Is Nuclear Power a Viable Alternative to Fossil Fuels?

Introduction: The Climate Change Context

Is nuclear energy the best alternative to fossil fuels, given the world's growing energy needs and the dual imperatives of economic viability and environmental protection? This question encompasses several interconnected issues: global climate change, the science behind it, the politics surrounding it, and the continuing search for new energy sources. Available, credible research shows that nuclear power plants today are prohibitively expensive to build and, moreover, that public fear and skepticism of nuclear energy have intensified following the tsunami and radioactive disaster in Japan. Nuclear power does not therefore appear to be a valid alternative to fossil fuels at this time, notwithstanding the urgent need to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide.

There are still elected officials in the United States — and conservative media personalities — who do not accept the scientific evidence showing that the planet is warming and that human activities are the cause. These voices matter because they shape public opinion. The radio audience of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, for example, is estimated at fifteen to twenty million listeners per week, and the host has made statements such as: "They're liberals perpetuating a hoax… We're not getting warmer… [it's] a big fat lie" (Limbaugh, 2013).

U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma similarly denies that climate change is occurring or that humans are contributing to it. After President Barack Obama announced that his administration would set limits on emissions from coal-powered electrical generating plants, Inhofe said: "Their goal is not to protect the American people, it is to control them. They want top-down control, and carbon dioxide regulations will give this to them" (McAuliff, 2013). Despite such public denials, the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued reports asserting that the problem "is likely to grow substantially worse unless greenhouse emissions are brought under control" (Gillis, 2014).

A report reviewed by The New York Times identifies the burning of fossil fuels as the primary driver of planetary warming. "Ice caps are melting, sea ice in the Arctic is collapsing, water supplies are coming under stress, heat waves and heavy rains are intensifying, coral reefs are dying," and many species — including some fish — are becoming extinct (Gillis, p. 1). The oceans are rising, threatening coastal communities worldwide, and are becoming more acidic as they absorb carbon dioxide emitted by fossil-fueled power plants. According to the IPCC, the world's food supply is at "considerable risk — a threat that could have serious consequences for the poorest nations" (Gillis, p. 1). The report further warns that climate change will slow economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, and that its effects are already being felt rather than being a distant future concern.

Climate scientist Michael Mann, writing in Scientific American (April 2014), warns that "if the world keeps burning fossil fuels at the current rate, it will cross a threshold into environmental ruin by 2036" (Mann, 2014). Mann notes that the preindustrial level of CO2 was approximately 280 parts per million (ppm), and that in 2013 the CO2 level "briefly reached 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history." He adds that this level may have been reached "for the first time in millions of years, according to geologic evidence." The scientific consensus among the hundreds of researchers contributing to the IPCC is that if CO2 crosses the threshold of 405 ppm, "that will harm civilization" (Mann, p. 5). Moreover, if levels reach 450 ppm — which they will by 2036 if current emission rates continue — the atmosphere will warm by two degrees Celsius and "human civilization will suffer dangerous harm" (Mann, p. 5).

How Fossil Fuels Drive Global Warming

The Environmental Protection Agency explains that carbon dioxide is "the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities." Although CO2 is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's carbon cycle, human-related sources have significantly increased its concentration, creating the "greenhouse effect" — the trapping of heat within the atmosphere that drives climate change (EPA, 2013).

According to NASA, the principal human-related sources of CO2 are the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and other land-use changes. Methane — produced by the decomposition of waste in landfills and by agricultural activities — is another major greenhouse gas contributor. Nitrous oxide, generated through "the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning," is a third significant contributor (NASA, 2013).

The Union of Concerned Scientists explains that coal-fired plants are "the top source of carbon dioxide emissions." Data for 2011 show that the approximately 600 coal-fired plants in the U.S. collectively contribute 3.5 million tons of CO2 annually (UCS, 2012). Coal-fired plants also emit sulfur dioxide (SO2), which "damages crops, forests, and soils" and "penetrates into human lungs," as well as nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter, mercury, and other harmful pollutants (UCS, 2012).

Extracting coal from the earth carries serious environmental and social consequences as well. In Kentucky and other Appalachian states such as West Virginia, "mountaintop removal" is a strategy that literally scrapes away mountaintops to reach valuable coal deposits. "Over 500 mountaintops have already been destroyed and more than one million acres of forest have been clear-cut" in order to reach those deposits at the lowest possible cost (Perks, 2011). More than "a thousand miles of valley streams have been buried under tons of rubble, polluting drinking water" and raising acute health and safety concerns for residents throughout the region (Perks, p. 1).

