Nuclear Power’s Place in the Green Energy Market

By Lee S. Gliddon III

Nuclear power is becoming recognized as a “green energy” source more and more each day.  As environmentalists and the public at large become more educated in regards to nuclear power, the positive perception of nuclear power grows.

Considering the cost, emissions, carbon footprint, renewable aspects, and the improvements already present in new nuclear technology; nuclear power as a whole is an environmental advantage for countries that champion and move forward with it as a source.  These same countries are realizing an economic boom, while those abandoning nuclear power are falling into difficult economic times.  When economies falter, the environment often suffers greatly. This offers yet another reason for countries to embrace nuclear power.

Cost of Power

Nuclear power has been determined to be an inexpensive energy source with respect to raw materials required and cost to produce.  

All energy production requires raw materials to create usable electricity.  Nuclear power, by a factor of millions provides the greatest multiplier from raw material to usable energy.   That fact makes nuclear power incredibly green.

The actual cost of Nuclear Power to produce is significantly less than Solar, Coal, and Natural Gas with only Wind Power as a rival.  However, Wind Power does not offer the reliability and quantity of energy which Nuclear Power provides, especially in terms of base load.  What happens when the wind stops blowing at night, the very time we are all charging our electric cars and cell phones?  Without Nuclear Power, you’ll need to fire up the coal plants.

Electric Vision' by Robert Preston Sept 7, 2005 using figures from US Department of Energy, September, 2005.

Environmental Performance Index – Energy Source Matters

When countries pay more for their energy, it necessarily means there is less revenue for environmental projects and green regulation enforcement.  One of the first casualties of poor economies has been environmental issues.  A visit to any second or third world country where energy is expensive will reveal a poor environmental result.  However, countries with abundant natural Hydro energy fare well.  Countries that are not as fortunate can employ the great equalizer, Nuclear Power. 

According to Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index for 2012, the top countries:

1.      Switzerland (Hydro 56% and Nuclear 39%)

2.      Latvia (Hydro 62%)

3.      Norway (Hydro)

4.      Luxembourg (Hydro 66%)

5.      Costa Rica (Hydro 82%)

6.      France (Nuclear 72%)

7.      Austria (Hydro 68%)

The bottom countries:

           126. Kuwait (99% Oil and Gas)

           127. Yemen (99% Oil and Gas)

           128. South Africa (Coal 88%)

           129. Kazakhstan (Oil and Gas 88%)

           130. Uzbekistan (Oil and Gas 97%)

           131.  Turkmenistan (Oil and Gas 99%)

           132.  Iraq (Oil 96%)

Switzerland and France have “leapfrogged” the competition with the adoption of nuclear power.  No other country in the world has gained such an excellent EPI raking as France without substantial Hydro Power.  France’s energy model is a lesson for the rest of the world on how to improve the environment absent natural Hydro resources.

Source: Data from IEA

On the contrary, the use of coal, gas, and oil as an energy source is the worst direction a country can take when considering the environment.   Many of the Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries realize the worst environmental results as they consume coal, gas, and oil for energy production.  When compared to conventional energy sources Nuclear energy is clearly the green alternative.

Source:  “Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Systems and Applications for Climate Change Policy Analysis, “Paul J. Meier, University of Wisconsin-Madison

The carbon footprint of solar, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, and wind are excellent in comparison to conventional energy sources.

Negative Ecological Impact of Green Energy Sources

An often ignored or unknown element of green energy is the ecological footprint of green energy sources.   The actual space required, noise, intrusion on nature, and impacts on humans are considerations often over-looked.

Per 100 hundred acres of nuclear power, millions of homes receive power.  However, solar and wind require tens of thousands of acres to do the same.  The footprint difference is significant.  The smaller the footprint of an energy source the less impact on the immediate environment and local eco-systems will occur.

Solar’s Negative Impact 

Solar power is a positive addition to the power grids throughout the world.  It has it’s pitfalls due to weather and time of day light conditions.  There are also rarely discussed environmental issues with solar power.  Solar panel creation generates a great deal of toxic byproducts.  Often, the panels are manufactured in countries such as China where numerous reports of dumping have made it into the press.  

In many areas, valuable water sources carry the burden to clean dust, pollution, and bird droppings from the panels so they may operate. In desert areas it has been noted that the dust accumulated from one month reduces the panel’s energy output by 35% and the approximately 40,000 liters of water per day are required to clean the panels.   In some cases the energy required to bring the water to arid solar panel farms cost more than the actual power created.  New technology is proposed, but exceedingly expensive.

