MODERN TIMES
by Art Hobson
ahobson@uark.edu
WHERE WILL WE GET OUR ELECTRICITY? PART II
Two weeks ago in this space, we saw that the large expansion of U.S. coal power forecast for 2025 will be an environmental catastrophe because of the global warming caused by coal's carbon dioxide emissions. What should we do?
We saw that continued rapid expansion of wind power could, by itself, replace the "need" for this expansion of coal. And serious energy efficiency such as is practiced by other industrial nations could also, by itself, solve the problem for the next few decades. But America has so far lacked the political will to move rapidly in either of these two eminently sensible directions.
The other obvious candidate for large-scale electricity generation is nuclear power, one of the most polarizing topics of modern times. It seems impossible to even mention it without bringing up long-held dogmatic opinions on both sides. But in public policy matters, dogmatic opinion that refuses to look at issues in the light of evidence and reason is a recipe for disaster.
No new nuclear power plants have been ordered in the USA since 1974. Three major concerns lie at the heart of this moratorium: the disposal of used reactor fuel rods, the threat of large-scale power plant accidents, and nuclear power's connection to nuclear weapons.
My opinion is that the first two of these problems are solvable. Used reactor fuel rods are stored today in large pools of water inside the containment domes of the nation's 104 nuclear power plants, where they are somewhat accident-prone and vulnerable to hostile attack. The safest way to deal with these wastes is to incorporate them into glassy materials, put these materials into long-lived steel canisters, and store the canisters in a single remote site in caverns hundreds of meters below ground in a geologically stable area. In 1987, Congress designated Yucca Mountain in Nevada as that single site, but that decision has been tied up in continuing controversy. One can always question the opinion of the "experts," but the National Research Council and others (including me) agree that this solution will safely isolate the used fuel for at least 10,000 years. The waste will remain radioactive for longer than this, and problems could crop up after 100,000 years as the canisters disintegrate, but this risk is localized and distant. Global warming threatens global disaster now, while nuclear waste threatens a small area 100,000 years from now.
History's worst nuclear power accident happened at the Soviet Union's (now Ukraine's) Chernobyl power plant in 1987. It killed 31 workers during the first month, 4000 cleanup workers since that time, and probably 10,000 to 20,000 people in the Soviet Union and adjoining countries due to long-term cancers among the general population--a disastrous accident. The next-worst accident was at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979. Luckily, it didn't kill anybody directly, and few if any long-term cancer deaths are expected (nuclear radiation can cause cancer).
Reactors can and must be designed and built that reduce the accident risk far below present levels. For example, one design would submerge the entire reactor in a large pool of water. In case of an accident, this pool would prevent any runaway heating of the reactor's "core." Such runaway heating caused the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents, and is the big concern. I believe that new safer reactors can solve the accident problem acceptably.
The nuclear accident and waste problems pale in comparison with global warming. For example, the United Nations' World Health Organization reports that global warming is already killing 150,000 people per year due to the direct and indirect effects of flooding and high temperatures--many times more people every year than the total number killed at Chernobyl.
The big risk of nuclear power is the nuclear weapons connections. North Korea, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, India, and other nations have developed nuclear weapons capabilities by exploiting these connections. The knowledge base that underlies nuclear power also underlies nuclear weapons. The facilities that produce "low-enriched" uranium for nuclear reactor fuel can easily produce "highly-enriched" uranium for nuclear weapons. The nuclear reactors that produce electric power also produce, as a waste product, plutonium that can fuel nuclear weapons. The biggest fear is that terrorist groups will get their hands on these materials. With a mere 30 pounds of highly-enriched uranium, terrorists would probably be able to fashion a Hiroshima-sized weapon.
These nuclear proliferation dangers are a result of the worldwide spread, years ago, of nuclear power. Many of us, including me, argued that we would regret this globalization of nuclear power. But it's hard to see how the USA can dispel these dangers now by maintaining our moratorium on new nuclear power plants on our own soil. Without going into details, the best thing the USA could do to defuse the nuclear proliferation threat would be to scrap our present plans for new types of nuclear weapons, and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
I'm not arguing here for an expansion of nuclear power, because I think that wind power and energy efficiency can remove the "need" for new coal plants for years to come. But I am arguing that all of us keep our minds open about nuclear power, and that nuclear is far safer than coal. It's irrational to protest nuclear power while letting the larger danger, coal, off the hook. It is against the USA's planned large expansion of coal power that our protests should be directed.