes above the 1600 degrees Celsius operating limit of the fuel (EIA figures). The high burn-up rate of the fuel material creates disincentives to recovery of spent fuel for use in weapons manufacturing (EIA). Despite these features, advanced LWRs remain the most attractive investment because the low power density of the PBMRs, although a safety feature, adds to its cost.

These advanced Generation III+ reactors are followed by the introduction of the Generation IV prototypes- reactor models to be placed on the market between 2015 and 2025. Reactor designs and criteria are decided on by the ten nations, one of which is the United States, which make up the Generation IV International Forum(GIF). The Generation IV reactors continue with the standards set for advanced LWRs: that is, to develop reactors that are “sustainable energy sources, are competitive energy sources, are safe ad reliable systems and are proliferation-resistant” (Ritch 44). The work of the GIF demonstrates the degree to which technological innovation is incremental and based on knowledge gained from past experience.

Additional developments will be needed, however, as an expanded nuclear industry will necessitate research of uranium supplies. The World Energy Assessment report produced by the United Nations in conjunction with the World Energy Council suggests five possible uranium sources for the future: plutonium fast breeder reactors; alternative breeder concepts; uranium from seawater; large-scale, nuclear energy parks and thermonuclear fusion. As the report points out, extraction of uranium from seawater is the most viable option given current technology (UN World Energy Assessment). The other four options generally face high costs and inactive programs; many countries have abandoned research and development as they realize these choices are not feasible in the short-term due to financial restraints and/or political pressure. For example, the creation of large-scale international energy parks is technically feasible. This option proposes to gather all “sensitive” nuclear facilities, such as reprocessing and fuel fabrication plants, and place them in energy parks under heavily-guarded international control (Kursunoglu 201). While some suggest that this would reduce risks of proliferation and diversion of sensitive material, it is highly unlikely that the countries of the world will subject to strict international control assets vital to their power generation economy. Although technically feasible, this is an example of technology that is politically undesirable or “unsustainable.”

However, recovering uranium from seawater has met with less opposition and is a viable option; estimated costs for recovery are between $100 and $300 per kilogram (UN World Energy Assessment 76). Although this is higher than the current price of uranium, this added cost would only contribute to an increase in the cost of electricity of $0.004 per kilowatt-hour (UN World Energy Assessment 78). One estimate asserted that if 15% of the uranium in seawater were recovered, world nuclear generation could be supported until the year 2100 given a high-growth scenario (Pool 311). However, technological innovations will have to be made demonstrable to the public in order for them to accepted, meaning that innovations and new discoveries alone will not save the nuclear power industry unless it makes a concerted effort to convince the public of its alleged benefits.

Technological innovation in the field of nuclear power has historically been unsuccessful in counteracting negative public opinion. Advancements in reactor design and safety features are only effective if they are accepted by the general public. Public perception of nuclear power, with a few notable exceptions, has been and continues to be a major obstacle to the nuclear industry. The main areas of concern which stimulate fear are: nuclear waster disposal, diversion of materials for weapons manufacturing, terrorist attacks and catastrophic accidents in power facilities which result in the release of radioactive material. The psychological impact of the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have heightened fear and anxiety about nuclear facility safety. Dr. Robert DuPont, a psychiatrist and fear expert, has studied social perceptions of nuclear energy. He identified several factors which contribute to a distrust of nuclear power which he characterizes as a “mass pathology” (Interview with Frontline 8). First, it is something unfamiliar to most ordinary citizens and so it is a “fear of the unknown” (Interview with Frontline 6). Since nuclear power plants are not part of the daily scenery in many peoples’ lives, they are unfamiliar and hence threatening objects. In pro-nuclear countries such as France where public perception is much more open to the nuclear option, nuclear power facilities are located in public places, in plain sight (Ritch 44). Nuclear power stations even invite tours of their facilities and have promoted a policy of hosting tours for schoolchildren in order to socialize the public in the benign nature of nuclear power generation.

