|
|
| Fig. 1: This is a picture of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in California. (Source: Wikimedia Commons) |
It comes as no surprise that in the wake of the accident at Fukushima's Nuclear Power plant that the survival of nuclear power as a future energy source has come into question. Indeed, the incident that took place in Japan in many ways only confirmed what skeptics had long feared, and confirmed what many thought was not possible. However, associated risks with nuclear energy and natural disasters are not the only threat to the longevity of nuclear power. Indeed, the price of oil, natural gas, and other more traditional forms of energy appear to be currently favored by the market, with valuations suggesting that investments in these forms of energy are more fruitful. [1]
In this article, I will speak to both the many merits, as well as potential consequences to the use of nuclear energy. I will, however, not make a suggestion as to whether or not society as a whole should continue to use nuclear energy. Instead, it is my hope that readers of this article will walk away with a better assessment to the many intricacies that make nuclear energy such an interesting and complicated topic. One only need consider Fig. 1 (the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant) to see that the issue of nuclear power plants is very present in our everyday lives.
Nuclear Power, while not without its risks, has many merits that should be discussed in any talk regarding the longevity of nuclear power. First and foremost, nuclear power has zero emissions associated with its production of energy. According to The Hill, nearly 20% of America's electricity and roughly 70% of America's carbon-free electricity is produced by nuclear power. [2] These figures dwarf those numbers supplied by the more traditional forms of renewable energy such as wind and solar. For example, together wind and solar make up only 2% of Americas electric output and only 6% of America's carbon-free energy production. [2]
Another important positive point for nuclear energy can be found in its great reliability relative to other forms of energy production. Nuclear energy is considered to be 90% reliable, making it one of the most reliable forms of energy production known to be economically feasible. [2] Indeed, solar and wind power (without adequate battery storage capacities) operate on a very unreliable schedule. It goes without saying that solar energy is dependent purely upon the sun, and wind power is dependent solely on the wind. This is important because natural forms of energy such as the sun and wind cannot be reliably depended upon to operate for industrial needs. Indeed, one must only consider the fact that humans have no control on the sun or the frequency of wind patters to know that building an entire grid reliant on those two forms of energy would be suicidal (from an electricity production point of view).
In addition, we must consider the unique fact that the use of nuclear power actually saves considerable amount of land for other uses relative to the more traditional forms of renewable energy, such as wind power. In short, the Nature Conservancy notes that the use of wind power has created a sort of energy sprawl with large amounts of land being needed to supply relatively small amounts of electricity. According to The Hill, one unbroken line of 50-story wind turbines along a 2,178 long mile trail creates the equivalent amount of electricity as only four nuclear reactors on 4 square miles. [2]
Finally, safety is a large factor that should be considered when talking about the merits of nuclear energy. Although it seems counterintuitive, working at a nuclear power plant is one of the safest jobs an American can have, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Although recent events in Japan may counter this, it is true that in America there has never been a nuclear accident caused death at a commercial nuclear power plant. [2] The same figures simply cannot be provided for any other commercial power plant.
The first, and arguably one of the most important, negative factors concerning the continued use of nuclear energy revolves around the large costs associated with it. Indeed, when compared to other alternatives for fuel, nuclear energy is one of the most expensive options. Consider for example the cost of natural gas in relation to nuclear fuel in the US. At least in the United States, it is reported that the energy cost per kilowatt hour from a new nuclear plant is roughly 2 cents higher than that from a new natural gas plant. [2] Although seemingly small, it should be noted that in the grand scheme of things this cost grows exponentially, especially when attributed to the energy consumption of the continental states.
Like all things, a nuclear power plant cannot function forever. In those cases where a nuclear power plant has outlived its utility and must be dismantled, there are significant issues to face. One of the most important and striking difficulties with this is the cost that must be swallowed for a successful dismantling of a nuclear power plant. Due to the complexity of nuclear power plants, they exist a host of safety risks including radiation poisoning. [3] Although this article notes that "much of the work demolishing a nuclear power plant is little different from destroying, say, a sugar refinery ..." there still remains the possibility of potential hazards that can "crop up almost anywhere" around the area concerning radiation poisoning. Indeed, the risk of radiation disaster is greater during any contemporary dismantling process than any time in which a nuclear power plant is functioning in normal operation.
In addition, nuclear power plants have the unfortunate reality of creating nuclear waste. [4] As a consequence of this process, a subset of the atoms in the uranium rods are broken up, with the elements in the material creating very radioactive isotopes. Unfortunately, the best solution to this very dangerous nuclear waste is to bury the material within deep geological repositories. However, the long-term effects of this "solution" have yet to be thoroughly tested - leading many to think that substantial issues may arise for residents near those areas in the foreseeable future. Of course, the argument could be made that the destruction caused from global warming (which in turn in caused by coal and gas use) far exceeds the damage that might be done from one the potential localized hazards discussed above. [4]
Indeed, there are ample arguments to be made both for and against the continued use of nuclear energy. Regardless of whatever stance the United States, and the greater international community, ends up taking on this issue, we must keep an eye on all aspects of the question at hand. With the advent of new technologies, it will be interesting to see whether or not new and superior alternatives to nuclear energy will soon become available.
© Riley Noland. The author warrants that the work is the author's own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.
[1] C. Baraniuk, "How Should We Manage Nuclear Energy?" BBC Future, 23 Jun 17.
[2] L. Alexander, "Top 10 Reasons Nuclear Power Will Be the Key to America's Energy Future," The Hill, 23 Sep 10.
[3] M. Houston-Waesch, "First Rule of Dismantling a Nuclear Power Plant: Check the Exits," Wall Street Journal, 11 Jun 17.
[4] M. Totty, "The Case For and Against Nuclear Power," Wall Street Journal, 30 Jun 08.
