Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

a case aganist nuclear power

Better Essays
1758 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
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

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Its seems that the world is in a constant search of a cleaner, cheaper and safer power plants. Nuclear energy has emerged as a new alternative for power. The first nuclear power plant was built in the 1950’s and is now used all over the world. France receives 80% of their electrical energy from nuclear power plants, however; here in the U.S. we only receive 19% of our electrical energy from nuclear power plants. Whereas nuclear power comes with cons, such as safety concerns, nuclear power is more helpful than it is harmful given that nuclear power is more cost effective and better for the environment.…

    • 531 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Today there are so many countries and governments that have realized that nuclear energy is the only way to significantly decrease their emissions. The world economy is producing greenhouse emissions at the…

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Many people around the world ask themselves what are the disadvantages of adopting an alternative solution to solve the consumption of global nuclear energy? Based on what we have experienced through events with major disasters and the aftermath of many casualties, it has summed up to result in having failures outgrowing expectations. Therefore, global nuclear power usage is to be opposed due to the fact that it comes with high financial costs, nuclear waste management complications, and the fact that thousands in populations are mass numbers of casualties.…

    • 530 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    During the last century, nuclear power has been established as a reliable source of energy in the major industrialized countries. Nuclear power plants provide about 17 percent of the world's electricity. In the United States, nuclear power supplies about 15 percent of the electricity overall. Although no new plants are scheduled to be built in the United States, nuclear power is growing to be a popular producer of power. It has recently enjoyed a revival in attention and research due to the environmental concerns surrounding current conventional energy sources. Issues of regulation and safety are at the forefront of all discussions involving nuclear power. (Lillington) One of the major concerns is the radioactive waste that is produced during the fission of uranium.…

    • 2468 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Cohen, B.L. (1990). Costs of nuclear power plants – what went wrong?.In The nuclear energy option. (chapter 9). Retrieved from http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html…

    • 3699 Words
    • 15 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nuclear energy on the other hand is a result of heat generated through the fission process of atoms. All power plants convert heat into electricity using steam. At nuclear power plants, the heat to make the steam is created when atoms split apart - called fission. The fission releases energy in the form of heat and neutrons. The released neutrons then goes on to hit other neutrons and repeat the process, hence generating more heat. In most cases the fuel used for nuclear fission is uranium.…

    • 771 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the editorial from the Los Angeles Times dated July 23, 2007 the author goes on to talk about a public assessment of nuclear power as a possible solution to global warming. We are being told that nuclear plants are a good thing but the author also describes risks that are involved. “Many respected academics and environmentalists argue that nuclear power must be a part of any solution to climate change because nuclear plants don’t release greenhouse gases” states the editorial in the Los Angeles Times. (367) The author argues that they make a weak case. Stating that “...ramping up the nuclear infrastructure will be a slow process far too slow to make a difference on global warming.” (367). Nuclear power is extremely risky. There are cleaner, cheaper and faster alternatives that come with none of the risks. (367)…

    • 1137 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Sovacool, Benjamin K. “Nuclear Energy and Renewable Power: Which is the Best Climate Change Mitigation Option?” Proceedings of World Academy of Science: Engineering & Technology 39: 758-762. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Dec. 2009. <http://search.ebscohost.com/‌login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=40086266&site=ehost-live>.…

    • 2071 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    nuclear energy

    • 2367 Words
    • 10 Pages

    “Solar photovoltaics have joined the ranks of lower-cost alternatives to new nuclear plants,” John O. Blackburn, a professor of economics at Duke University, in North Carolina, and Sam Cunningham, a graduate student, wrote in the paper, “Solar and Nuclear Costs — The Historic Crossover.”…

    • 2367 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Outlines COURSE CODE (CC 88-167) ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Part II: Energy and Essential Resources Chapter 5: Nuclear Power 1. 2. 3. 4.…

    • 1585 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    With the creation of Nuclear weapons, potentially the worst thing that has happened to humanity in it's history, came something with a lot of potential to do good. Nuclear energy is both very clean and very efficient. However there have been many tragic accidents regarding Nuclear energy. Chernobyl is the most notable disaster, currently however we are in the middle of a potential disaster unfolding at Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Facility. Nuclear Energy is relatively safe and incredibly efficient and clean, however when tragedy strikes, it strikes hard.…

    • 381 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Ramana, M.V. (2009). Nuclear Power: Economic, Safety, Health, and Environmental Issues of Near-Term Technologies. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 136.…

    • 2638 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    On a daily basis, we guzzle energy in almost every activity that we do. Human existence is undoubtedly driven by energy. It is required for sustained human development. Therefore, there is a necessity for energy upkeep for sustainability of the emerging population. Nuclear power and wind power are both sources of energy however they perform differently with regards to their economic feasibility, environmental effects and relative power output. This essay observes the characteristics of nuclear power weighed against wind power.…

    • 1093 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Produced by controlled non-explosive nuclear reactions, nuclear power accounts for 6% of the world’s energy and an approximate 13% of the world’s electricity supply (World Nuclear News 2010). Nuclear power has accumulated worldwide regards towards a positive move into the goal of sustainability. Conversely, the use of nuclear power has grown to become a major concern due to its obvious destructive effects on the environment, people and the world as a whole. Nuclear power although providing a positive approach in the production of renewable energy, it also provides the world extreme vulnerability to destruction. This essay will discuss and provide evidence of the threats and negative impacts nuclear power plants pose to the world.…

    • 1340 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    - Ritch, J. (2005, November 24). WNA Report: The New Economics of Nuclear Power. Retrieved January 29, from http://www.uic.com.au/neweconomics.pdf…

    • 1382 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays

Related Topics