Pui Kuen Amos Tai
17.32   Environmental Politics & Policy
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
May, 2004

Nuclear Energy vs. Global Warming:   Policy Tradeoffs


            “I believe very firmly that nuclear has to be a significant part of our energy future and a large part of the Western world, if we’re going to meet                 these [emission reduction] targets.”      - Stuart Eizenstat, Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs, at the Buenos Aires             Summit on climate change, November 19981.

There have been a lot of debates over whether the use of nuclear energy should be advocated as a means to reduce carbon emission and alleviate global warming in the US and worldwide.  In agreement with Eizenstat’s view, this essay attempts to explicate the tradeoffs between nuclear energy and global climate change by considering the risks of both, and assert a position why nuclear energy should be recommended.

One of the biggest concerns about nuclear energy is its safety issue.  The explosion of the nuclear reactor at Chernobyl in 1986, as well as the Three Mile Island accident near Harrisburg in 1979, has greatly aroused public fears concerning nuclear safety2.  In the Chernobyl disaster, 32 people died immediately and 38 more people died of acute illnesses caused by radiation in the following months3.  Radioactive dust quickly spread over Europe and was associated with increasing cancer cases.  A recent survey has shown that the rate of thyroid cancer in children has been much increased in Belarus, a former member of the Soviet Union4.  Various health effects were observed in other former Soviet Union members, though "there were no identifiable illnesses outside the Soviet Union"5.  Spreading of radioactive dust also caused abnormally high level of radioactivity in wild plants and animals, which, therefore, became unsuitable for human consumption.  If an accident of this scale were to happen in the US, similar health effects would influence the whole nation, causing astronomical medical and social costs.

However, events of such scale are very unlikely to happen again, given the present high level of safety and protection facilities.  In the Three Mile Island accident, only the reactor was destroyed while the core and protective containment remained intact, and no single injury was reported6.  In fact, according to a risk assessment conducted by the Nuclear Regulation Commission (NRC), the chance of damage to a reactor is 1 in 40000 a year, while the chance of radiation release is even lower7.  This is mainly because of the enhanced protection offered by the robust reactor containment, especially after the Three Mile Island case.  “Nuclear power plants have better safety performance than ever.”8  Nuclear power plants also have smaller impacts on nearby ecosystems, compared to coal, oil, hydroelectric power or wind power.  It is also noteworthy that the estimates of cancer rate associated with Chernobyl were open to large margin of errors, typical of a large-scale epidemiological study, and its effect on cancer rate in Europe was marginally small because of the large number of cancers caused by other factors9.

        Others may also fear the radiation from daily reactor operation.  Yet, scientists point out that radiation from a normally operating reactor per year is about 300 times less than the background radiation, and is just similar to the radiation you get from watching television10.  Bernard Cohen, a professor at Stanford University, estimated that the risk of, or potential deaths annually caused by operating nuclear plant is 30000 times lower than coal mining, which kills hundreds of miners every year, and is even 44000 times lower than smoking11!

        Another biggest concern is the treatment of nuclear waste.  There are 104 nuclear power plants currently in operation in the US, generating about 20% of its electricity12, each on average produces 20 tons of used fuel including decayed uranium and plutonium per year13.  To date, no locations in the US are permanently storing the nuclear waste.  A permanent, geologically stable site is required to properly dispose the used fuel.  After many years of debate, President Bush finally approved to designate Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the repository site in 200214.  There are potential risks, of course.  Rainwater may penetrate through cracks in rocks and dissolve the rock containment, thus dissolving the nuclear waste buried beneath15.  Water carrying the radioactive substances may seep through rocks further and contaminate groundwater, causing ecological and health problems.  Moreover, seismic activities and eruptions can “crush any canisters of nuclear waste buried there, potentially exposing a wide area of the Southwest to radiation16”.  Transportation of waste also arouses safety concern; some opponents name it “mobile Chernobyl”17.

        Though there are some disagreements among scientists of various interests, most do indeed agree that Yucca is an appropriate site for repository on good scientific basis.  The waste is to be isolated 1000 feet below the dry rocks and 1000 feet above the water bed18.  Hydrologists estimate that only minute amount of water can successfully seep through this depth19.  Although a California Institute of Technology research group has warned that “the ground around the site could be considered stable only over the next 1000 years20”, this is still a long period of time, considering that beginning of human civilization only dated back to a few thousand years ago21.  Geologists also state that the most recent volcanic eruption in nearby region was about 80000 years ago and it is highly unlikely to happen again.  Though earthquake used to happen in the area, it is proven that its impact on rocks at such depth is minimal22.

