The environmental movement, and its irrational fear of nuclear energy

Great Debates
1

Global warming, like many of the vast and seemingly intractable problems that confront us, actually has an easy answer, one staring us in the face, in fact. It’s called nuclear energy. We know it works, we know the issues with it, we have new models of reactors that are vastly safer and more reliable than the old ones. And yet, by and large, we refuse to touch it. Why? Because of hysterical and irrational fears, often driven by the very people who should be embracing the technology – namely, the environmental movement.

With a bit of national will and a dollop of cash, we could have hundreds of nuclear plants up and running in five years. Provided, that is, that the Powers That Be get on board with the idea and relentlessly confront people’s fears. We could electrify our car fleet without worrying about brownouts, or that we’re just transferring emissions from the tailpipe to the smokestack. We could, in short, make a huge dent in our carbon output without breaking much of a sweat. Shouldn’t that be one of the main goals of the environmental movement?

Here’s a compelling factoid: France gets 75% of its electricity from nuclear power, and their annual per-capita emission of CO2 is 6.2 metric tons (2003). In the U.S., our per-capita output is over three times as high. And last I checked, France was not a radioactive wasteland, nor was it a Third World backwater where people ride ostriches to get to work. And yet, even in the face of this obvious truth, the environmental movement keeps dithering, waiting for wind and solar to cut carbon emissions 40% by the year 2025, or whatever it is they’re hoping for. Why don’t they feel a little more sense of urgency about this?

In the interest of naming names, here are a few of the guilty parties: The Sierra Club, Greenpeace, PIRG, Friends of the Earth, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Even organizations such as the Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society, which haven’t explicitly denounced nuclear energy, are sitting on the sidelines, waiting.

So what’s the issue here? Are the environmental organizations doomed to stand by and watch, just because they can’t divest themselves of their anti-nuclear baggage? It’s sad to think of their efforts around habitat and species preservation coming to naught when the planet begins to make like an Easy-Bake oven, as they of all people believe it will.

2

I don’t think it’s irrational, but possibly ill-advised.

3

It is irrational, if understandable. Ultimately, it’s a matter of math - cold, hard caluclations. People will not stop using energy, and the greater use of energy is the hallmark of advancing civilization. Efficiency is good not because you use less energy, but because it makes more available for other things. And sadly, renewable methods can only get you so far. I have no problems using them, but hydro, solar, and wind are not going to go the job.

Since clean fusion is not yet come, the best we can do is fission. This isn’t quite as pretty, and carries its own risks, but all in all it’s a much cleaner and safer option. It is true, that given sufficient numbers of plants, there will be accidents eventually. That’s life. Things aren’t always perfect. However, most likely it will kill far fewer people than coal and oil. Environmentalists are mistaking the danger they can see easily (nuclear explosions!!!11111one) for the one they can’t (air pollution). Ironically, they often make the mistake in reverse, ignoring the benefits they can see (of energy use) for the displeasing downsides (ugly air pollution and powerplants).

If they were rationally assessing the situation, they would demand top-notch security and safety, and work to push nuclear as far as possible. This would result in less mining, safer and cleaner energy supplies, potentially less auto pollution (nuclear fuels making hydrogen-storage autos more viable and more useful), and greater health and well-bring from reduced pollution.

4

I think a lot of environmentalists have more of an issue with current methods which produce nuclear waste than they do with the potential for an explosion.

Nuclear waste is tricky. Though it’s comparatively smaller and doesn’t pollute over vast distances, it’s dangerous for a very, very long time and it’s almost impossible to come up with a completely impermeable containment system for it. (Not to mention the fact that it has to be guarded in some fashion.)

