An Overview

I’m going to use this last post to bring everything I’ve covered in my last four posts together in order to demonstrate just how complex the issue of nuclear power is.  First, however, I’d like to point out that, for the moment, nuclear power is here to stay.  The US has the largest nuclear power industry in the world, and while nuclear energy only accounts for 20% of the electricity we consume each year, we still produce more nuclear energy than France and Japan (second and third in nuclear energy production) combined.  There are currently 62 nuclear reactors operating in 31 US states, and plans for 13 more.  Quitting nuclear power at this point would not only mean economic loss in the form of the investment that has gone into this infrastructure, but we would also have to come up with another way to supply one fifth of the electricity we consume every year.

On the other hand, it is common knowledge nuclear power plants can be dangerous in many ways.  What we have to decide is weather or not the risk is worth the reward.  So here, again, are arguments on both sides of the issue.

Pro:  A lot of the arguments against nuclear power stem from misconceptions and misunderstandings of how, exactly, nuclear power works.  Understand an issue before you form an opinion of it.  Make an informed decision based on facts, and recognize propaganda (both for and against nuclear power) when you see it.

 

Pro:  Nuclear power is environmentally friendly.  While some people are still debating weather or not it is on the same level as wind or solar, nuclear energy produces far fewer carbon emissions than fossil fuels do.  Nuclear energy also has a smaller land footprint than other forms of green energy, taking up less space per kilowatt of energy.  Finally, nuclear energy is reliable, producing electricity even when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

Con:   Radioactive materials can harm the environment.  The process of producing nuclear power is fraught with opportunities for radioactive materials to enter the environment: from uranium mining to disposal of radioactive waste, and the possibility for contaminated water escaping the plants.  In addition to the health effects of being exposed to radioactive materials, the heated water released from power plants can change the temperature of local lakes and streams, sometimes with adverse effects on the ecosystem.

Con:  Nuclear reactors are a security threat.  Nuclear power plants have the potential to cause serious damage, spreading radioactive contamination across large distances and affecting millions of people.  This makes them tempting targets for terrorists.  Having nuclear power plants is a liability to the communities that surround them.

Pro:  Public involvement in the planning of new power plants integrates them into communities.  Communities near sites of new nuclear power plants are heavily involved in the planning of future plants.  These communities usually display overwhelming support for their local nuclear power plant and they feel they have a stake in its wellbeing.

Con:    Nuclear power can lead to nuclear weapons.  Several countries, including North Korea, have started nuclear power programs, then used them as springboards to create nuclear weapons.  This kind of militaristic leap could be avoided in the future if nuclear power were no longer an option.

Con:  Murphy’s Law.  The potential danger posed by radioactive material to humans and the environment is huge.  The health effects are severe and diverse, and contaminated land can be unusable for decades at least.  Accidents will happen – that’s inevitable – weather they’re due to bad technology, human error, or natural disaster.  It’s a risk that can be diminished, but will never go away.

Pro:     Technological advances.  This technology is becoming safer and more efficient with every new nuclear power plant that is built.  Current designs have proven they can survive some of the worst circumstances nature can throw at them, and can only get better.  Many people consider nuclear power the energy source of the future because pursuing this science could lead to even greater technological breakthroughs in the future.

The issues surrounding nuclear power are complex, and cover the fields of sustainability, environmentalism, national security, health, politics at all levels, and hard science.  Ultimately, we are going to have to find a balance among the pros and cons listed above to determine how we will deal with nuclear power in the future.

 

Some Disasters

One of the biggest questions that always arrises during a discussion of the safety of nuclear power is the potential for disaster.  The effects of radiation on people and the environment are deadly and poorly understood, as demonstrated by various nuclear disasters that have occurred in the past three decades.  Looking at these disasters can highlight some of the potential flaws of nuclear power plants and their impact on human and environmental health.  On the other hand, they can also underline the recent advancements that have been made in this technology safer.

The most famous nuclear disaster occurred in 1986 at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in the Ukraine.  During a routine test, a flaw in the plant’s design caused a power surge that damaged several assemblies of fuel rods.  (For more on how nuclear power plants work, see my first post.)  These damages, in turn, caused the radioactive material to overheat, boiling the water surrounding the reactor’s core.  The result was a steam explosion that killed two workers directly and released a massive cloud of radioactive particles.  Afterwards, fires broke out around the melting-down reactor cores.

