Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist

by Patrick Moore

  Because the U.S. has not established either a recycling program or a long-term waste repository, all the used fuel is still stored at the nuclear reactor sites. At some reactors that have been operating for 30 to 40 years, the pools have become full and the older used fuel has been transferred to dry casks and stored on site on concrete pads with secure perimeters. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has stated that the dry casks are capable of containing the used fuel for 120 years when stored outdoors[62] This is certainly a very conservative estimate. And if the dry casks were in a climate-controlled building, they would be secure for 1000 years or longer.

  All the used fuel produced in U.S. reactors over the past 50 years would fit on a football field stacked 22 feet high. If the used fuel were recycled, the fission products, the actual “waste,” would cover a football field about nine inches in depth. We are certainly capable of securely storing this relatively small amount of material until it decays into nonradioactive elements. One hopes more people will come to understand we are not, and likely never will be, harmed by nuclear reactors or used nuclear fuel. And one further hopes the United States will join the other countries that are continuing to improve recycling technology and making use of this valuable source of future energy.

  The fact that new uranium is less expensive than recycled used fuel has not stopped France, Japan, the U.K., or Russia from moving forward with recycling technology. One reason for this is that the nuclear industry in these countries is, or has traditionally been, state owned. State-owned corporations do not operate in the free market, as is largely the case in the U.S. If the French government wants to develop recycling technology, it simply makes the decision to do it and provides the necessary funds. In the U.S. the fact that it is less expensive to buy new uranium will cause the private companies that own nuclear plants to choose new uranium. Therefore the only way the American nuclear industry will consider investing in recycling is if the government provides sufficient incentives or funds to make it financially attractive.

  There are two reasons for the U.S. government to create an environment that promotes recycling. First, unless you are engaged in developing the technology you can’t be an effective part of the international dialogue about it, you can’t work to improve the technology to make it more efficient, and you can’t be as effective in improving security at an international level to prevent used fuel and its by-products from falling into the wrong hands.

  Second, recycling used nuclear fuel is obviously the right thing to do in order to make use of the energy in it, to reduce the volume of waste and the time its takes to decay, and to live up to the principle of reuse, recycle, and reduce. In many cases it costs more to recycle glass and paper than it does to produce new glass and paper. But we recycle them anyway because this is a superior approach from the perspective of sustainability.

  I do not propose that the U.S. enter into a crash program of recycling used fuel. France is not recycling all its used fuel, partly due to the higher cost, but it is recycling enough to create a viable industry. In the early years there were significant discharges of radiation to the environment from these recycling facilities. Through continual improvement this has been reduced to levels that are not significant from an environmental or health perspective. It would not have been possible to make such advances if there were no recycling plant to improve. Therefore it makes sense for the American government to develop a public-private partnership with the nuclear industry that results in the establishment of nuclear recycling, either as an advanced applied research project or as a commercial operation. As Canada has no recycling program it may be wise for it to join in a venture with the U.S.

  The Next Generation of Nuclear Power

  Research and development programs are under way in many countries to design and eventually build the next generation of nuclear reactors. Perhaps the two most important of these new designs are high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and fast neutron reactors, including those called breeder reactors.

  Nearly all the world’s conventional reactors are based on water-cooled low-temperature technology. These reactors are relatively inefficient at converting heat to electricity and they can’t produce steam that is hot enough for most industrial processes. High-temperature gas-cooled reactors are much more efficient, produce high-temperature steam that can be used in place of steam produced by fossil fuels, and can produce hydrogen directly by splitting water through a thermo-chemical process. They will be capable of replacing fossil fuel energy in oil refineries, paper mills, chemical plants, and many other industries. They can also be used to desalinate water for domestic, irrigation, and industrial use. China, South Africa, and the United States are leading in this technology.[63]

  Fast neutron reactors will be necessary to carry out the complete recycling of used nuclear fuel. Conventional reactors can be used for the first stages of recycling but cannot finish the job. Most importantly, fast reactors can burn a number of by-products from conventional reactors that conventional reactors cannot burn, thus making nuclear waste shorter lived and easier to handle. Fast reactors can also be used to desalinate water. A number of fast breeder reactors have been built and operated. The Russian BN-350 fast reactor ran from 1964 to 1999, producing 135 megawatts of electricity and 16 million gallons of water per day, which was used by people living in the town of Altau on the Caspian Sea. Fast reactors now operate in France, Japan, Russia, and India. Fast reactors are currently under construction in Russia and China and additional ones are being built in Japan and India. The United States operated a fast reactor at Hanford, Washington, from 1982 to 1993 when it was decommissioned. As a result the U.S. has fallen behind a number of other countries that use this technology.[64]

  A breeder reactor is a type of fast neutron reactor that produces more fuel than it consumes. With this technology it is possible to burn all the uranium-238, thus extracting the maximum amount of energy from nuclear fuel. This will ensure a supply of nuclear fuel that will last thousands of years.

