Weak Thinking on Nuclear Energy
Over at the Nuclear Energy Information Service, “a non-profit organization committed to ending nuclear power,” they’re offering their view on “Why you can’t ‘nuke’ Global Warming“. It’s a great example of old-school environmental thought, the kind we must abandon. An analysis of their arguments shows why.NEIS offers a convenient, bulleted list of reasons we shouldn’t consider nuclear energy as a part of a solution to global climate change:
- it’ll “break the bank;” not cost-effective in carbon displacement compared to other currently available means; there are simply better ways to do the job (e.g., 1990 EPRI study; Natural Capitalism)
- implementation time line too long
- increased nuclear reliance also means increases in nuclear’s currently unsolved problems like:
- nuclear wastes of all kinds
- probability of accidents, unintentional leaks, uranium mining, other contamination
- proliferation of technology, expertise, materials, and ultimately weapons
- questionable operational effectiveness under expected global warming conditions (e.g., summer of 1988), without doing other unacceptable environmental damage
- engenders a form of economic dependency at best, nuclear “neo-colonialism” at worst
- stifles development, implementation, and expansion of market share of true local, sustainable and renewable energy resources, and energy efficiency
- proliferates internationally the same set of unsolved problems nuclear power still has in developed countries, on countries that lack the capital, expertise, and stability to manage it even at our current level of questionable standards
Point-by-point:
It’s interesting that they would dare raise the point of whether nuclear energy is cost-effective or can be implemented quickly enough, as it currently bests renewable energy sources in these categories.
Starting from the basics: if we are to address global climate change, we need to reduce carbon emissions, which means reducing our use of fossil fuels as an energy source. To be able to do this, we need to either cut consumption, increase energy production from other sources, or both. As I’ve argued before, nuclear power is presently a more viable alternative than renewables in terms of cost and scalability. As a result, if one does not wish to try to tackle climate change by energy conservation alone, the light should first fall on nuclear power as a consideration. This is not to say that some fraction of the solution will not come from renewables. It is to say, however, that per watt, we can expand generating capacity faster and more cheaply with nuclear energy than with renewables.
On the topic of conservation versus capacity expansion, it is disingenuous to suggest that conservation alone can solve the problem. While there is certainly room for greater efficiency, the marginal cost of conservation climbs rapidly as total conservation increases. To cut carbon emissions from the US in half through conservation alone, we would need to cut our consumption by 40% — and keep the nuclear plants we already have. The first few percent savings will come cheaply, but that 40th percentage point would be devastating to our economy. If we are to be serious about tackling climate change, we need a plan that is acceptable to the public and politically feasible.
With respect to the currently unsolved problems nuclear energy poses, NEIS comes close to having a good point. But when they quote people like George Mitchell saying things like,
“A totally safe reactor, a totally safe place to dispose of its deadly wastes, and a totally safe way to keep the wrong kind of nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands — none of these things have been resolved. By the time they are resolved, if they ever can be, it will be too late. The projected global warming will be full upon us.”
they abandon the great ship Reason. To demand that nuclear energy be totally safe is absurd– global warming poses a threat, thus, we should balance the threat of more nuclear energy production against the threat it offsets. Demanding that something pose zero risk is untenable; if that were the standard in medicine, we would let all surgery candidates die, as surgery itself would pose a non-zero risk to the patient.
Concerns about transfers of “materials, technology, and ultimately weapons” are not only equally ignorant of the importance of relative risk, but they are alarmist and based on a false assumption. Nuclear facilities need not be heavy-water, which can produce bomb-grade materials, but can and often are instead light-water reactors, which do not pose the same risk. While light-water reactors still produce radioactive material that could theoretically be used in a “dirty bomb,” experts agree that such a bomb would likely cause zero fatalities as a result of radiation. Further, reactors need not be located all over the world, as trading mechanisms for carbon credits can allow more developed, stable nations to build higher-cost nuclear plants and sell their credits to less-developed nations using lower-cost fossil fuels. Finally, even if an unstable nation were to somehow acquire weaponable fissile material and had their own reactor, that would not make them a nuclear threat. The technology required to produce a nuclear weapon is far different from that required for peaceful purposes. Thus, claiming that increased use of nuclear energy will result in technology transfers is erroneous.
I must admit, I am unfamiliar with how neo-colonialism results from the use of nuclear energy, making this point difficult to address. Given the lack of any evidence to support such an inane claim, however, I will feel free to dismiss it.
The claim that the use of nuclear energy “stifles development, implementation, and expansion of market share of true local, sustainable and renewable energy resources, and energy efficiency”, however, is worth addressing. It’s true that by not using nuclear energy, we can raise the marginal cost of additional energy capacity or additional carbon reductions, making renewable energy resources or energy efficiency measures more competitive. This would be, of course, at the cost of crippling our ability to deal with global warming. No matter, NEIS isn’t committed to dealing with global warming or other problems, they’re “committed to ending nuclear power”. To them, nuclear energy isn’t even worthy of consideration under any circumstances.
When being anti-nuclear becomes an article of faith, the advocates of this position become a hinderance to the environmental movement at large. They become perfect straw men for conservative attacks, and harm the ability of the movement to address issues and win over the public with rationality.
Finally, the supposed problem of international proliferation of nuclear problems to less-developed nations is the same argument as the one used before with respect to weapons, minus the specter of terrorism. As such, it makes the same erroneous assumptions already addressed.
A good question at this point is, “well, if not nuclear energy, what does NEIS suggest?”
NEIS suggests:
- real emission reduction targets and programs
- remove nuclear power and “sinks” from consideration for CDM credits
- aggressive expansion of energy efficiency and renewable energy resources where appropriate, both domestically and internationally
- methodical preparation for real, but not necessarily painful or economically disruptive lifestyle changes in areas where technologic or market innovation cannot succeed, exacerbates the old problems, or creates/substitutes new ones
The first item does not actually address the problem, as the problem isn’t just emission reduction targets, but how they are to be met. The second has two problems: first, by removing nuclear power from the equation, we make it harder to address global warming; second, by removing carbon sinks from consideration for credits, we remove any incentive to preserve such sinks as the Amazon rainforest, which provides enormous benefits with respect to carbon reduction. The third item is a nice idea, and will no doubt provide part of the solution; however, renewable energy is still less viable and more costly than nuclear energy and will take a longer and more costly expansion to address climate change to the same extent as nuclear energy. The final item gets again to the root of what is crippling environmentalism; demanding reductions in quality of life will not get us anywhere.
Why do we want to address global warming? If any part of the answer is the toll it is expected to take on humanity, then demanding quality of life reductions now and indefinitely to prevent quality of life reductions in the future is a little loopy. If the answer does not involve the welfare of humans, then it is equally unbalanced to expect that people will be willing to undertake the largest worldwide environmental project in the history of man, at significant cost, to achieve an abstract goal. We need not give more fodder to those who claim that environmentalism is misanthropic. To win the battles of the future, the environmental movement needs to be able to claim the truth for itself. So long as large segments are blinded by ideology, the movement will be unable to accomplish its most worthy goals.