Cons to Nuclear Energy....someone else's thoughts

[Erin Demshar]

I was just reading a question and answer forum on LinkedIn regarding the pros/cons of nuclear power and here is what one of the contributors had to say about the cons.....

From my own personal perspective, I think there are many merits to nuclear power but at the end of the day, the cons outweigh the merits. In no particular order, here are the cons for me:

Security of reactor operations and fuel transportation,
Uranium is not renewable and high-grade sources are starting to be depleted,
Related to the previous point, mining operations will have an increasing environmental impact,
The US would have to import most of the uranium since it does not have adequate supplies to meet any growing demand,
Unresolved issues with spent fuel disposal,
Unresolved issues with reactor decommissioning,
High water consumption,
High capital cost,
Finally, experts believe it would take at least 12 years to get a reactor operational if started today. By then, renewable sources will have captured a large market share.


What do you all think about these comments and points that have been brought up?

[Damon Bryson]

I'm a nuclear engineer, so some will call me biased. I prefer the term, "knowledgeable". I picked my profession based on my estimate of these same issues.

Security - Of course nuclear plants have to remain secure, but this has not been a problem. They are probably the most secure non-military sites in the USA. I think the 2 main reasons nobody has attacked a nuclear plant are that little damage would result, and the attackers would likely die in the attempt. Compare this to security at other energy installations, especially natural gas. Major damage and large loss of life could be accomplished, with little chance of injury to the attackers.

Uranium - while Uranium is not renewable, it can be recycled. High-grade sources are being used, but I would not say they are being depleted. In fact, the identified high-grade reserves are increasing as we continue exploration. Just this year they went up 17%, and we now have a 100-year supply identified (at current consumption). This ignores recycling, which will be used later when it becomes economic.

Mining impact - uranium mining is some of the lowest impact mining done on the planet. Most mining projects now are in-situ leaching operations, which are minimal impact. In Kazakhstan, uranium is removed from the ground water, leaving it cleaner than it was before. The only environmental impact is the burning of fossil fuels to drive the mining machinery. This problem could be solved using more nuclear plants and electric vehicles.

Imports - reactor components and uranium will have to be imported to the USA until we develop more manufacturing processes and fuel recycling. Once we start recycling, we will have enough uranium in our stockpiles for centuries. However, it makes sense to buy it cheaply while we can. The cost of uranium compared to the overall cost of the energy output is almost ridiculously small. It's in the range of 5-10% of the overall cost. Most of the cost (over 50%) is for labor at the plant. These are high-quality, high paying jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. Uranium is also available from stable democracies like Canada and Australia (the two largest producers), so it's not subject to the problems associated with oil.

Spent fuel - as mentioned above, the resolution to spent fuel is recycling. Then only 5% of the spent fuel becomes waste, and that is easily converted to glass and buried. The only issues with spent fuel are political. The fuel will be stored in secure facilities until we develop economic recycling. This technology is available and affordable. As soon as the government decides to leave spent fuel up to the utilities, the problems will be solved in short order.

Unresolved issues with reactor decommissioning - like what? We have successfully decommissioned many reactors. I don't know of any issues that are unresolved.

High water consumption - how is high defined? Nuclear plants don't really consume water. Some plants take water in, heat it a little, and release it. Others use a little water and convert it to steam/fog. The water remains clean, part of the environment, and causes no damage. In Western states where water is scarce, new heat exchanger designs would be used for air-cooling instead of water cooling. There is no problem here.

High capital cost - not compared to any other energy plant. The initial cost is higher, but the maintenance and fuel costs are lower, so the overall cost is much lower than any other energy available. The only problem is financing, so it depends on government regulation and stability. Again, the only problem is political.