Another public concern regarding nuclear power facilities is that they are an imposed risk. Although people are exposed to natural radiation on a daily basis, nuclear power stations impose a further health risk and this imposition unsettles many people. DuPont argues that the imposed risk from nuclear power contributes to overall anxiety: “If you look at the anti-nuclear movement, it is rooted in this control. It is rooted in a kind of paranoid view of what they’re doing to me [itals added]” (Interview with Frontline 12). The current mayor of Harrisburg, PA commented on this issue in a recent interview in which he stated that “[the accident at Three Mile Island] was the fear of the unknown, and the fact that people began to understand from the very beginning that some of this information was being withheld, well...And people voted on the matter with their feet. They got into their cars and left” (Interview with Frontline 4). The mass exodus from the area surrounding Three Mile Island demonstrates the considerable fear and anxiety that the presence of nuclear power facilities instills in many people.

A further factor influencing public opinion is the problem of waste disposal. For example, the U.S. decision to use Yucca Mt. as the geological repository for radioactive waste has faced bitter opposition from environmentalists both inside and outside Nevada. One activist with the Nuclear Waste Task Force in Nevada (which opposes the Yucca Mt. Site as a nuclear waster depository) justified her stance on the grounds that the presence of radioactive material is an “imposed risk” (Frontline interview 10). Whereas exposure to radiation from air travel or from X-rays is a personal choice, nuclear power imposes similar health risks without consulting the public. As she herself explains, “...I think it needs to go out to public debate. The public also needs to be asked, and to respond to what they think...” (Frontline interview 11).

This comment points to the communication disconnect between nuclear industry officials and the public. This lack of communication has impeded the achievement of a consensus on the issue of waste disposal and waste management. While industry officials opine a misinformed public, analysts point to the need for the nuclear industry to better represent itself. In other words, if the public is misinformed, then it is the job of the nuclear industry to correct this misconception by demonstrating sufficiently the benefits of nuclear power. Instead, industry policy in the United States has remained remarkably complacent, relying on the belief that technological advancement will reinvigorate the industry and overlooking public concerns (Magwood 3). For example, the problem of waste disposal is one that is technically solvable but continues to face public opposition (Kursunoglu 66). One counter-argument runs that the actual volume of radioactive waste is small comparative to the high volume of waste produced by gas and coal-fired plants. The risks involved in radioactive waste management are also comparatively small in relation to the risks accepted daily as a result of the normal activity of fossil fuel plants (Kursunoglu 67). This statement was made by the Director of Advanced Plant Business Development of Westinghouse Electric Company, one of the leading producers of reactor technology. While the Director criticizes public perception of the perceived risks of nuclear power as being overly selective and uninformed, he goes on to state that it is the job of the nuclear industry to correct this view. It is no longer feasible to sit back and hope that advancements in technology or market forces alone will determine the future of nuclear power in the United States and worldwide. The nuclear industry must sell itself to the public and present them with a compelling image of nuclear power as the energy source of the future: clean, affordable and safe. This is particularly critical in light of the rapidity of technical innovations which result in safer and more proliferation-resistant reactors; but the dissemination of this information is essential to ensure that the public is informed of these advancements.

The success of a renewed nuclear power industry will furthermore depend on the policy trends of powerful nations, particularly those policies which aim to reduce dependence on foreign energy. For example, the oil crisis of the 1970's helped solidify France’s commitment to nuclear power by creating fear of energy security (Magwood 12). The United States is a vocal proponent of reducing dependence on foreign energy imports and has recognized the potential role of nuclear power in fulfilling this aim. In an address given last year, the Director of Nuclear Energy of the US Department of Energy spoke of concerns of rising gas prices and the need for a diversified energy policy which could stabilize against fluctuating energy prices. The answer the Director proposed was that of nuclear power. While he recognized the benefit of renewable sources, these are not enough to meet ever-growing electricity demands, saying that “much of the rest of the world had slipped into a complacent dream, one in which gas turbines, windmills, and compact fluorescent light bulbs provided a golden path to energy and environment nirvana” (Magwood 3). This statement suggests a movement towards including nuclear power in the energy mix. President Bush reinforced this idea in the National Energy Policy issued in May of 2001. In this report, the president talks of the blackouts in California and New York and how they demonstrate the need for a stable and diversified energy supply. He stipulates that US energy policy cannot rely on a single source, in this case natural gas, to support its future needs and he proposes an energy portfolio which would include both renewable sources and nuclear power (Magwood 7).