  Another interesting development is the renewed emphasis on small reactors, ranging in size from under 50 megawatts up to 300 megawatts, for electricity, hydrogen, industrial heat, and desalination. Small reactors are not new but in the past most of them were used in either research or military contexts. The reactors that power nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, and icebreakers fall into this category. Small reactors are especially useful in remote areas off the electric grid and on islands, where the only alternative is often diesel generators.

  In a remote area of Siberia there are four small reactors in four communities that produce steam for district heating and 11 megawatts of electricity each. They have performed well since 1976, at a much lower cost than fossil fuel alternatives in the Arctic region.

  Russia is developing both 35-megawatt and 200-megawatt floating reactors on self-propelled barges to service remote industries, such as the oil and gas and mining industries, in Siberia. In addition, Argentina, Japan, Korea, South Africa, and the United States are in the late stages of developing various types and configurations of small reactors.[65] There are 15 small reactor programs worldwide that are well advanced, including three in the US, four in Russia, two in China, and one each in Argentina and South Africa. In the future they will serve markets and industries that can’t be served by large centralized reactors.

  Swords to Plowshares

  The proliferation of nuclear weapons represents one of the greatest threats to world peace and security. The situations in the Middle East and North Korea are extremely difficult with no obvious solution in sight. This problem will no doubt be with us for centuries to come. Even if a true world government is someday realized, society will always have to contend with rogue elements, tribal factions, and criminal activity. But as explained earlier, the threat of nuclear proliferation has very little to do with nuclear energy. It is a problem that must be dealt with separately and that will require hardball diplomacy and possibly force, one hopes with United Nations appro
val.

  Meanwhile there are many positive activities and trends on the other side of the coin, which involve turning nuclear weapons programs and materials toward peaceful purposes. One of the first of these involved South Africa.

  During the 1970s and 1980s, while the apartheid regime was still in power, South Africa mined uranium, enriched it, and produced six nuclear warheads as a deterrent against invasion. As preparations were made in the early 1990s for the post-apartheid democratically elected government, these weapons were dismantled. South Africa had become the first (and only) nuclear weapons state to voluntarily give up nuclear arms.[66]

  South Africa had already built two nuclear reactors near Capetown by 1985, both of which still operate today. They had nothing to do with the nuclear weapons program. When the nuclear bombs were dismantled, the highly enriched uranium was stockpiled to make isotopes for nuclear medicine. One of the most important medical isotopes, technetium-99m, is produced by bombarding enriched uranium with neutrons from a nuclear reactor, thus producing molybdenum-99, which has a half-life of 66 hours. The molybdenum is then delivered to hospitals around the world, where it then decays into technetium-99m, with a half-life of only six hours. Technetium is used to diagnose more than 20 million medical conditions every year and provides the best possible images of the brain, kidneys, liver, lungs, skeleton, blood, and tumors. Eighty-five percent of all nuclear diagnostic imaging is done with this isotope. South Africa is now one of the top producers of medical isotopes in the world.

  Beginning with the first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1972, the number of nuclear weapons actively deployed in the world has been reduced from 65,000 to about 20,000, only about 8,000 of which remain in active operation.[67] In March 2010, the U.S. and Russia signed a deal to reduce each other’s arsenals to 1550 warheads each.[68] While this is still more than enough to destroy our civilization, it is certainly a move in the right direction. And while these weapons may threaten our future, the uranium and plutonium from the thousands of dismantled warheads offers hope for the future of clean energy.

  The major nuclear powers—the U.S., Russia, the U.K., and France—have a large surplus of plutonium and highly enriched uranium. All of this can eventually be used as nuclear fuel to produce energy. The supply is immense, especially when you take into account the much larger stockpiles of depleted uranium that resulted from the enrichment of uranium for bombs. The main use for depleted uranium is on armored vehicles and tanks, and for bullets and shells. It is harder than steel and heavier than lead, so it serves both those military purposes well. But wouldn’t it be better to burn this uranium in fast reactors to power our world?

  The most significant example of nuclear swords to plowshares today is the fact that 50 percent of American nuclear energy is fueled with uranium from dismantled Russian warheads. Yes, 10 percent of all US electricity comes from bombs taken apart under disarmament agreements. In 1993 the U.S. and Russia signed a 20-year agreement for 454 tonnes (500 tons) of Russian highly enriched uranium (90+ percent U-235) to be down-blended to reactor grade uranium (4 to 5 percent U-235) and shipped to the U.S., where it would be used as nuclear fuel. As of June 2009, 367 tons of weapons grade uranium had been converted into 9,635 tonnes (10,621 tons) of reactor fuel. This is by far the largest effort to convert nuclear weapons to peaceful purposes.[69] Russia has announced that it will not renew the contract when it expires in 2013, presumably because it wants to use the fuel in the 50 new reactors it plans to build in the coming years.

  I have told this story to at least 50 reporters, many of whom work for large newspapers, television networks, and magazines. Not one mention of this situation has been included in the many articles and TV pieces based on these interviews. I have searched the Internet for news stories and found only two mentions of the deal since it was signed in 1993. This more or less proves the adage, “good news is no news.” What a shame.

