Table of Contents
Nuclear energy is a clean form of energy that many countries are transitioning from. Countries like the United States, France, India, China, South Korea, Russia, Canada, Switzerland, and Germany have all taken steps away from nuclear energy by implementing alternative sources of power, like renewable energy. These countries are transitioning from nuclear energy because it is costly, cannot keep up with the supply and demand of energy, and is not sustainable. The purpose of this research is to analyze the positive and negative effects that nuclear energy poses to come to a conclusion on whether the United States will transition to relying mostly on nuclear energy. This study seeks to persuade readers that relying on nuclear energy will not be beneficial for the United States by analyzing the facts from an economic, financial, and sustainability perspective.
Background
These countries use nuclear energy because of the decreased carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions released in the atmosphere, lessening the carbon footprint humans leave on the Earth. Nuclear energy releasees significantly lower CO2 in the atmosphere, compared to other more prevalent sources of energy like coal, oil, and natural gas. Reactors do this simply by spiting Uranium atoms (vis fission) to create heat that boils waters which then turns into steam. The steam then turns a turbine which generates electricity. In the duration of this process, nothing is burned, so nuclear power plants release limited pollutants into the air. Unlike reactors, other forms of energy burn fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas to turn water into steam to turn a turbine which produces energy.
Countries debate utilizing nuclear energy because a series of problems associated with reactors including: radioactive waste, safety, weapons proliferation, terrorism, health, cost, reliability, and sustainability. For the purpose of this study, challenges associated with cost, reliability, and sustainability will be researched. Nuclear energy has advantages, some include cheap and efficient energy, but do these advantages counter the danger and negative aspects of nuclear energy, to a point where a country could rely on nuclear energy. This is the debate that nations face as they are looking for another source for sustainable energy.
127 our experts are availableright now
The Real Cost of Nuclear Energy
Some people associate nuclear power plants with the words clean and affordable. However, behind the scenes of that low energy bill is something completely different. Something that if people knew, they would not consent to. Field professionals like David Ropik (professor in the Environmental Management Program of the Harvard Extension School) and Elisabeth Eaves (columns editor for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists), also authors of “Clean Energy Mind Games…” and “Can North America’s …” respectfully, have come to the agreement that nuclear energy is too expensive to finance. Reactors proved so costly to build that about half of the construction was abandon during construction because the price for this energy amounted to about nine billion dollars, which will most likely soar in the future. Currently, nine billion dollars is a high price to have to owe or add to the national deficit in the United States.
The Obama administration included more than $900 million for the nuclear energy technologies research in the 2016 fiscal year budget (Eaves 28-29). Although this is support, it is clearly not enough support because this money was only allocated for research purposes. Obviously, this is not nearly enough to sustain the construction a reactor. However, a 12.5-billion-dollar loan from the US Energy Department for advanced reactor designs toward commercialization is enough money (Eaves 28). This would be a great for private companies designing advanced nuclear reactors, however, Since the US Energy Department is a government funded program, where is all the money coming from? Well, loans given to these private companies have a high possibility of originating in the federal budget, where the money comes from tax payers’ wallets or is add to the national deficit. If this was common knowledge, will the government and consumers consent to the soaring cost of clean energy?
Construction of reactors will not take place without funds that require government and consumer support. As much as it may seem like it, the government does not hand out money. Especially for costly things that still have associated challenges, are expensive, and for things that may not be worth the cost. Ropik states, “In the United States, 29 states have adopted renewable portfolio standards requiring that a percentage of the electricity a utility sells must come from wind, solar, hydro, and in some cases biofuels, all of which need economic support from government policy because they can’t compete against cheaper fossil fuels, especially natural gas. But whereas renewables receive significant direct economic support, nuclear energy receives far less,” with proves that in most places nuclear energy is not receiving the finance it needs from the government (1).
Contrastingly, New York and Illinois provide financial aid to nuclear programs in order for it to compete economically. However, these were measures taken to improve the economy by keeping jobs. It is clear that the government neither at a federal or state level will provide money to build or sustain operation of reactors. Similarly, the odds consumers would agree to a full transition to nuclear energy are also slim to none. As discussed, nuclear energy is not cost competitive with fossil fuels. Consumers would be reluctant to agree to a source of energy that is not cheap or beneficial to the national economy.
Some could say that nuclear funding can be allocated through a carbon tax, similar to what countries like British Columbia, Canada, and China have. These countries have implemented this carbon tax to fund the construction and operation of a nuclear reactor. That might have been possible for other countries but in the United States it seems unlikely. Washington State turned down a proposed carbon tax, which would have been the first of its kind in this country. This sort of legislation slim changes of passing under the Trump administration based on the fact that the administration is focused on the business aspects of nuclear energy and seem averse to acknowledging nuclear energy exists (Eaves 35). This can be proven by analyzing recent events, like the United States withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord. Nuclear energy could supply zero emission energy but through government policy it is at a disadvantage in the United States.
