Is nuclear energy a viable solution for our green energy future?
Stephanie Phillips, Staff Writer
Ideology: Environmentalist | Writing From: Portland, Oregon
Nuclear power is often posed as the great green energy solution of the future. With no CO2 emissions, containable waste and extremely high efficiency, many conservatives and liberals alike see it as the way to curb climate change and as a counter to the expensive cap-and-trade bill passed by the House this past 
session. With high energy outputs and much less space required than wind or solar power, nuclear power is a sustainable energy solution that would not require huge changes to the economy or to overall energy consumption. But is this a realistic solution option for the United States today?
No. After examining the different underlying issues of existing nuclear infrastructure, permitting laws, nuclear waste and fears of proliferation, it becomes clear that building up nuclear would be a slow and arduous political process. It would take years before even one new nuclear plant could come online, let alone the many necessary to sustain our energy needs.
Technically and environmentally speaking this future image of clean green nuclear power is not that far-fetched. France currently gets approximately 78% of its power from nuclear, utilizing cutting edge technology and producing minimal waste by reprocessing uranium in their reactors. The French government owns and operates all of its 54 plants, and stores final waste in an underground repository. France’s CO2 output per kilo-watt hour of electricity is a small fraction of other non-nuclear European countries. France is proof that a country can operate an almost 100% green energy grid without significantly changing current western consumption patterns.
The US is far behind France, however, both technologically and politically on all of the primary issues associated with nuclear power. France does not have the same roadblocks to nuclear power as the United States does. The main issues standing in the way are existing laws, nuclear waste, and proliferation fears.
Existing nuclear infrastructure and relicensing laws: The US government owns and operates 104 nuclear reactors, accounting for 20% of national electric production. These were all licensed and built in the 1960s and 1970s and are now close to the end of their lifecycles. Thus, we are running on 30 to 40 year old inefficient technology. For continued operation these plants would need to be relicensed and updated, perhaps even rebuilt. Generally, there is widespread fear of nuclear at the local level, and it can often take years in court to approve even the smallest changes in a nuclear facility.
The belief that we can update our existing infrastructure and build new infrastructure immediately is impractical. This will take a lot of time and money, and it simply cannot occur soon enough to mitigate the impacts of continued CO2 release into the atmosphere.
Nuclear Waste: The US currently has no viable solution to deal with nuclear waste (highly radioactive spent uranium fuel). After it comes out of the reactor, some of this fuel is believed to remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. The US currently stores this waste on site at nuclear power plants in huge concrete vats. This is considered temporary storage while the government searches for a better option. Yucca Mountain in Nevada was proposed as an underground storage facility, similar to France’s storage facility; however, Obama recently pulled the plug on this site, due to many factors including both scientific dangers and promises to constituents in Nevada. Even if it had been approved, the site would have already been filled entirely by its 2017 opening date.
To really advocate for a nuclear future, we would have to pose a long-term solution to the waste problem. Considering that it has taken 20 years just to pull the plug on the only real solution ever posed, it doesn’t appear that this will happen anytime soon.
Reprocessing Laws and Fears of Proliferation: Part of the reason that the US has such a huge waste problem is that we don’t recycle our nuclear waste. It is technologically possible to reduce our waste volume by 90% with recycling, which is what France does, but Gerald Ford banned this in the 1970s. This means that Uranium fuel can only pass through a reactor once and then must be discarded. The reason for this is that through the recycling process, the fuel can also be used as weapons-grade plutonium, and the United States has always considered this a high risk for nuclear proliferation. With even greater fear of terrorism today, it’s doubtful this law could be changed, and even if it were, it would require substantial and expensive changes to the technology used at power plants.
Pointing out these problems does not mean that I am opposed to nuclear in the United States. It is important that we begin advocating for an increase in this power source and for changes to some of the infrastructural and political barriers inhibiting its build up. However, nuclear power will not be the quick fix solution to the environmental and energy problems of today. It will take time, money and momentum. In the meantime we will need to do something else to curb climate change and clean our air. We need to build up other clean sources of generation and the simple fact remains: we need to use less energy.
Correction: There are currently 59 operating nuclear plants in France, not 54, and they are owned and operated by the Electricite de France (EDF), which was historically owned by the French government but was recently partially privatized (15% of its shares were sold on the stock market). Also, France’s underground repository program is still in the research phase, and waste is currently stored above ground at nuclear facilities awaiting geological disposal. The Politicizer regrets the errors.
