Powering the Future: A Scientist's Guide to Energy Independence

by Daniel B. Botkin

  • Conventional nuclear power plants are not a short-term solution to the energy problem—they are complex and time-consuming to build and are controversial, hence even the siting of a plant takes time. From planning to going online would take a decade or more.

  • More important, they’re not a long-term solution either. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which promotes nuclear energy, says there are a total of just 4.7 million tons of “identified” conventional uranium stock that can be mined economically. If we switched from fossil fuels to nuclear today, that uranium would run out in four years. Even the most optimistic estimate of the quantity of uranium ore would last only 29 years.

  • The life of a nuclear plant is just 30–40 years, and it costs more to dismantle it than to build it. Estimates for decommissioning and dismantling a large nuclear power plant run from $200 million to $500 million.

  • Available federally sanctioned radioactive-waste disposal sites were said to be filled in 2008.

  • According to U.S. government estimates, some 70,000 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste are stored in temporary facilities. To move these across the country, such as to Yucca Mountain, Nevada, by truck and train would require one to six trainloads or truck convoys every day for 24 years. Now that this site has been rejected by the current administration, there is no planned permanent disposal site.

  • The government believes the wastes will remain so toxic for 10,000 years that some kind of warning sign will be needed for that long.

  Indian Point: the nuclear power plant in New York City’s backyard

  In 1974, over the vehement objections of Westchester County neighbors, the first of three nuclear reactors was built at Indian Point Power Plant in Buchanan, New York, 24 miles north of New York City (Figure 5.1). The power plant is 7.15 miles by road from the house I grew up in, and only a few miles away as the helicopter flies. Indian Point’s second reactor was built two years later, and a third still later. The power plant—minus Unit 1, which was decommissioned in 1974—has been in operation since then, with a capacity of 2,000 megawatts. But Unit 2’s license runs out in 2013, Unit 3’s in 2015, and under U.S. law nuclear power plants must be relicensed. At the time of this writing, the controversy over the plant’s relicensing continues, and whether to approve it has not been decided.

  Figure 5.1 Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant stands 24 miles north of New York City’s 8 million people. (Photograph by Daniel B. Botkin)

  The National Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced the beginning of the process of relicensing the Indian Point Power Plant on May 2, 2007. By 2008, the relicensing of the plant had become a regional controversy, opposed by the New York State government, Westchester County, and a number of nongovernmental environmental organizations. The plant has operated for 22 years, so what’s the problem?

  Originally operated by Consolidated Edison and the New York Power Authority, over the years Indian Point had some difficulties. In 1980, Unit 2’s building filled with water (an operator’s mistake). In 1982, that unit’s steam generator piping began to leak and radioactive water was released. In 1999, the unit shut down unexpectedly, but operators didn’t realize it until the next day, when the batteries that automatically took over ran down.

  Today, Entergy operates Indian Point. Under its management, a transformer burned in Unit 3 in April 2007; radioactive water leaked into groundwater, and the source of the leak was difficult to find. These are definite problems, but so far no catastrophic failure has occurred. Which is fortunate, since 20 million people live within 50 miles of this power plant. According to the New York Times, Joan Leary Matthews, a lawyer for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, said: “Whatever the chances of a failure at Indian Point, the consequences could be catastrophic in ways that are almost too horrific to contemplate.”1

  In addition to its scenic fame (Figure 5.2), the Hudson was made even more famous when folksinger Pete Seeger helped lead a cleanup of the river, one of the first major river restorations of modern environmentalism in the late 20th century. Before that, in spite of its well-known beauty, the Hudson, like all rivers, had been viewed since European settlement mainly as a means of transportation and a place to dump wastes. General Electric Corporation (GE) polluted the river with vast quantities of PCBs used in the manufacture of electrical equipment. Major lawsuits resulted, and ultimately a court ruled that the chemical was impossible to clean up directly and that GE should fund an organization that would help restore the river. This created the Hudson River Foundation and made one of America’s most beautiful rivers the focus of intense restoration.

  Figure 5.2 The Hudson River at Croton Point. Just a short way downriver from Indian Point, Croton Point has some of the Hudson’s most beautiful scenery. (Photograph by Daniel B. Botkin)

  Clearly, operating a nuclear power plant at this location not only presents a threat of disaster to 20 million people but is also inconsistent with the goal of preserving America’s scenic beauty.