The United States has come to realize that serious actions must be taken to mitigate pollution and GHG emissions but it has proven unwilling to cooperate with multilateral agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol. This does not mean however that the US is unconcerned with its carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, reports show that US officials are searching for a large-scale method to reduce emissions and this method might be nuclear power. In a recent interview, John Ritch commented on the inadequacy of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. Although research and development on renewable projects will continue, he asserts that these sources alone simply cannot meet growing domestic energy needs (Kursunoglu 132). He forecasts a renewed nuclear energy program in the United States, suggesting that as oil and gas prices go up and imperil security of supply, public opinion will gradually become more receptive to the option of nuclear power (Kursunoglu 135).

One way that the nuclear industry is renewing its power is through reorganization and consolidation. In the past, utility companies would own a variety of energy generation facilities. The utility industry is being restructured so that single utility suppliers are one-fuel companies, meaning that nuclear power stations have been consolidated among utility companies (Kursunoglu 23). Ritch makes this point to conclude that the nuclear industry is “gathering itself to start building a new generation of nuclear power plants in America and elsewhere in the world” and that a goal has been set of adding fifty new reactors in the next twenty years (Ritch 44).

Yet US policies continue to face criticism from both nuclear industry officials and environmentalists. While the US has announced that it plans to “renew” the nuclear option so far the actual extent of these plans remain vague. For example, the US recently re-licensed thirty of its nuclear power plants but has so far to construct any new facilities. To nuclear industry representatives, this policy is counterintuitive: “[it seeks to] reduce greenhouse gases significantly, but doesn’t use the only currently available technology that can economically accomplish this reduction in the foreseeable future” (Kursunoglu 58).

Conclusion: In the future, the nuclear industry faces considerable obstacles. If nuclear power is to develop as part of the future clean energy mix, industry officials must first address the concerns of an anxious public. In addition, as technology makes reactors both safer and more efficient, it must do so in a way that increases the cost benefits so as to attract investors. Despite growing concerns among powerful nations of fluctuating oil and gas prices, fossil fuel technologies will still remain competitive to nuclear power generation. The public, for its part, must become informed about the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power so that anti-nuclear opposition will be based on facts and not fear. As the world population grows at an astonishing rate and energy demand continues to rise, sustainable energy sources will be needed to meet this demand in a cost-effective and environmentally-friendly way.

Bibliography:

Anonymous, 2005, Nuclear Power Regaining Stature as Option: Associated Press, March 21 2005, 2 p.

Boyle, Godfrey, Everett, Bob and Ramage, Janet, 2003, Energy Systems and Sustainability: Power for a Sustainable Future: New York, Oxford University Press, 618 p.

Energy Information Agency, 2005, New Reactor Design: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf

Evans, Gareth, 1993, Cooperating for Peace: The Global Agenda for the 1990s an Beyond: New York, Allen and Unwin Publishers, 224 p.

International Atomic Energy Agency, 2005, Nuclear Power: Preparing for the Future, statement by Director General, March 21 2005, 5p.

Interview with Dr. Robert DuPont, Fontline series: Nuclear Reaction, Why do Americans Fear Nuclear Power?, 16 p., can be found online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews

Inerview with Bob Loux and Judy Treichel, Frontline series: Nuclear Reaction,Why do Americans Fear Nuclear Power, 15 p., can be found online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews

Interview with Steve Reed, Frontline series: Nuclear Reaction, Why do Americans Fear Nuclear Power?, 11 p., can be found online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews

Jing, Fu, 2005, China to Build 40 Nuclear Reactors in 15 Years: China Daily, April 7 2005, 2p.

Kursunoglu, Behram N., and Mintz, Stephen L., 2001, Global Warming and Energy Policy: New York, Plenum Publishers, 217 p.

Nuclear Energy Agency, 2000, Nuclear Power and Climate Change, annual report, 28 p.

Magwood, William D., 2004, Charting a New Course for Nuclear Energy: speech at the 2004 W.B. Lewis Memorial Lecture, 13 p.

Pool, Robert, 1997, Beyond Engineering: How Society Shapes Technology: London, Oxford University Press, 323 p.

Ritch, John, 2003, Nuclear Power and Europe’s Clean-Energy Future: European Energy Focus, July/August 2003, p.44-47.

Shimbun, Tatsuo Nakajima, 2005, Safety Must Come First at Nuclear Power Plants: The Daily Yomiuri, April 2005, 3p.

United Nations Development Program, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the World Energy Council, 2000, World Energy Assessment report, 488p.