Adding a small correction and distinction to this article re nuclear power in France that was just drawn to my attention:
There are currently 59 operating nuclear plants in France, not 54, and they are owned and operated by the Electricite de France (EDF), which was historically owned by the French government but was recently partially privatized (15% of its shares were sold on the stock market).
As a strong supporter of green energy and energy independence I can take no other position than to strongly support the utilization of nuclear power. Most of our current energy production is done by the burning of coal and fossil fuels. Both of these are very dangerous from the standpoint of the environment. It also puts us at the mercy of OPEC and such unfriendly states as Iran and Venezuela.
But why hasn’t nuclear energy been put to good use yet?
Like so many other problems, what is the biggest issue in getting this green, efficient, and effective power source going in the US?
Government over-regulation.
Nuclear energy should be made much easier to utilize through safe deregulation. Then private companies and investors will invest in this form of electrical power.
But how did we get to this position of over-regulation? The perceived threat from the incidents of Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island?
Let us address both of these…
Chernobyl? Built by the USSR using sub-standard materials and without proper safety precautions. Is it any surprise that there was a disaster with this plant?
A power plant run in the private sector would be run much more safely and with high quality materials and workmanship… Why would the private sector bother to be safe and use high quality materials and workmanship you ask? Because when your investors sink tons of cash into a power plant they don’t want to lose their entire investment because of lax safety and poor quality building materials. In addition, lax safety inevitably would bring about costly lawsuits for the investors. The same is true of poor building quality and shoddy materials. A meltdown would bring mountains of lawsuits that would be inordinately costly to the investors. Of course they would want to avoid all of these issues at all costs.
3 Mile Island? This was a very small accident that the US Government’s own report stated:
“Just how serious was the accident? Based on our investigation of the health effects of the accident, we conclude that in spite of serious
damage to the plant, most of the radiation was contained and the actual release will have a negligible effect on the physical health of
individuals.”
and
“In this case the radiation doses were so low that we conclude that the overall health effects will
be minimal. There will either be no case of cancer or the number of cases will be so small that it will never be possible to detect them.”
(Source: http://www.threemileisland.org/downloads/188.pdf )
Not only did the accident cause little health issues but because of this minor accident we will be able to learn from these mistakes. Oh, and did I mention? 3 Mile Island is still running and producing power today.
It is high time we started seriously using nuclear power; for the environment, energy independence, and energy security.
There is no question that nuclear energy is the “greenest” solution there is. It is other concerns that are the issue–like whether or not it can be economically efficient.
Nuclear power requires huge fixed investment to build new plants.
The current reactors are not “inefficient” and relicensing them for another 20-40 years, if safe, would be a great idea. We’d lose nothing and they would not need to be rebuilt–the capital infrastructure is already there.
“Generally, there is widespread fear of nuclear at the local level, and it can often take years in court to approve even the smallest changes in a nuclear facility.”
And this fear is entirely unfounded. Westinghouse has a new reactor that is much safer than anything currently operational anywhere in the world and there is no reason why we should lag the world as they go forward with their plants. The Chinese are already building one (because they have sense).
If we want to get the world away from an oil-dominated economy, we must find cheaper and cleaner ways to make electricity. Nuclear power is most likely part of that solution.
“The US currently has no viable solution to deal with nuclear waste (highly radioactive spent uranium fuel).”
Wrong. The US government has spent dozens of billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, where the fuel can be safely stored for thousands of years.
Obama does not have the power to pull the plug on Yucca Mountain, and even if he did, he’s not that stupid. Yucca Mountain is the solution we’ve been waiting for. And when our government pulls its head from its ass, it is what we will be using.
“art of the reason that the US has such a huge waste problem is that we don’t recycle our nuclear waste. It is technologically possible to reduce our waste volume by 90% with recycling, which is what France does, but Gerald Ford banned this in the 1970s.”
And studies have shown it to be a complete waste of money. Why throw good money at a bad idea? Is that your idea of efficiency?