  Nuclear power: no longer new, but suddenly popular

  Not long ago, we would have put nuclear power in Section II of this book as a new alternative source of energy. Now we have to list it with our conventional energy sources because it became so important during the second half of the 20th century and is so widely used today. In fact, many people argue that nuclear power is a reasonable replacement for fossil fuels, a suggestion that has grown louder and more insistent with the growing concern about global warming. In 2006 a New York Times editorial endorsed nuclear power. The same year, the famous British environmentalist James Lovelock, whose Gaia hypothesis links all life to the global environment, also said we should turn to nuclear power. Stewart Brand, the originator and publisher of the Whole Earth Catalogue and whom the New York Times calls one of the originators of environmentalism, was quoted in that paper on February 27, 2007, as saying that he is for nuclear power and feels “guilty that he and his fellow environmentalists created so much fear of nuclear power.” Even Patrick Moore, who claims to be one of the founders of Greenpeace, has become a spokesman for the nuclear power industry, according to the Times.2

  Why are these well-known environmentalists in favor of nuclear power? Patrick Moore put the environmentalist argument succinctly. He wrote: “Wind and solar power have their place, but since they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can’t replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It’s that simple.”3

  Stewart Brand put it similarly. While acknowledging that nuclear power has its dangers and drawbacks, he has said that “it also has advantages besides the overwhelming one of being atmospherically clean. The industry is mature, with a half-century of experience and ever-improved engineering behind it. Problematic early reactors like the ones at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl can be supplanted by new, smaller-scale, meltdown-proof reactors like the ones that use the pebble-bed design. Nuclear power plants are very high yield, with low-cost fuel. Finally, they offer the best avenue to a ‘hydrogen economy,’ combining high energy and high heat in one place for optimal hydrogen generation.”

  Hugh Montefiore, former Anglican bishop of Birmingham, England, and for 20 years a Friends of the Earth trustee (who resigned over this issue), said that he is pronuclear because “the dangers of global warming are greater than any other facing the planet,” and that “as a theologian, I believe that we have a duty to play our full part in safeguarding the future of our planet.” He sees global warming as the holocaust, and therefore believes that “it is crucial if the world is to be saved from catastrophe that non-global-warming sources of energy should be increasingly available after 2010.” He concludes: “I can see no practical way of meeting the world’s needs without nuclear energy.”4

 
In short, these three believe that global warming is by far the greatest threat to the planet, that no other form of energy is available in sufficient supply to replace fossil fuels, and that therefore, despite its dangers, it is necessary (Moore), and besides that, it isn’t so dangerous anymore (Brand).

  If leading environmentalists are for it, and the big power industry is for it—usually two opposing sides in the environmental debate—then this must be the way to go, right? Maybe not. But statements like these by Brand, Moore, and Montefiore, as well as the endorsement of nuclear power by such media institutions as the New York Times, were among the things that motivated me to begin a detailed examination of all energy sources. In particular, I wanted to find out whether, as Stewart Brand believed, nuclear had become safer, whether it could realistically be seen as a large-scale source of energy, and, most important, whether it truly was the only alternative to fossil fuels.

  Nuclear energy today and tomorrow?

  Today, nuclear power provides one-sixth of the world’s electricity and 4.8% of the total energy. In the United States, 104 nuclear power plants produce about 20% of the country’s electricity and about 8% of the total energy used (Figure 5.3).

  Figure 5.3 United States energy use (percentage by type) (Source: U.S. DOE, EIA)

  As for tomorrow, here’s the bottom line: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which advocates and promotes the use of nuclear energy, states that the “total identified amount of conventional uranium stock” that can be mined economically is 4.7 million tons. According to my calculations, this means that if nuclear energy replaced all fossil fuels tomorrow, that quantity of uranium fuel would run out in 4 years. Even using the most optimistic estimate of uranium ore, it would last only 29 years.5

  Here’s how I arrived at this conclusion. Today, nuclear energy consumes about 70,000 metric tons of uranium ore each year to provide 4.8% of the world’s total energy use. Fossil fuels provide 87% of the world’s energy. For conventional nuclear power plants to replace all fossil fuels, the energy obtained from those plants would have to increase 17.4 times, which means using 1.2 million tons of uranium ore each year. You just divide 4.7 million by 1.2 million.

  The United States Geological Survey gives even more conservative estimates, stating that 3.3 million tons of uranium ore are available worldwide if the ore is priced at $130 per kilogram (the high end of present prices for this ore), and that there is an “inferred” amount—which I believe means the amount assumed but not determined to be out there—of 5.5. million tons. These estimates imply that the amount of fuel available would be used up in less than 3 to 5 years. Thus, if the goal is to counter global warming by replacing all fossil fuels with nuclear power, this goal cannot be met.

  If the goal is to replace just petroleum and natural gas, because these are running out faster, then nuclear fuels would have to provide 63% of the world’s energy, an increase of 13 times, which means annual use of 910,000 tons. At that rate of use, the lifetime of nuclear ore and conventional nuclear power plants would be 5–38 years, and uranium ore would run out before either oil or gas.6

  Why isn’t this common knowledge? Instead, the IAEA is quite optimistic about nuclear power’s future, stating that “based on the 2004 nuclear electricity generation rate of demand the amount is sufficient for 85 years.” This estimate assumes that 2004’s nuclear energy production will continue into the future, but the IAEA goes on to state immediately that “fast reactor (breeder reactor) technology would lengthen this period to over 2,500 years. However, world uranium resources in total are considered to be much higher. Based on geological evidence and knowledge of uranium in phosphates the study considers more than 35 million tonnes is available for exploitation.”

