Nuclear Power VS. Other Sources of Power

Neil M. Cabreza

Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1730

NE-161 Report

Abstract

Nuclear energy provides one-fifth of the United States electricity supply. The other major sources of electricity come from oil, coal, and natural gas. The use of each of these power sources have its drawbacks as well as its advantages. This paper will present the facts associated with the use of nuclear energy and give detailed explanations on why the prime source of electricity for the future should be come from the nuclear industry.

Contents

Introduction

No energy source is perfect, but nuclear energy comes close. The use of nuclear energy is cheap and environmentally safe since its waste is contained. All the existing and operating nuclear power plants of the United States are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and abide by their safety standards. Nuclear energy also creates jobs since it is the most labor intensive electricity source. Furthermore, the use of nuclear energy will decrease the United States dependency on imported oil.

Environmental Aspects

The unceasing public outcry over the use of nuclear energy was one of the major factors that led to the termination of the construction of nuclear power plants in the United States. People believe that nuclear energy produces radioactive wastes that can destroy the environment. People also believe that nuclear power plants emit cancer causing radiation and for this reason its use should be discontinued.

What most people don't realize is that most of what they hear are false rumors started by anti-nuclear activists. The waste nuclear power plants generate is all contained and none of it is released into the environment. This, however, does not hold true for the other major sources of power. A typical 1000-megawatt coal-burning plant emits 100,000 tons of sulphur dioxide, 75,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, and 5000 tons of fly ash into the environment per year while a typical 1000-megawatt oil-burning plant emits about 16,000 tons of sulphur dioxide and 20,000 tons of nitrogen oxides. These emissions account for damaging human lungs, the formation of acid precipitation that defaces monuments and buildings and kills the life in countless lakes. However, the problems don't stop here. These type of plants also emit great quantities of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide tends to trap heat on the earth's surface and thus in sufficient concentrations, could create the dreaded greenhouse effect. High enough concentrations could also increase global temperatures which could affect the distribution of rainfall and could create deserts of much of the Northern Hemisphere, causing irreversible catastrophes of unparalleled magnitude, affecting all of mankind.

The use of nuclear power since 1973 has been able to offset the demand for electricity provided by oil and coal, thus decreasing the mentioned figures significantly. In a span of twenty years, electricity generated by nuclear power plants averted the cumulative emission of 1.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, 65 million tons of sulphur dioxide, and 27 million tons of nitrogen oxides.

The only environmental drawback associated with the use of nuclear power is where to store the radioactive waste. Studies show that geological disposal is the answer. In this way, no radiation will be emitted into the environment, thus keeping the public safe from its emissions.

As for the belief that nuclear power plants emit cancer causing radiation into the environment, there exist no sufficient evidence that can prove this. In fact, the use of nuclear power plants only add a very tiny fraction of radiation exposure to the more common types of radiation (i.e. cosmic rays from outer space, radon gas, television sets, watch dials, smoke detectors, etc...). In numbers, the average radiation dose rate people get from the common types of radiation is about 360 millirem. Nuclear power plants would increase this dosage rate by only 1 millirem.

Economic Aspects

Because the fuel used in nuclear power plants exist in abundant supply, the price is very cheap, unlike for fossil fuels where the supply is finite and slowly diminishing. A typical fuel pellet cost about $7. This one fuel pellet has an equivalent energy of three barrels of oil, which cost $84, or one ton of coal, which cost $29. In 1993, the fossil fuels displaced by nuclear energy totaled: 470 million tons of coal and 96 million barrels of oil which translated to about $17 billion. By using nuclear energy at $7 per pellet, a savings of about $13 billion was generated in just one year.

Question of Safety

People tend to associate nuclear power plants with nuclear bombs. They believe that nuclear power plants are capable of exploding like a bomb. They don't realize that nuclear power plants are not capable of detonating like a bomb. The enrichment of the fuel is not great enough and all reactions are controlled, unlike in a bomb. There also exist the fear of nuclear accidents occurring like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.

It should then be pointed out that from the Chernobyl accident, countries from the European Community can expect 1000 extra deaths over the next 50 years. But what is that statistic compared the 10000 deaths per year due to coal and its associated black lung disease. What should also be pointed out is that the Chernobyl reactor had no containment structure, unlike the reactors in the United States where all reactors are required to be kept in containment structures. Containment structures could have prevented this accident. As far as the Three Mile Island accident, it was contained and no detectable radiation was emitted. Also, from this accident, a lot was learned and all nuclear power plants similar to the Three Mile Island Reactor were modified so that an accident of that type would not occur again.

No other industry has invested so much time and money in the safety aspect of their business than has the nuclear industry. Over half the initial capital investment goes into the safety system of a nuclear power plant. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission enforces nuclear power plants to abide by certain standards set by the government to protect the health and safety of the public. Breaking any of their rules may result in a hefty fine or shutdown of the plant, thus most nuclear power plants are maintained with extreme care.

Current reactor design now rely on passive safety systems which can operate due to the forces of gravity, rather than relying on circuits and generators. This new safety modification hopefully will gain the support of the public so that these new designs could finally become implemented.

Options

Research is currently being conducted for the utilization of solar and geothermal power. These types of energy will have very little environmental impact as well as no threat of a nuclear accident, however, these technologies have not been perfected. Solar power has proven to be an expensive power source while geothermal is unreliable as well as expensive.

Conclusion

As stated before, there exists no perfect energy source. Coal and oil burning plants emit dangerous gases into the environment. The coal, oil, and natural gas supply are not finite and are slowly diminishing. Solar and geothermal power are costly and unreliable.

Nuclear energy, however, contains all of its waste, is abundant in supply, is cheap, and has proven to be reliable and safe. The public needs to be informed of these facts and must be able to distinguish the truth from the false rumors, otherwise, its use will be wasted.

References