Renewable sources - It is not likely to take 12 years. My company plans for our new plant to be operating by 2016 - 8 years from now. If "renewable" refers to wind, solar, and biomass, they are not likely to have a large market share by 2020. The equivalent wind turbines to generate the same power as our new plant would require offshore turbines 3 deep along the entire South Carolina coast (the only place in SC with any wind). This is a large percentage of the wind turbine manufacturing capability of the world between now and 2020. In other words, we can build nuclear capacity faster than wind capacity. The same goes for solar. Biofuels are likely to be developed over the next few years, but given the land use constraints, they cannot take a large market share. Nuclear plants can generate large amounts of power in a small space, while all these renewable sources take huge amounts of land that are already being used.

In summary, this list of objections is actually a list of areas where nuclear plants are far superior to other forms of energy.

[Erin Demshar]

Damon- your answers are extremely "knowledgeable" and I would even say non-biased and non-political. I really appreciate hearing the educated side of things regarding nuclear energy "issues".

It's too bad that the "environmentalists" in our country have taken things to the extreme and given nuclear energy such a bad reputation. Yes there have been some catastrophic events in nuclear history, but there have been some pretty horrible accidents at other types of industrial facilities as well.

The point being that nuclear energy offers a lot of potential for energy independence and with very limited impact on the environment--as far as I can see.

I'm a supporter!

[Robert Margolis]

Another factor is that the public has so gotten used to electricity being something that comes out of a wall socket that they do not appreciate where it comes from. Perhaps nuclear is a victim of its own success (as is the rest of the electric power infrasturcture. We need to do a better job getting the word out that nuclear is part of the world's electric future.

[Alan Smith]

Some information related to the cons is provided below for consideration. Some items have possible merit with some clarification. However, others are not really on the mark in my opinion. Hope the information is helpful.


Security of reactor operations and fuel transportation,
---> Nuclear operations have significant security such that they are hard targets compared to other facilities such as refineries and chemical plants. http://www.nei.org/filefolder/Nuclear_Power_Plant_Security_Feb2008.pdf

Uranium is not renewable and high-grade sources are starting to be depleted,
---> I would argue that in a closed fuel cycle where used nuclear fuel is recycled and used with breeder reactors uranium is renewable. One of the highest grade sources known at this time is under development at Cigar Lake in Canada - since this deposit is not yet mined, I think it is hard to say that such sources are starting to be depleted. While wind and solar may be "renewable," the life cycle cost of such generation sources much be considered and compared to nuclear power which also does not produce greenhouse gases.

Related to the previous point, mining operations will have an increasing environmental impact,
---> Uranium mining operations have become more efficient using new technology just as oil and gas production has over the years. In-situ mining is used which has low impact relative to other methods. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf27.html

The US would have to import most of the uranium since it does not have adequate supplies to meet any growing demand,
---> The US does import uranium from many countries around the world. The US does have natural resources; however, deposits in other places around the world are currently more economical.

Unresolved issues with spent fuel disposal,
---> In the United States, spent or used nuclear fuel disposal has unresolved political issues, not technical issues. The extensive Yucca Mountain application is under review by the NRC as required by law. http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0111.shtml

Unresolved issues with reactor decommissioning,
---> This has been done so I find it hard to believe that their are unresolved issues. The fact that the decommissioning funds are required for nuclear plants vs. other industrial plants such as chemical plants makes the nuclear industry 'above' others. http://www.nea.fr/html/rwm/reports/2004/nea5728-decom.pdf

High water consumption,
---> No more than other generation sources such as natural gas and coal; the other primary sources of reliable, base load generation. I'm not sure about the amount of water required to create the composites required for a wind mill and/or the materials required for a solar cell.

High capital cost,
---> Compared to natural gas, possibly yes. Compared to clean coal and/or coal with scrubbers not sure...

Finally, experts believe it would take at least 12 years to get a reactor operational if started today. By then, renewable sources will have captured a large market share.
---> I think Racho Seco story may be a good case study to review related to this point. Shutdown in 1989, I think California would have enjoyed having this generating capacity available during blackouts and today when natural gas is $8-$12/MMBTU - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE3D6113DF93BA357...