“Pointing out these problems does not mean that I am opposed to nuclear in the United States. It is important that we begin advocating for an increase in this power source and for changes to some of the infrastructural and political barriers inhibiting its build up. However, nuclear power will not be the quick fix solution to the environmental and energy problems of today”
Many of them are incorrect. Others have already pointed out the factual errors, so I won’t waste my time with those.
The key question is whether or not these reactors will be economically efficient. The answer is maybe, and it depends on the regulatory environment. As of now, the answer is no and it will be a money loser to build even a single one.
When we stop fearing peaceful nuclear power in the United States, we can build cheaper, cleaner electricity through nuclear power, and not before.
The author might be dismayed to learn that she has made the same mistake Dick Cheney once made in a CNN interview. At the current time, there is no “underground” French repository, per se. High-level nuclear waste is stored at the La Hague reprocessing plant in casks beneath the plant floor. The kind of disposal scheme pursued by the U.S. (until recently, it appears) is deep geologic disposal — emphasis on “deep” and “geologic.”
This factual error on the author’s part, moreover, is not an “isolated incident.” I would suggest that the author read Frank von Hippel’s recent article on the state of reprocessing and disposal in Europe and Japan (in Scientific American). The author might also temper her assertions about the alleged difficulty in adding to our current nuclear generation capacity. She doesn’t account for uprating, for example, a practice which is on the rise. Nor does she mention the New Reactor Division or combined licensing effort on the part of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Bear in mind, too, that many plants have chosen to add capacity incrementally, in the form off additional reactors on a site that has already overcome regulatory and environmental hurdles (e.g., the three reactors at the Palo Verde plant). Many of the recent new reactor construction applications reflect this strategy.
Finally, it is difficult to take seriously assertions such as “the government owns and operates 104 nuclear reactors.” The government most definitely DOES NOT own or operate commercial nuclear reactors, which are owned and operated by the utilities. All the government does is regulate the operation of those reactors, through the NRC, and develop regulations (for example, NRC’s 10 CFR Part 63) through the normal legislative process. It also, by the way, has a legislatively mandated obligation to take possession of the nuclear waste generated by the utilities (hence the law calling for DOE to construct a national nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada: the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982).
Finally, please get some perspective on the volume aspect of reprocessing and the currently used separation technologies (UREX and PUREX). While it may be true that the resulting volume of separated U and Pu represents 10% of the total volume of the waste mass, the remaining 90% (the other actinides and fission products: e.g., Am, Tc, Cs) has to go somewhere. It goes into the reprocessing solvent: millions and millions of gallons of it, like at the Hanford site. It is a mere technicality that allows this by-product of reprocessing to be classified as lower-level waste, and reprocessing enthusiasts seem to overlook the risk inherent to solutionizing and then ultimately vitrifying this by-product, which nevertheless remains quite dangerous and must be disposed of safely. Some of this by-product is the stuff that ends up in France’s Centre de l’Aube Disposal Facility (which, incidentally, is said to be leaking dangerous levels of tritium), but the high-level stuff, as already mentioned, is vitrified and stored at La Hague.
Tim: despite your obvious desire to discredit my points, you ultimately made the same point at the end of your comment as the entire article.
” As of now, the answer is no and it will be a money loser to build even a single one.
When we stop fearing peaceful nuclear power in the United States, we can build cheaper, cleaner electricity through nuclear power, and not before.”
You pointed out that existing barriers to bringing back nuclear power make it not worthwhile to see it as the future of green energy right now, it is not a quick fix. It’s expensive and timely. This was the very point of this piece. Part of the reason it is so expensive and unrealistic to bring back nuclear is because of the many issues people are afraid of and that are tied up in a cumbersome regulatory process.
I have not expressed an opinion either way whether or not we should reprocess waste, or regarding the validity of the fear of nuclear – rather demonstrated that justified or not these issues are part of the conversation and part of the reason why we have been so unable to move forward.
People are afraid of nuclear in the United States, likely due to miscalculations of risk, yes, but that doesn’t mean that their fear goes unheard in the courts. The way the regulatory process works here allows local activists to keep projects in the approval process for years. This is expensive and timely.
You are wrong about Yucca Mountain, in his 2010 budget, Obama cut funding to the project to a mere $197 million, which is not nearly enough to allow it to open as planned in 2017. This can be overturned, you are right, he does not have the complete power to do this, however that IS the current status of Yucca Mountain. AND even if it were approved, there is already enough nuclear waste in the States to fill it. Meaning we need another site. No long term solution exists.