Coal is clearly a major contributor to global warming, and because large coal reserves exist beneath mountains and other lands across the United States, it continues to play a central role in domestic electricity production. While the Obama Administration sought to restrict greenhouse gas output from coal-fired plants, no policymaker was advocating an immediate shutdown of those plants, given that American households and industry depend on them for electricity. The critical question, then, is: what viable alternatives exist for the future?

Nuclear Power: How It Works and What It Produces

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that there are currently 65 commercially operating nuclear plants in the United States, located across 31 states. Thirty-six of those plants have two or more reactors. Together, they produce approximately 20% of the nation's electricity each year (EIA, 2010). Nuclear energy is derived from the nucleus — or core — of an atom. There is "enormous energy in the bonds that hold the nucleus together," and tremendous amounts of energy are released when those bonds are broken (EIA, 2010).

Nuclear plants are powered by nuclear fission: atoms are "split apart to form smaller atoms, releasing energy," which is then used to generate electricity (EIA, 2010). The process is fueled by uranium (U-235), which is manufactured into small, round fuel pellets. According to Duke Energy, one pellet — roughly an inch long — "produces the energy equivalent to a ton of coal." The pellets are loaded end-to-end into fuel rods, and 200 rods are "grouped into what is known as a fuel assembly" (Duke, 2010).

When uranium atoms are split, the resulting neutrons collide with other neutrons, creating a "chain reaction" that produces heat. In a pressurized water reactor, this heat warms water, which turns turbines to generate electricity. In a "boiling water reactor," the fission process directly boils water, which then turns turbines and produces electricity (Duke, 2010).

Periodically, about "one-third of the fuel assemblies in a reactor must be replaced," but the resulting "spent fuel" remains highly radioactive and "must be managed to protect workers, the environment, and the public" (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC], 2011). The NRC explains that spent fuel assemblies are stored in "robust" fuel pools outside the plant, with "about 20 feet of water above the top of the fuel," giving plant operators time to address any problems that arise (NRC, 2011). The NRC asserts that health risks from loading and storing spent fuel "are very small" and that "no known radiation releases" have negatively impacted public health since the first storage casks were used in 1986.

What the NRC does not address in its fact sheet, however, is that most spent nuclear fuel will remain dangerously radioactive for up to 250,000 years. There is currently no known safe permanent repository for this material, and more than 2,000 metric tons of radioactive waste are produced each year by U.S. reactors (Biello, 2009). In 1987 the United States designated Yucca Mountain in Nevada — approximately 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas — as a potential repository for highly radioactive nuclear waste. However, despite an estimated $11 billion in public expenditure, the site has not been proven safe and has since been abandoned, leaving radioactive waste stored in repositories on or near reactor sites (Biello, p. 2).

One possible alternative to permanent geological storage is the "reprocessing" of spent fuel. The first nuclear reactors built in the U.S. after World War II were in fact designed to produce plutonium for weapons purposes. In 1976, President Gerald Ford ordered that reprocessing be discontinued, and during the Carter Administration it was banned entirely due to fears of nuclear weapons proliferation (Silverstein, 2013). A more recent proposal involves using a massive salt formation in southeastern New Mexico — the Waste Isolation Pilot Program (WIPP) — which spans 10,000 square miles and uses 16 square miles to store nuclear weapons waste. Considered "the tightest rock on earth," the formation is regarded as superior to Yucca Mountain as a storage site, but transporting waste from reactor sites across multiple states would face serious "political resistance" (Silverstein, p. 2).

Conclusion: Renewable Energy as the Better Alternative

The research presented in this paper casts doubt on the future of nuclear power as a replacement for fossil fuels. Nuclear plants do not pour tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as coal-fired plants do, but the economics of nuclear energy indicate that building new plants is prohibitively expensive. As the evidence reviewed here demonstrates, the cost of maintaining nuclear plants — combined with the frequency of leaks, structural failures, and other hazards — strengthens the argument that renewable energy sources represent a more practical and safer path forward. Wind, hydropower, solar, geothermal, and biomass energy all warrant significantly greater investment and development.

The United States lags considerably behind other nations in tapping renewable sources. In Sweden, 55% of electrical power comes from renewables; in Denmark, 40% comes from wind alone; Portugal derives 47% of its electricity from renewables; Spain draws 30% from renewables; and Germany draws 21% (The New York Times, 2013). In the United States, only 13% of electrical power currently comes from renewable energy sources.

The answer to the central question posed by this paper must therefore be no: nuclear power is not a viable alternative to fossil fuels at this time. Both nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources will eventually need to be phased out as engineers and policymakers invest in developing renewable alternatives — a transition that would substantially reduce the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global climate change.