Material Supply and Demand
Nuclear energy, although clean, is not a renewable source of energy. Nuclear power use a wide range of rare materials. Nuclear power plants utilize uranium 233 as a fuel source and are built from strong rare Earth metals like cadmium, hafnium or boron. Reactors cannot function without these rare earth elements. For example, without cadmium, hafnium, or boron, used to build the reactor core, the structure of the core could become compromised, and lead to huge safety concerns. Nuclear energy has been around since World War II, materials used to construct and fuel reactors have been or are almost depleted. For this reason, nuclear reactors should not be the main source of energy as Derek Abbot, expert on complex systems, multidisciplinary applications of engineering and physics, and author of the research paper, ‘Limits to Growth: Can Nuclear Power Supply the World’s Needs?’ discusses.
Uranium is a relatively common element found in the Earth’s crust but currently a reactors supply comes from uranium in rocks and seawater. Uranium found commonly are not easily separated from other materials, making the uranium that is easily separable, rare. This process is timely, complex, and costly. Abbot claims “The World Nuclear Association conservatively projects 80 years of economically extractable uranium at the current rate of consumption using conventional reactors” (4). Globally the world consumes 15 terawatts(TW) of energy. The currently power supply capacity of nuclear reactors in the world is about 375 gigawatts (GW). This is about a 15 TW difference. Through simple calculations, Abbott estimates about 15,000 new reactors would need to be built to meet the demand of energy. Not only would these reactors need uranium as fuel they would need other exotic and rare materials for construction of these reactors.
The core of a reactor is composed of various exotic metals that are necessary to contain the heat and fission within a nuclear reaction. Each metal serves a different and necessary purpose. Abbott states “hafnium serves as a neutron absorber, beryllium as a neutron reflector…,” which are all necessary for the generation of power and for the safety of the population (6). Reactors are not the only structures that utilize these rare materials. There is competition for these elements, for example, hafnium is used in microchips and beryllium are used in semiconductors.
Overemployment and depletion of these elements will lead to huge price increase. In the nuclear energy industry these metals are necessary for a reactor to safely generate electricity. At the current demand for energy the supply rare metals will eventually be depleted leading to an enormous price increase. For this reason, nuclear energy cannot keep up with the demand for energy with the current supply of materials. Therefore, nuclear energy is not sustainable and is unable to compete with sustainable sources of energy like solar and wind power. Speaking based on current operating Light Water Reactors (LWR), all problems discussed above are applicable, however, when arguments can be made for Generation IV reactors.
Proposed generation 4 reactors are the reactors of the future that could potentially solve the problems discussed in this section. Currently these reactors are unemployed because they have yet to solve similar problems. In terms of the sustainability of uranium, most Generation 4 reactors utilize thorium, an abundant fuel source. Although it could generate centuries worth of energy, it will run into the same problem as eventually supply will not meet the demand. In terms of construction material, the same if not more rare materials are need in Generation IV reactors because they too are subject to material problems within the core.
For example, Molten Salt Reactors use fluoride salt to host the fission of thorium within the core, which comes with challenges itself. Although the core is unpressurized (operates at atmospheric pressure) it is subjected to heat at about 1472 degrees Fahrenheit, and experiences harsh corrosiveness due to the salts. This limits a reactors life span and eventually it will more materials to rebuild its core. Generation IV reactors are subject to their own material and sustainability problems, so even those can not produce sustainable and dependable energy in the U.S.
Electric Grid Supply and Demand
Caught up in the excitement of clean energy, the downsides of nuclear energy are overlooked, like the inability to supply power on the electric grid with power fluctuations caused by demand. The electric grid is a system of machines and lines that connect the power supply to customers. Robert Rosner and Alex Hearn, who was the former Director of Argonne National Laboratory and undergraduate researcher , respectively[AM10] , discuss the electric grid fluctuations associated with nuclear power in their article “What Role Could Nuclear Power Play in Limiting Climate Change.”
Works Cited
- Abbott, Derek. ‘Limits to Growth: Can Nuclear Power Supply the World’s Needs? ‘Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 68, no. 5, Sept. 2012, pp. 23-32. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/0096340212459124.
- Eaves, Elisabeth. ‘Can North America’s Advanced Nuclear Reactor Companies Help Save the Planet? ‘Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 73, no. 1, Jan. 2017, p. 27. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/00963402.2016.1265353.
- ROPEIK, DAVID. ‘Clean Energy Mind Games: If Policy Makers Want to Accelerate the Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy, They Should Heed the Lessons of the Decision Sciences and Take Another Look at Nuclear Energy.’ Issues in Science & Technology, vol. 33, no. 4, Summer2017, pp. 59-64. EBSCOhost, proxy.kennesaw.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tf h&AN=124181377&site=eds-live&scope=site.
- Rosner, Robert and Alex Hearn. ‘What Role Could Nuclear Power Play in Limiting Climate Change? ‘Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 73, no. 1, Jan. 2017, pp. 2-6. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/00963402.2016.1264203.
- Saerom, Yoon, et al. ‘An Integrated Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach for Evaluating Nuclear Fuel Cycle Systems for Long-Term Sustainability on the Basis of an Equilibrium Model: Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution, Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation, and Multi-attribute Utility Theory Combined with Analytic Hierarchy Process.’ Nuclear Engineering and Technology, Vol 49, Issue 1, Pp 148-164 (2017), no. 1, 2017, p. 148. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.net.2016.07.009.
- Zinkle, S.J. and G.S. Was. ‘Materials Challenges in Nuclear Energy.’ Acta Materialia, vol. 61, no. The Diamond Jubilee Issue, 01 Feb. 2013, pp. 735-758. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2012.11.004.