5
  1. The production cost of per kWh is higher for nuke than for coal in the USA, although the costs are close enough that if the construction and operation of nukes continues to become more efficient, then nukes should gain the advantage.
  2. There is a lot of financial risk in constucting a nuke station, for the construction costs are so high that very large long-term debt must be taken on – this can go hideously wron when interest rates rise (witness what happened in Ontario).
  3. Waste – the crap is very nasty and lasts a very long time – also, although breeder reactors can reduce waste, they also produce isotopes used in nuclear weapons.
  4. Metal fatigue – the guts of reactors are fatiguing earlier than expected, which results in more frequent rebuilding, which costs a great deal.
  5. Cherynoble – name a coal station incident that caused as much damage – yes, that was a different design (mis)run under a different operating regime, but it will take a lot of education to get such differences across to the public.
  6. Terrorism – it is a huge risk to build very large targets that if hit could cause massive long-term damage and cost very large amounts to repair or rebuild (and yes, the containment buildings are missile/aircraft/bomb hardened) – and then there is also the risk of other nations developing nuclear weapons after having imported nuclear power station knowledge and technology.
  7. France – France is big on nukes, so nukes must be bad. Same goes for Kanukistan.

Overall, I expect that coal stations producing at lower cost than nuke stations is the most significant reason that nukes are not being brought on line these days. Here is a paper that makes a strong case for nukes based on ongoing cost improvements: http://www.world-nuclear.org/economics.pdf

6

I think the main reason Greenpeace et al don’t see it as a solution is that the major contributor to “global warming” are cars. Use of nucelar energy can only replace things like coal for heating. Automobiles and their pollution will still be a problem even if we all switched to solar power to heat our homes, businesses, etc.

7

It’s not really that tricky. We have come up with an impermeable containment system for it – Yucca Mountain. The containers that hold the waste are pretty much indestructible and don’t leak, and sticking it in the middle of the Nevada desert makes it highly unlikely it will ever be a problem.

Of course, we can also recycle some of it, but the U.S. doesn’t seem to want to go down that path, unfortunately.

8

Karl, the DOE says “In 2003, the transportation sector accounted for about 27 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions.” You may be right about Greenpeace fixating on cars, but again, it’s irrational when cars account for only a quarter of our emissions.

9

After I wrote this, I had some second thoughts so tried to find a reference. In fact, I may well be wrong. Cars and trucks contribute “only” about 1/3 of greenhouse gases, whereas electricity generation and the like cause over half (I think).

10

You can’t use yucca mountain if you can’t get to it. Several states have refused to let nuclear waste pass through on trains. Its not just the environmentalists that are dropping the ball here - its your average joe who thinks a train derailment in his state will turn it into a toxic wasteland and complains to their local politicians. Unfortunately we need to have a cultural shift in our views of nuclear power and it needs to start with some serious consumer education.

11

Whilke I support more nuclear power, hundreds of nuclear plants in five years is not a reality. MAYBE dozens. Imagine that tomorrow all regulation was dismissed, nobody sued and everybody said “Go for it!” you still have a myriad of planning, labor, budget and material issues.

12

True, but the sensible approach is to make several hundred identical power plants, so you only have to go through one regulatory process, one design process, etc. But having the environmental movement as cheerleaders seems an essential step in changing the tide of public opinion.

13

I find it very interesting that the OP, in five paragraphs of text (407 words), never once mentions radioactive waste.

Got denial?

14

Electric or hydrogen cars would take care of this (the hydrogen being produced through the use of nuclear energy).

15

And as mentioned, there are systems in place to handle it already. Though because the OP didn’t say those exact 2 words doesn’t really seem like any sort of omission. Denial of what exactly?

16

All that is doing is putting off the problem for a later date. Nothing is taken care off. It’s just out off. What happens when there is an earthquake, or the facility fills up, or we discover that putting that much radioactive waste in one place leads to reactions that we didn’t foresee? I’m not totally against nuclear power, but many of our current environmental problems are the result of not knowing/thinking about the results of our own actions in the past. I’d rather not add radioactivity to acid rain/lead levels in fish/mutating frog…

17

Is a small amount of nuclear waste really less preferable to widescale flooding, droughts, mass extinctions and famine that the likes of Greenpeace would have us believe follows from Global Warming?

18

And what’s the alternative? We sit it out, belching out more and more greenhouse gasses whilst we do an extensive investigation into whether radioactive waste produces birth defects in the lesser spotted green pond dolphin?

Some estimates I’ve seen state that we need to reduce carbon emissions significantly within the next ten years (or less, I can’t remember), otherwise it’s too late.

19

I thought they all went extinct during the last oil spill.

20

Until . . .