The accident at Chernobyl had a direct health effect on a huge portion of Europe.  While the Soviet soldiers, firefighters, and policemen who worked to contain the disaster had the highest exposure to radiation, residents for hundreds of kilometers showed effects, particularly in increased rate of thyroid cancer.  In addition, 139,000 people were forced to evacuate their homes, being told they would never be able to return.  The cloud of radioactive particles covered most of Europe, and traces of its fallout are still detectable in land, produce, and people across the continent.

The plant’s poor construction is largely blamed on the lack of cooperation and information during the Cold War.  Since then, policies have been strengthened requiring reactor designs to be stringently tested before approved.  (See my last post.)  Therefore it is highly unlikely such an event could happen in modern reactors.

Inside the United States, Three Mile Island is the worst incident involving a nuclear reactor.  In 1974 the reactor, located near Harrisburg, experienced a minor malfunction that caused it to automatically shut down.  After this happened, a release valve also failed to close, allowing much of the cooling fluid around the reactor core to drain away.  Unfortunately, no signal of the valve malfunction reached the control room, so plant operators assumed it was working and shut down other automated processes that were trying to compensate for the problem.  This caused a partial meltdown of the reactor core, producing quantities of radioactive gas. However, this gas was contained enough that the amounts released into the atmosphere were not enough to cause any health effects.

Three Mile Island was very well-contained accident, and extremely minor when compared to Chernobyl.  Much of the problem originated in misinformation and human error, and improved controls and sensors have largely negated these issues.  Three Mile Island’s larger impact, however, was in the widespread panic and misinterpretation of facts among the American public.  This incident made Americans wonder “what if” a total nuclear meltdown were to occur in our country?  The issue was immediately brought to national attention and spawned a lot of opposition to nuclear power.  It is important to note than many of the myths and irrational fears I tried to dispel in my first post stem from the public’s misinterpretation of facts.

Finally, the most recent nuclear disaster occurred at the Fukushima power plant in Japan in 2011.  After a magnitude 9 earthquake shook the vicinity, a 15-meter-tall tsunami.  The plant automatically shut down upon detection of the earthquake and survived the shaking without incident.  When the tsunami hit, however, it flooded the entire site and damaged pumps, as well as cutting off electricity from most of the emergency generators.  While the response to these problems was effective and intense, damaged roads etc. made stabilizing and containing the disaster difficult.  Radioactive gas was released, but no adverse health effects are expected, even among workers, who experienced the highest doses of radiation.  However, 100,000 people were evacuated from the surrounding area, and many are still not allowed to return due to government concern about residual fallout.

Fukushima is important for several reasons.  First, it is a testament to the integrity of modern nuclear reactors, surviving a massive earthquake and tsunami without catastrophic failure.  It is also a warning.  Sites for nuclear reactors should be chosen carefully, in areas that are not prone to natural disasters (i.e. active faults, places prone to hurricanes, near volcanos).  On the other hand, natural disasters can and do happen everywhere, so the best we can do is choose a site that is statistically safer.  Ultimately, we will have to choose wether the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the persistent risk.

Nuclear Power and Politics

Energy is becoming an increasingly important issue in the realm  of politics.  Governments are increasingly involved in how we manage our resources here and consume fossil fuels produced abroad.  Most importantly, government is the largest influence on how we progress toward more renewable energy sources.  Despite the fact that there is more civilian involvement in nuclear power production in the US than anywhere else in the world, and, indeed, most commercial nuclear power plants are privately owned, the government is still highly involved in the industry.

However, outside of the purely administrative tasks of licensing and regulating nuclear power plants, government is concerned with issues like safety and security in and around the plants, the threat of terrorism, and the consequences of the expansion of nuclear power in other nations.

Here in the US, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for licensing all new nuclear power plants.  Throughout the its existence, and especially after nuclear accidents, the role of the NRC has been under public scrutiny, and in 1992 it changed its licensing process to allow for more public involvement.  Currently, the government is involved in every process of nuclear power plant construction, from choosing the site and and type of reactor through inspections of the construction process.  The government’s openness and encouragement of public involvement has been its main strategy to soothe public concern about safety and environmental impact.