  If we add up all the uranium that can be mined from the earth’s crust, all the thorium, which is at least four times as abundant as uranium, all the used nuclear fuel with more than 95 percent of the energy remaining, all the weapons grade uranium that is now in stockpiles, and all the depleted uranium from the production of both nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel, there is enough nuclear fuel for thousands of years. How about adding the highly enriched uranium that is still in active nuclear warheads? That may still be a dream, but we are now surely moving in that direction.

  Following on the agreement between the United States and Russia to reduce their nuclear weapons arsenals, in April 2010 it was announced both countries would take 34 tons of plutonium out of their military stockpiles for use as nuclear fuel. The 68 tons of plutonium are enough for 17,000 nuclear warheads.[70] This is ample evidence that on balance we are moving toward more peace and less war.

  A Nuclear Renaissance

  The term nuclear renaissance did not come into general use until 2006. Now it pervades media reportage and public statements around the world. An Internet search produced more than 327,000 mentions of the term. Nuclear energy will likely be the most important energy technology for the next 100 years and beyond.

  At present there are 436 operating nuclear reactors in 31 countries and they provide 15 percent of the world’s electricity. Fifty-six new reactors are under construction, mainly in Asia, where China has 21 and India and South Korea each have 5 reactors under construction. Russia is building 11 reactors and others are under way in Finland, Slovakia, Korea, Romania, Japan, Argentina, France, Bulgaria, and Iran. Canada has announced it will build between 4 and 8 new reactors in Ontario, which already produces 50 percent of its electricity with nuclear power. In all there are about 100 firm plans for new reactors beyond those already under construction and proposals for about 250 additional plants. As of late 2009, there were 30 plants in the planning stage in the United States, with 20 of those already in the process of obtaining licenses to build and operate through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Most of these are planned for existing nuclear sites, where public opinion strongly favors the new plants.

  The number of operating reactors may well double in the next 30 to 40 years. This truly is a nuclear renaissance of global proportions. Unlike 30 years ago, there are no 10,000-strong marches or demonstrations against the proposed nuclear plants. Only a handful of diehard activists strenuously oppose the renewed commitment to nuclear energy. Most environmentalists are more strongly focused on preventing new fossil fuel plants from being built. Even though many of them publicly oppose nuclear energy they are quietly aware that the choice in many countries, in particular those with no additional hydroelectric potential, is between fossil fuel and nuclear power. Their lack of direct action against nuclear proposals speaks loudly that they would prefer nuclear to coal. This was not the case 30 years ago, long before climate change drifted to the top of environmentalists’ agendas.

  Perhaps the biggest boost to date for the nuclear renaissance in the U.S. came in President Barack Obama’s February 2010 announcement of $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees for the construction of two nuclear reactors in the state of Georgia.[71] He also announced that he intended to triple the total loan guarantee program from $18.5 billion to $54.5 billion.[72] In his speech the president stated, “On an issue that affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we can’t keep on being mired in the same old stale debates between the left and the right, between environmentalists and entrepreneurs.”

  His announcement represented a direct challenge to the antinuclear movement, most of whose members tend to support the Democratic Party, to get with the program and change their stance on nuclear power. President Obama has always made it clear he favors nuclear energy. After all, the 11 reactors in his home state of Illinois produce 50 percent of the state’s electricity. And he knows a majority of Democrats in Congress also support nuclear energy, despite the fact that a vociferous minority in the party strongly opposes it. One hopes th
e president’s announcement will put to rest any doubts about the United States’ determination to join the nuclear renaissance.

  Fossil Fuels

  Early humans harnessed fire for heat and cooking more than 100,000 years ago. Eventually they learned to smelt copper and iron ores and to melt sand to make glass. For 100,000 years most of the fuel for these tasks was wood. While there are records of coal being used to smelt copper ore as early as 3,000 years ago in China, it was the invention of the steam engine by James Watt in 1775 that ushered in the era of widespread use of fossil fuels.

  Fossil fuels were created from organic sediments in the sea and from plants on the land. Much of the oil (petroleum) and natural gas (methane) was produced from marine sediments, with plankton such as diatoms, which are tiny plants, contributing the bulk of the material. Coal was generated from swamp forests, where trees and other plants died and decomposed. These processes took millions of years as the organic remains became buried and subject to heat and pressure.

  The fossil fuels have in common their chemical composition as hydrocarbons, essentially hydrogen and carbon. As you move from the lightest, natural gas, to the heaviest, coal, the carbon content increases and the hydrogen content decreases. When hydrocarbons burn, energy gets released from both the carbon and the hydrogen. This is why coal produces the most carbon dioxide and natural gas produces the least carbon dioxide per unit of energy generated.

  Today coal, oil, and natural gas supply 86 percent of the world’s primary energy. In the space of two centuries, with most of the growth in consumption occurring in the past 50 years, we have become utterly dependent on the unsustainable use of these fuels. Our future depends greatly on how we manage the remaining fossil fuels and how we eventually transition to other forms of energy as fossil fuels become depleted. There are fiercely competing theories about how we should go about this evolution.