Why use nuclear power?

Is Nuclear Power Globally Scalable?, (by Derek Abbott, School of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, University of Adelaide) provides a convincing argument that nuclear power cannot replace fossil fuels as mankind's main source of energy.

Then there are ethical arguments; the way nuclear power is used at present about 1% of the available energy in the uranium is used and the remaining 99% goes out with the waste. Is this fair to future generations? Also, we use the energy and leave the waste for future generations to look after.

Nuclear power can be used to generate electricity, and there is no release of greenhouse gasses during the generation process, although mining, concentrating, and refining uranium, as it is done today, does consume large amounts of fossil fuels and produces corresponding amounts of greenhouse carbon dioxide. Nuclear power is not a substitute for the petroleum that is running out; it is not suitable for powering transport except for possible use in large ships.

We have lived with nuclear powered electricity generation since the 1950s. So far as I know all the world's nuclear power stations have been built at the expense of national governments and no-one seems to know what nuclear power really costs; especially when the costs of the whole life-cycle of nuclear power is taken into account: mining the ore, refining and enriching the ore, building the power station, safely disposing of the waste, and decommissioning of the power station.

If it was the cheapest option then we should be able to leave the building and running of new nuclear power stations to private enterprise. Of course it would have to be a whole package, part of the deal would be the locking away of appropriate sums of money for decommissioning of reactors at the end of their useful life and for the safe long-term disposal of all radioactive materials. Disposal of radioactive waste, in particular, is difficult to cost because it must ensure that the material is kept out of the active environment for several thousand years or even more.

Olympic Dam mine, Australia The present underground copper/uranium/gold mine in South Australia – one of the largest in the world – is to be converted into a one-kilometre-deep open-cut mine. Try to imagine the amount of petroleum needed to make the explosives and power the machines to dig a hole a kilometre deep – and the amount of greenhouse gasses released from burning that petroleum!

I strongly suspect that no company would be interested in taking full financial responsibility for the whole life of a nuclear power station and the waste; the amount of money that they would have to lock away would be too large and would make the whole operation economically unviable. If building and running nuclear power stations is economically unviable for private enterprise why should our governments take it on and we the tax payers foot the bills? Private industry is willing to build sustainable power generation facilities – wind, solar and geothermal – that are comparable in cost to fossil-fuelled power stations when the cost of pollution or the proper disposal of waste is taken into consideration. It seems that the most cost-effective of wind, solar and geothermal generation is cheaper than nuclear power.

Conserving energy and using electricity more efficiently is by far the best way that we can reduce our greenhouse impact.

Pronunciation of 'nuclear' The word nuclear has two syllables, nu-clear, 'nu' and 'clear'. It is pronounced 'new-clear' – look at the bloody spelling; there's nothing difficult about it! Why would anyone pronounce it 'nuke-you-lah'?

What really is the attraction of nuclear power stations to Western nations? Is it that some people short-sightedly see nuclear as a real saviour, or are there hidden agendas? I must admit that I don't know the answer.

Why build nuclear power stations that will be a great target for bombing in any war, and a great target for terrorist attack, if you don't need to? What would happen to New York if a nuclear power station on its outskirts was bombed? It would be much worse than Chernobyl because of the huge number of people irradiated.

Advantages of nuclear power

1. Nuclear power, in itself, does not release greenhouse gasses, nor necesserily any other gasses into the atmosphere.
2. Nuclear power stations are compact, unlike wind farms and solar power stations that must be spread over a large area.
3. Nuclear power stations can be built where the power is needed, unlike, for example, coal-fired power stations that need to be close to the coal mine.

Disadvantages of nuclear power

1. Nuclear power is unsustainable, it relies on a finite resource.
2. Nuclear power cannot be scaled-up to replace the world's fossil fuelled power stations. The world's high-grade, shallow uranium deposits have largely been mined-out. The remaining deposits are either low-grade or deep, or both, so are expensive to mine. A significant increase in the amount of nuclear power in the world would quickly cause a severe shortage of uranium fuel.
3. Nuclear power is expensive. While it is very difficult to get accurate figures on the cost of nuclear – because nuclear power stations have generally been given big support from government and little is known about the true cost of decommissioning and disposal of waste – it seems that it is significantly more expensive than some sustainable alternatives. Nuclear power is very difficult to cost because, if the figure is to be meaningful, it must cover mining, building the power station, running costs for the full life of the power station, protecting the nuclear material from possible theft by terrorists, decommissioning costs, and costs of disposing of the radioactive wastes and protecting them from disturbance for many years.
4. Nuclear power stations produce a constant amount of electricity while demand for electricity varies greatly. Nuclear power would be much more valuable if it could produce a variable amount of power to match demand.
5. Nuclear power stations require large amounts of water for cooling. If natural water bodies such as lakes, streams and the ocean is used, then the release of large quantities of warm water back into the environment can cause environmental damage. (Compare to wind, tidal, wave and solar power that do not necessarily require any cooling water at all.)
6. Nuclear power, as it is in the early twenty-first century, produces large quantities of radioactive waste that need to be isolated from the environment for thousands of years. Can we be confident that nuclear waste has been, and will continue to be, disposed of properly? People and companies are very inclined to save money and effort by cost-cutting, often 'bending the rules' to do so.
7. Climate change demands quick action. Planning and building a nuclear power station is slow, it takes at least 15 years.
8. Renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal could be built by private industry without government subsidy (so long as there was a 'level playing field') while no private company would be willing to touch nuclear power without big government subsidies.
9. Nuclear power stations would be a target in any war. A bombed nuclear power station would spread more radiation around than would any nuclear bomb – because there are many tonnes of highly radioactive material in a nuclear power station. Wind turbines and solar panels, because they are spread over a big area, are much more difficult to destroy by bombs, and would not spread pollution if they were bombed. Only a small section of the top, at most, of the deep wells that are the most expensive part of a hot dry rock geothermal power station could be destroyed by bombing; these could be relatively cheaply and quickly repaired.
10. As it is used at present nuclear power is a very inefficient use of uranium. Only about 1% of the energy available in the uranium is used. See Fast Nuclear.

1. It must be possible to convincingly demonstrate that when its total emissions – from mine to dump – are taken into account it is a genuinely low-carbon option.
2. We know exactly where and how the waste is disposed of.
3. The whole nuclear cycle, mining, planning, building, running, decommissioning, disposal of waste and insurance must be economically viable and not require government subsidy. (Enough subsidy to allow the power produced to compete with fossil fuel electricity could be excepted, see Level playing field.)
4. There is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will be diverted for military purposes.
5. The uranium is used efficiently (that is, a large percentage of the potential energy is utilised – not the approximately 1% that is currently extracted – before the 'spent' fuel is dumped.)
6. Finally, one that before the Fukushima fiasco might have been thought obvious; no plants should be built in fault zones, on tsunami-prone coasts, on eroding seashores or those likely to be inundated before the plant has been decommissioned or any other places which are geologically unsafe.

Changing to the responsible use of uranium

Fukushima nuclear power station, Japan

No doubt it's easy to criticise from a distance.

What will it mean to the future of nuclear power?

Petroleum

This is the quick, easy and (relatively) uncontroversial option. Unfortunately we are approaching Peak Oil; and burning more petroleum to generate electricity is not a realistic option.

Coal

To burn more coal will exacerbate the already dire climate change problem. It would fix the short term problem at the expense of increasing the long term one.

Sustainable energy

Sustainable energy is a viable alternative.

Energy conservation

There are huge potentials for reducing our profligate rate of energy consumption.

Index