  This leaves the impression that all is well for nuclear-reactor fuel. However, “fast reactors” (breeder reactors) are the kind that can be used to make fuel for atomic bombs. A few experimental breeder reactors were built by the U.S. government, but they were shut down or work on them halted in the 1990s. They are the kind of nuclear reactors that everybody fears Iran or North Korea might build and use to make atomic bombs. Other nations have tried building them, and some are considering or developing them, but to my knowledge no breeder reactor is being used to provide electric energy anywhere in the world. There are good reasons for this: The technology is not there yet, and the reactors are dangerous in themselves, even without considering their potential use in making atomic weapons.7,8

  Somebody is sure to say, “But we’ve always found more oil, gas, and coal when we needed it. So can’t we just wait for that to happen?” This is the Potato Creek Johnny gold prospector’s approach. “It must be out there somewhere, we’ll just keep moseying along until we stumble on something.” You can take that approach if you want, but you will be ignoring the best-educated prospecting that has been done and is being done. It ignores the estimate by IAEA that allows for as much as seven times as much uranium ore as is economically available to be found out there somewhere. Indeed, some advocates of nuclear power say that we could concentrate dissolved uranium salts from the ocean and use that. Sure, and at what energy efficiency? My point is that if we want to plan the best we can, we cannot take this approach. It is the muddling through that has always gotten civilizations into trouble.

  Today, the major nation that generates the greatest percentage of its electricity by nuclear power is France, with 78% (see Table 5.1). Belgium is second, with 60% of its energy from nuclear plants; Sweden is third with 43% from nuclear. Spain gets about one-third of its electrical energy from nuclear, which makes that nation an especially interesting one since, unlike the United States and many other developed nations, Spain does not get most of its energy from fossil fuels.

  Table 5.1 Percent of Electricity Generated by Nuclear Power in Various Nations

  It is also interesting to note that almost one-third of all nuclear power plants are in North America and another third are in Western Europe (Figure 5.4). In contrast, all of Asia, with most of the human population, has only about one-fifth of the world’s nuclear energy production. Thus, right now nuclear power plants are largely an issue in North America and Western Europe—that is, in the first major nations to become industrialized and that now have among the world’s greatest energy use and highest standards of living.

  Figure 5.4 World nuclear generating capacity in 2004, in billions of watts, by geographic region, for the richest countries in the world (members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD).9, 10 This shows that for the richest countries in the world, nuclear power plants and their problems are right at home.

  Where exactly do you find uranium ore?

  If the limited amount of uranium ore in the world is not enough of a problem, consider how these ores are distributed around the world (Table 5.2). Australia has the largest amount, 22.7%; Kazakhstan and Russia are second and third; and except for Canada and the United States itself, the other leading nations are not necessarily good sources for the United States. One can imagine declining supplies of uranium giving rise to the same global conflicts generated by dwindling oil and gas deposits.

  Table 5.2 Nations with the Largest Uranium Ore Deposits

  Who pays and who benefits?

  Nuclear power is expensive. According to the Nuclear Energy Information Service, which calls itself “Illinois’ Nuclear Power Watchdog for 25 Years,” nuclear power has cost $492 billion, “nearly twice the cost of the Viet Nam War and the Apollo Moon Missions combined.”11 The corporations that built nuclear power plants would be operating them at a loss (or trying to shut them down) if they weren’t benefiting from heavy government subsidies, paid for by your tax dollars.

  In spite of these limitations and problems, the Obama administration is moving ahead with the federal funding of nuclear power plants. At the time of this writing, the administration had allocated $18.5 billion for new “next generation” nuclear power plants, to be divided among UniStar Nuclear Energy, NRG E
nergy Inc., Scana Corp, and Southern Co.12

  How safe are nuclear power plants?

  Advocates of nuclear power argue that it is safer than other sources of energy. They say that the number of additional deaths caused by air pollution from burning fossil fuels is much greater than the number of lives lost through nuclear accidents—for example, the 4,000 deaths that can be directly attributed to the Chernobyl nuclear power accident and the forecast 16,000 to 39,000 deaths that might eventually be attributed to Chernobyl—are fewer than the number of deaths each year caused by burning coal.13 Those arguing against nuclear power say that as long as people build nuclear power plants and manage them, there will be the possibility of accidents. We can build nuclear reactors that are safer, but people will continue to make mistakes, and accidents will continue to happen. And beyond the possibility of accidental disaster is the now all too real possibility of deliberate disaster.