Security in and around nuclear power plants, however, is probably the NRC’s biggest concern.  Nuclear plants make tempting targets for terrorists since they have the potential to contaminate vast sections of the surrounding environment, cause long-term illness in a potentially large population, and displace nearby populations causing major upheaval.  Plus, the fear and panic that can be caused by the mere suggestion of an attack on a nuclear power plant has a significant psychological effect that could be considered an attack in and of itself.  The NRC attempts to confront these concerns by staging random tests of security systems in plants across the country.  Force-on-Force tests (FOF), or simulated terrorists attacks and infiltrations in nuclear power plants, are one means by which the NRC rates plant security, in addition to constant inspections of the facilities.

However, despite however stringent these tests and regulations may be, the threat of terrorism on nuclear power plants is still very real.  In addition to mere destruction of a power plant, threats include initiating a meltdown and even the theft of enriched uranium suitable for making weapons.  Recently, nuclear power plant security has been criticized for not being stringent enough, despite the fact that security standards have increased dramatically since 9/11.  Among other things, most US nuclear power plants are not required to have security measures that would counteract things like rocket-powered grenade launchers.  The question is, just how secure should we require our reactors to be?  It is just as unreasonable to encase every reactor in layers upon layers of expensive and complex security as it is to leave them totally unprotected, since at some point the additional cost, maintenance, and building would eliminate any profit the plant could be expected to make.

Finally, one major political concern involving nuclear power plants is how closely nuclear power production can be linked to nuclear weapons production.  One byproduct of the production of nuclear energy is the production of plutonium, which can be used to create nuclear weapons.  Several countries, including France, have used their nuclear energy programs as a springboard to the creation of nuclear weapons, and there is global concern that other nations could follow suit if nuclear power plants are allowed to be established.  Most notably, Iraq and North Korea have shown some indications of using nuclear energy as the first step on the road to nuclear weapons.

The major political issues surrounding nuclear energy are a continuous topic for debate in our own country and around the world.  Decisions are going to have to be reached about just how secure our reactors need to be from the various threats of terrorism that our in our world today, as well as the regulation of nuclear power abroad in the face of the possible creation of nuclear weapons.

Environmental Impacts

Before I get started, here is a TED talk debate about the pros and cons of nuclear energy that was pretty informative.  It’s a bit long, but it covers a lot of main points on both sides of the issue.

The biggest argument in favor of nuclear energy is the fact that it is a form of “clean” or “green” energy.  It is true that nuclear energy – including uranium mining, fuel transport, and the actual construction of the power stations – produces CO2 at a rate comparable to wind or solar energy and much less than traditional coal or oil-burning power plants.  In fact, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, “Worldwide nuclear energy avoids on average the emissions of about 2.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.”  Thus nuclear power is a method many countries, most notably France, are choosing to nearly eliminate the carbon footprint of their electricity consumption.

In addition to reducing carbon footprint, nuclear power also has the second-smallest land footprint of potential energy sources, after wind power.  Solar farms and strip mining for coal are known for taking up huge amounts of land surface, and while nuclear power requires uranium mining, it takes less uranium than coal to generate the same amount of electricity.  In fact, 1kg of uranium produces as much electricity as 14,000kg of coal.

However, unlike wind and solar, nuclear energy does produce tangible waste.  Spent fuel rods and other residue from the uranium refinement process are still radioactive and pose a potential hazard to the environment.  Currently, radioactive waste is dealt with by being solidified into relatively stable ceramic pellets, sealed in stainless steel drums, encased in layers of rock and clay to prevent contact with groundwater, and buried.  The environmental concern with such disposal is that occasionally water will succeed in leeching through these protective measures, become contaminated, and escape into local groundwater.  While new technology has significantly mitigated these concerns, opposition to nuclear power has also pointed out that the transport of nuclear waste can also pose a threat to the environment.  For example, Japan exports most of its radioactive waste to Europe for refinement and disposal.  An accident along this shipping rout could prove disastrous.

Nuclear waste does have a couple of advantages, however.  Unlike other toxic waste produced in industry, radioactive waste becomes less dangerous with the passage of time, and can be refined and reused as fuel.

