[ RadSafe ] "Is Nuclear Energy the Solution ?"

[George Stanford]

Peter:

      This sort of misinformation is all too common.  The "editorial" 
can be found in more-readable form at
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773373/>.
Here is the second paragraph, with comments interspersed.

>"We should all know that: first, investments in nuclear power are 
>risky as indicated by the fact that Wall Street has chosen to stay clear;"
      Comment:  The perceived risk is not due to technological 
uncertainty, but to regulatory and political uncertainties.

>"second, nuclear power plants are stated terrorist targets . . ."
      Comment:  For a terrorist who wants to do damage, there's a 
plethora of targets that are far more attractive than a nuclear plant 
-- the Trade Center being just one prominent example.  Nuclear plants 
add nothing to the terrorist risk, which will exist as long as terrorists do.

>". . . and carry serious risks of their own;"
      Comment: Those risks are perceived, not actual.  The "worst 
Western nuclear-plant accident" (Three Mile Island) killed 
nobody.  An accident last August at a Russian hydro-power plant 
killed more people than the Chernobyl accident did.  The safety 
record of the civilian nuclear power industry is unexcelled.

>"third, nuclear power will not reduce our dependencies on foreign 
>energy as is sometimes claimed;"
      Comment:  What nonsense!  Electricity (from wind, solar, or 
nuclear) can be used to make hydrogen or carbon-neutral synthetic 
liquids, such as jet fuel, diesel fuel, and gasoline.   Carbon-free 
nuclear energy could also be used to extract oil from the large 
oil-bearing shale deposits in the western states.

>"fourth, nuclear-generated electricity does not compare favorably 
>with electricity derived from either the combustion of fossil fuels 
>or renewable sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, wave, and tide, . . . "
      Comment: Electricity is electricity, regardless of how it is generated.
      But if the intended context is economic or environmental, the 
statement is clearly wrong.  Nuclear power emits no polluting or 
greenhouse gases.  It requires much less mining than coal -- and, 
with fast reactors deployed, no mining at all will be needed for centuries.
      Around the world, nuclear power is seen as competitive, with 52 
reactors under construction, 143 more on order or planned, and 344 
proposed 
(<http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html>).  Functioning 
reactors whose capital costs have already been amortized are such 
cash cows that there are proposals in several places to subject them 
to a "windfall profits" tax.
      Energy from wind, solar, wave, and tide is turning out to be 
very expensive per kilowatt-hour delivered (20-50 cents or more), and 
would not be used for central power anywhere without 
taxpayer-provided subsidies and regulations requiring utilities to 
use "renewable" energy when it is available.  (Note that the capacity 
always stated for wind and solar installations is nameplate, which is 
three to five times larger than the average available power, and 
costs for backup and long transmission lines are rarely included in 
the cost estimates.)
      The two reactors to be built at the Vogtle power station in 
Georgia are predicted to have an overnight capital cost of about 
$6800 per kWe (this is undoubtedly considerably higher than future 
plants, since the ones at Vogtle are first-of-a-kind in the U.S. 
nuclear revival, and much of that cost is for licensing and other 
paperwork, rather than for actual construction).  This translates to 
a capital-cost component of about 6 cents per kWh.  If the fuel and 
operating cost is another 2 cents/kWh, the resulting 8 cents is 
higher than for coal or gas, but lower than for wind or solar.

>". . . and finally, there is currently no good means of nuclear 
>waste disposal, hence more environmental pollution."
      Comment:  As everyone knowledgeable about the industry knows, 
this common perception is just plain wrong.  Unlike the waste from 
fossil-fuel burning -- spent nuclear fuel is not polluting the 
environment anywhere.  And with fast reactors deployed, the spent 
fuel from thermal reactors becomes a very large energy resource, 
since only about 4% of its energy has so far been extracted.

      The body of the editorial is unlikely to be any more 
authoritative than its introduction.

George Stanford
Reactor physicist, retired from Argonne National Laboratory.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 11:28 AM 4/17/2010, Peter Bossew wrote:
>Editorial, Water Air Soil Pollution, 208, 1-4, 2010
>M. Saier and J. Trevors: Is Nuclear Energy the Solution ?
>
>www.springerlink.com/content/yr0548j054320377/      (open access)
>
>
>Comments ?
>
>In particular I would be interested in (qualified !) comments on the
>economic arguments.
>
>
>Peter Bossew