Viewing from the above discussion, fears about nuclear power plant safety and waste disposal could be over the top.  It is not surprising that the public, as well as the policy makers, display the NIMBY – not in my backyard – attitude when nobody wants something potentially perilous near them.  This could be why Nevada is strongly against Bush’s approval of Yucca23.  Risks, though assessed to be minimal, arouse much unnecessary public fears; high sensitivity of the issue often agitates the mass media and deters politicians from addressing the issue progressively.  All these have pathetically impeded the process of utilizing nuclear power to reduce carbon emission.  Much scientific evidence has suggested that nuclear energy, as a nearly emission-free source of energy, can significantly help lower global carbon dioxide level.  John McCarthy, a professor at Stanford University, estimated that fission of one uranium atom produce 10 million times more energy than combustion of one carbon atom, suggesting the efficiency and economic value of uranium as a fuel24.  An International Energy Agency report in 2001 shows that without nuclear energy, the carbon emission level of all OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries would be one third higher than they are at present25.  This is equivalent to saving 1200 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, which is about 10% of the total emission from OEDC.  Slow progress of promoting nuclear energy in the US, which is responsible for one-fifth of total global carbon emission, is stalling global efforts to address climate change problems.

Do we really need to reduce carbon emission so desperately that we should take the risk to move nuclear energy forward?  Yes, definitely and urgently.  “Carbon dioxide levels appear to have varied by less than 10% during the 10 000 years before industrialization. In the 200 years since 1800, however, levels have risen by over 30%”26, with a rate of 0.5% increase each year.  Fossil fuel combustion accounts for more than three-quarters of all anthropogenic carbon sources.  Since carbon dioxide, as a greenhouse gas, effectively traps radiation from and sun and reflected from the earth surface, it keeps our planet warm.  Yet, increasing level of carbon dioxide heats up our planet.  Climate model predicts that by the end of 2100, global temperature will have risen by 1.4-5.8oC27.  Profound impacts on climate and the environment worldwide have already been observed.

Global warming severely alters the climate pattern of our planet.  Increases in temperature will accelerate evaporation from the land, intensifying drought and aggravating desertification in many parts of the world such as northwest China and central-north Africa28.  Increased evaporation somewhere leads to increased precipitation elsewhere.  This is associated with phenomena such as El Nino, which result in more flooding and rainstorms in regions like the Caribbean and Southeast Asia29.  All these potentially induce astounding economic loss due to landscape transformation, agricultural disruption and habitat destruction.  Our climate is thus becoming more polarized.

One of the most respected scientists, Dr. Stephen H. Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research believes that global warming will cause melting of ice in the poles, raising the global sea level30.  It poses threat to all coastal cities.  Cases of housing destruction because of the melting of permafrost underneath the ground have significantly increased over the past decade in northern Alaska, costing the federal government millions of dollars to deal with the problem every year31.  It is also observed that melting of arctic ice has already led to decline in salinity of seawater in the northern Atlantic.  It is suggested by prominent scientists that this will slow down or even stop the Gulf Stream32.  The Gulf Stream is a large-scale water movement that brings warm water to the northern Atlantic and brings cool water to the tropical Indian Ocean.  This renders the climate of both regions and the area across, covering more than a third of the globe, mild and stable.  Interruption of this vital process will further polarize global climate33.

Apart from climate change, increased temperature has many other profound consequences.  Insect-borne and bacterial diseases will be favored; this disproportionately affects population in developing countries, which have poorer hygiene and health care.  Less vulnerable species will be favored; this influences biogeographical pattern worldwide.  Furthermore, more air-conditioning will be demanded and more resources have to be put in attempt to deal with all the consequences of global warming, further raising energy demand.  This becomes a vicious cycle that we should tackle now before it is too late.

Although the research on climate change is bound to have large margin of errors, there is consensus in the scientific community as well as the political arena that global warming is happening, and its impacts are slowing emerging34.  Compared to the risk of nuclear energy, which can be effectively minimized by the present and ever-improving level of safety, the “risk” of global warming is indispensable and alarming.  As long as nuclear energy remains the most efficient, economical carbon-free and relatively ecologically friendly energy source among others, policy makers should seriously consider it as a viable energy option and advocate its use as a means to reduce carbon emission.