There are other consequences to nuclear power besides the possibility of leaking radioactive waste, however.  Nuclear reactors rely heavily on large quantities of water to cool their uranium cores and produce the steam needed to turn the turbines.  Oftentimes this water comes directly from lakes, rivers, or reservoirs, and can potentially alter aquatic ecosystems.  Also, water that has gone through a nuclear power plant can be contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals and radioactive materials.  Possibly more damaging, however, is the fact that water discharged from nuclear power plants is significantly warmer than it would be naturally.  This can alter local aquatic habitats enough to disrupt the normal ecosystems.

Another argument against nuclear power with regards to the environment is that less-risky energy alternatives – solar, wind, and hydro-electric, among others – could be developed to produce enough energy to not only replace the need for fossil fuel plants but nuclear plants as well.  Proponents of this idea maintain that the safer forms of clean energy should be pursued to their maximum first, and calculate that once these resources (wind, solar, etc.) are tapped fully, they will be able to produce enough electricity to power the planet without the risk of radioactive contamination.

In summary, nuclear power can be considered either a very clean form of energy, since it has very low carbon and land footprints, or one that poses a serious threat to the environment with radioactive waste.

 

Dispelling some Popular Myths and Misconceptions

Nuclear power has been surrounded by prejudice and misconceptions since the first scientist realized we could use the same power that flattened Hiroshima to light up New York City.  In addition to the propaganda both for and against nuclear, this issue is also steeped in a sort of sci-fi mystique that is due, largely, to the complex nature of its science.  Therefore, I have decided to dedicate this first post to setting out some important facts and defining some terms.

nuclear-power-red-537x359

First of all, it is important to realize the extent of nuclear power today.  The US currently has 65 power plants producing about 20% of all the electricity we consume each year.  Across the whole planet, 30 countries are currently producing nuclear energy.  The US leads the world in nuclear energy production, followed by France, Russia, South Korea and China.  It is also interesting to note that 75% of electricity consumed in France is from nuclear power.

Here is a basic run-down on how nuclear power works:

Uranium is a radioactive element commonly used in nuclear power plants.  Radioactive materials, by nature, decompose (split apart in a process called fission), releasing a lot of heat.  In nuclear power plants, the uranium fuel is formed into inch-long pellets that are then arranged into rods (fuel rods).  The rods are bundled and submerged in water.  The water is heated by the decomposing uranium, turns to steam, and powers a generator that supplies electricity to the grid.  In order to control the heat produced by the fuel rods, control rods are added to the bundles.  By adding or removing these control rods, nuclear engineers can increase or decrease the amount of heat – and thus electricity – produced in the plant.

The uranium undergoing fission is often referred to as the nuclear core of the reactor.  If the water surrounding the core is removed, it will heat up until it reaches a temperature where it will melt and possibly burn through or otherwise escape its container.  This is what is referred to in a “nuclear meltdown.”  Material from the core is, obviously, radioactive.  The water used to cool the core is also contaminated with radioactive material, so the release of either of these materials from the power plant during a meltdown can spread radiation into the environment.

As the fission process progresses in a sample of uranium, it gradually slows.  Therefore, the “spent” fuel rods that are discarded as nuclear waste are still undergoing fission when they are replaced, just at a rate too low to produce much electricity.  That is why nuclear waste is still radioactive.

Amazing_Fantasy_15_peter_gets_bitten

Radiation is very dangerous to all forms of life.  While small doses usually will not have any effect on the human body, regular exposure or exposure to high levels of radiation can cause: cancer, mutation, birth defects, premature aging, skin burns, hemorrhages, nerve damage, and diminished organ function.  Radiation will not turn anyone into Spiderman or the Hulk.  Also, radiation and radioactive materials do not glow.  Under the right conditions, gamma rays and other emissions can ionize the material around it and cause that to glow, but even then it tends to glow blue, not green.

In addition, radioactivity will in no way cause people, animals, or insects to grow to outrageous sizes, no matter what the 50s sci-fi movies say.

I believe a lot of our misconceptions of and some of our prejudices against nuclear power sneak subconsciously out of sci-fi misrepresentations and other bad pseudoscience.  I also believe the best way to address the question of nuclear power is to better inform people about what is science and what is not.

Nuclear Energy and the Environment

Nuclear energy has been a controversial topic for decades, especially in the wake of the environmental disasters at Chernobyl  and Fukushima.  However, we are finding that more traditional forms of energy (coal, oil) are also having very negative effects on the environment, and new technological advances are making nuclear energy safer than ever before.

Skip to toolbar