With the operation of solar farms, coolant liquids need changing every 2-3 years.  Special handling is required because the byproducts are/can be:  anti-freeze, glycol, nitrates, sulphates, aromatic alcohols, chromates, and other harmful materials.   Like with Nuclear Power, there are some dangerous byproducts which must be managed.

Not only do solar facilities often take up significant space, displacing wildlife, but the factories that produce the solar power components have a poor environmental record.  Costly and valuable clean water is required in arid regions.  The byproducts are also hazardous.  Solar is not the environmental utopian power supply that many proponents claim it to be.

Wind’s Negative Impact 

Like nuclear and solar, wind has a minimal carbon footprint compared to fossil fuel sources.  Other issues with wind should be noted.  Noise, visual, and avian concerns have been voiced.  The physical footprint of a wind farm is a vast expanse of land.   Overall, wind is a very environmentally positive energy source.  The issue with wind power is its inability to provide consistent base load energy at an inexpensive rate.  Wind is costly and unreliable, but a good addition to augment the power supply.

Nuclear Impact and Improvements

Chernobyl and Fukushima happened.  Extreme, preventable human error created havoc on the environment in both cases.  With new technologies and practices, such events with nuclear power will be highly preventable if not almost eliminated.  With new technologies, the ecological impact of modern nuclear will be minimized greatly.

Chernobyl and Fukushima both occurred due to the inability to get cooling water to the nuclear fuel.  Fukushima was compounded with the failure of politicians to allow the plant to vent off pressure and Hydrogen.  The Hydrogen combusted and blew apart the containment structures.  Beyond the new plant design technology, a simply solution is already available for existing plants.  Water towers based on gravity can provide enough water to the reactors in an emergency, offering reactors enough time to shut down.  And new plant technology will not even require this simple and inexpensive solution.

Of course, one key environmental issue with Nuclear Power is what to do with the waste.  Currently, nuclear waste has been a problem for nations around the world.  In the U.S.A. a bold solution has been in progress with the building of the Hanford, Washington Waste Treatment Plant.  This plant processes nuclear waste and turns it into a much safer glass. But there are even better solutions.

So far, almost 90,000 of 290,000 tons of used fuel from commercial nuclear reactors has been reprocessed. That is a 31% reprocessing rate.  As new reactor technology comes online and the capability to reprocess improves, further gains can be achieved, making Nuclear Power greener still.  New reactor technology uses less fuel, which is a lower grade, and produces far less waste.  The real environmental tragedy is the foot dragging by some countries to decommission older plants and replace them with the newer technology.
The current Generation III reactors being produced have a substantial grace period.  After a shutdown, the plant requires no active intervention for approximately 72 hours.  The plants have a higher “burn-up” rate, using fuel more fully and efficiently.  This significantly reduces the amount waste and extends fuel life.  The results are a far safer, more efficient, more powerful, and less waste-producing plant.  Generation IV reactors are estimated to be available in 2030.  These include molten salt (Thorium) reactors that have virtually no meltdown potential. 

Thorium may come to reality even sooner with India and other countries embracing the technology.  Thorium reactors present no proliferation risk, solve safety issues, are scalable in size, transportable, and inexpensive as they can be put in standard industrial buildings making them the likely next step in clean, green, reliable, safe, and powerful energy production.

Avoided Emissions by Green Energy Sources

All energy sources releases some sort of greenhouse gases in their life cycle. Construction, manufacturing, obtaining necessary raw materials, transportation, are just some of the activities green energy sources must partake to become a reality.  The green energy sources avoid massive amounts of emissions.

Reviewing the positive impact of green energy in the United States illustrates the positive impact for the environment.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - 2007

Nuclear power has offered the greatest positive impact in reducing CO2 emissions by more than twice that of all other green power sources combined.

  

Summary

Nuclear power’s position as the current top green energy solution is undeniable.  It offers an inexpensive, yet reliable base-load of energy.  When compared to not just green energy sources, but also conventional fossil energy sources, nuclear is less expensive and incredibly reliable.  Outside of the few countries blessed with the natural resources of hydro, no other green energy source is reliable enough to maintain the necessary base load of energy required, regardless of weather or time of day.  

The single most impactful factor that countries throughout the world have been able to employ to significantly improve their environmental performance index has been to embrace nuclear power.  Countries unwilling or unable to realize nuclear power and continue on predominantly fossil fuel sources have the worst environmental performance indexes.

New nuclear technology already in use has provides even greater quantities of power, using less fuel, with more renewable properties, and is far safer than the older plants.  Inexpensive, green, and safer generations of nuclear reactors will provide our planet’s residents an even better environment in the years to come.