 

References:


1.      Nuclear Energy Institute. Guide to Nuclear Energy. Jan 2001. http://www.nei.org/documents/guidetonuclearenergy.pdf

2.      Switzer, Jacqueline V. Environmental Politics: Domestic & Global Dimensions. 4 Ed, 2004. Chap.6.

3.      McCarthy, John. “Chernobyl disaster”. Stanford University. 2001.  http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/chernobyl.html

4.      McCarthy, John. “Frequently asked questions about nuclear energy”. Stanford University. 2001. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

5.      McCarthy, John. “Chernobyl disaster”.  Stanford University. 2001. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/chernobyl.html

6.      McCarthy, John. “Frequently asked questions about nuclear energy”. Stanford University. 2001. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

7.      Nuclear Energy Institute. “Safety benefits of risk assessment at US nuclear power plants”. 2002. http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=691

8.      Meserve, Richard. “Global Warming & Nuclear Power”. Science. V3(303). Jan 2004.

9.      McCarthy, John. “Frequently asked questions about nuclear energy”. Stanford University. 2001. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

10.  Nuclear Energy Institute. “Safety benefits of risk assessment at US nuclear power plants”. 2002. http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=691

11.  McCarthy, John. “Radiation”. Stanford University. 2001. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/radiation.html

12.  Switzer, Jacqueline V. Environmental Politics: Domestic & Global Dimensions. 4 Ed, 2004. Chap.6.

13.  Nuclear Energy Institute. Guide to Nuclear Energy. Jan 2001. http://www.nei.org/documents/guidetonuclearenergy.pdf

14.  Switzer, Jacqueline V. Environmental Politics: Domestic & Global Dimensions. 4 Ed, 2004. Chap.5.

15.  Switzer, Jacqueline V. Environmental Politics: Domestic & Global Dimensions. 4 Ed, 2004. Chap.5.

16.  Switzer, Jacqueline V. Environmental Politics: Domestic & Global Dimensions. 4 Ed, 2004. Chap.5. pp.159.

17.  Switzer, Jacqueline V. Environmental Politics: Domestic & Global Dimensions. 4 Ed, 2004. Chap.5.

18.  Nuclear Energy Institute. Yucca Mountain: Myths & Facts. 2002. http://www.nei.org/documents/YuccaResourceBinder/index.html

19.  Switzer, Jacqueline V. Environmental Politics: Domestic & Global Dimensions. 4 Ed, 2004. Chap.5.

20.  Switzer, Jacqueline V. Environmental Politics: Domestic & Global Dimensions. 4 Ed, 2004. Chap.5. pp.159.

21.  Meyer, Stephen. Environmental Politics & Policy: lecture notes. MIT. May 5, 2004.

22.  Nuclear Energy Institute. Yucca Mountain: Myths & Facts. 2002. http://www.nei.org/documents/YuccaResourceBinder/index.html

23.  Switzer, Jacqueline V. Environmental Politics: Domestic & Global Dimensions. 4 Ed, 2004. Chap.5.

24.  McCarthy, John. “Frequently asked questions about nuclear energy”. Stanford University. 2001. http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

25.  OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. Nuclear Energy & the Kyoto Protocol. 2002. http://www.nea.fr/html/ndd/reports/2002/nea3808-kyoto.pdf

26.  OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. Nuclear Energy & the Kyoto Protocol. 2002. http://www.nea.fr/html/ndd/reports/2002/nea3808-kyoto.pdf

27.  OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. Nuclear Energy & the Kyoto Protocol. 2002. http://www.nea.fr/html/ndd/reports/2002/nea3808-kyoto.pdf

28.  Woodwell, George. “Disruption: Climatic & Political Towards a World that Works”. Lecture at MIT. April 7, 2004.

29.  Woodwell, George. “Disruption: Climatic & Political Towards a World that Works”. Lecture at MIT. April 7, 2004.

30.  Switzer, Jacqueline V. Environmental Politics: Domestic & Global Dimensions. 4 Ed, 2004. Chap.10.

31.  Various authors. Mission 2007 12.000 Solving Complex Problems Fall 2003: textbook. 2003.

32.  Woodwell, George. “Disruption: Climatic & Political Towards a World that Works”. Lecture at MIT. April 7, 2004.

33.  Woodwell, George. “Disruption: Climatic & Political Towards a World that Works”. Lecture at MIT. April 7, 2004.

34.  Woodwell, George. “Disruption: Climatic & Political Towards a World that Works”. Lecture at MIT. April 7, 2004.