The reactors are old, and much more inefficient(speaking solely in terms of energy efficiency, not economic efficiency) than more modern technologies available. We haven’t built nuclear in 30 years, of course they are outdated. At the end of their life-cycles they will have to be reexamined. But they still are certainly not inefficient compared to other sources of power, you are correct, in fact quite the contrary.
You’re right reprocessing is expensive. I’m not advocating for it, only pointing out that the reason France has less nuclear waste to store underground in its future repository is because it does reprocess it. Finding and building more sites will take years and costs billions of dollars each.
The facts in this article are correct regarding the United States and nuclear power, although I do apologize for having to make minor clarifications regarding France’s program. France does get 78% of its power from nuclear, the fuel is reprocessed and will be stored underground, demonstrating that they do view nuclear as a long term energy option.
Darrin Sideman,
I greatly appreciate your corrections and elaborations regarding nuclear power in the United States, clearly you have a great deal of expertise regarding nuclear. I had previously corrected to point about France’s nuclear storage although the point about ownership in the States is a good clarification.
Regarding the regulatory points that speed up the adding capacity process – would you argue that these points make it possible for nuclear to become a viable green energy solution very quickly?
My understanding is that without new plant construction that nuclear energy could never produce enough power to offset CO2 emissions enough to counteract climate change problems.
Regarding waste, I understand that the government is obligated to take on the waste, and I recently read in Scientific American (an article by Matthew Wald in this August issue) that since Yucca is currently dead, there is no long-term plan for waste. The article is also the direct citation of the 90% waste-volume statistic. However, I do not necessarily advocate reprocessing, considering both the cost and the dangers that you pointed out.
I am curious to your position on the time it would take considering the ways to avoid some of the regulatory barriers, as to how viable an option nuclear is for our green energy future, considering the narrow window many scientists believe we have in terms of climate change.
“The reactors are old, and much more inefficient(speaking solely in terms of energy efficiency, not economic efficiency) than more modern technologies available.”
What do you mean by “energy efficiency”? Given the high fixed cost of building new plants, the current plants are allowing us to get MORE for LESS. The fuel is the cheapest thing we ever buy to keep a plant running. It’s the high cost of BUILDING plants that prevents it from happening–not keeping existing plants online.
“I am curious to your position on the time it would take considering the ways to avoid some of the regulatory barriers, as to how viable an option nuclear is for our green energy future, considering the narrow window many scientists believe we have in terms of climate change.”
The government needs to change its statutes to represent the modern nuclear reactor and not the ones of yesterday that were nowhere near as safe as what we can build today.
The fact is that if we want safe, green energy, nuclear is THE answer. Nothing can even come close.
We are going to have to make some choices, yes. And we’re going to have to decide if investing hundreds of billions of dollars will pay off. But there is no question that we can build more nuclear power plants, do so safely, and operate them to generate power. The question becomes whether we can do so at a price we are willing to pay, and if the government will allow it.
As stated in other comments, the government has an obligation to take the waste. It must. So let Obama try and kill Yucca Mountain all he wants (simply to pander to special interest). The fact is that we NEED Yucca now. And, as you suggest, we may need ANOTHER Yucca later. But these problems MUST be solved if people want the benefits of nuclear power.
If we want to depend on people who hate us to provide dead dinosaur juice and run our economy on that forever, so be it. If not, we better find economical solutions to these problems rather quickly, because while oil is not running out, it is certainly going to get expensive when the economy recovers…and if we want to keep growing as an economy, we NEED to make these investments in our electrical power generating capability.
Nuclear power is nowhere close to being cost effective, even if a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system were in place, because of the implicit costs levied on government. In addition to storage and processing costs required to deal with waste, the government implicitly insures the plants against catastrophic accident. When risk-weighted potential cleanup costs are factored into the price per kilowatt hour (at actuarilly fair pricing, not competitive market prices), nuclear energy is roughly 12x more expensive than current coal, 6x more than wind. Even with a massive spike in commodity prices from mass production, PV solar is still likely to be marginally cheaper. Nuclear is most certainly not the answer, especially since it is primarily a base-load producer (and thus probably needs to be cheaper than peak-load sources).