MNN.COM > MNN BLOGGERS > Karl Burkart's Blog

Karl Burkart

Top 6 nuclear energy myths exposed

Mon, Dec 01 2008 at 5:57 AM EST

We humans have a remarkable ability to rationalize our way into (or out of) anything, and the Nuclear Industry has certainly taken this skill to its highest and most ironic conclusion — the legitimation of nuclear energy as a viable alternative to fossil fuels.
 
The industry has misappropriated the discourse around global warming by positioning nuclear as a somehow “clean” alternative to coal, one which is “carbon neutral” (not true), affordable (absolutely not true) and most unbelievable of all, “safe.”
 
So it was a relief when Al Gore cleared things up at this year's Netroots Nation. Gore, who in the past has been open (if not friendly) towards nuclear energy, laid out the major misconceptions around the feasibility of nuclear.  Additional facts provided by the Sierra Club and discussion with a top nuclear scientist, give us the true facts that have previously been buried amidst a pile of canned pro-nuclear sentiments fed to both political leaders and journalists alike.
 
Who’s behind the misinformation?  The masterfully spin-generating NEI, the Nuclear Energy Institute. After reading the April (anti-Earth Day) issue of Wired Magazine, bearing the headline “GO NUCLEAR,” it's become clear that the NEI has succeeded in infiltrating even fairly liberal bastions of media. So it was not surprising to hear Obama give it lip service in his recent address to the Global Climate Summit.  It seems the NEI has deep pockets and powerful friends.
 
The NEI, which Dr. Helen Caldicott calls the “propaganda wing” of the US nuclear industry, spends millions every year to engineer public opinion. The NEI shares the same PR firm that represents Bechtel and other war contractors.  They are notorious for ghost writing fake editorial pieces submitted to local newspapers across the country, and were even censured by the fairly conservative Council of Better Business Bureaus for their misleading advertising on nuclear energy as “carbon-free” and “clean.”  Here is their sunny, happy header:
Photo: Nuclear Energy Institute
Below are the top 6 nuclear myths and facts:
 
Myth 1. Nuclear energy can solve the global warming crisis.
Even if Nuclear were really carbon-free (which it is not, see below) in order to play a significant role against global warming, 24 new plants per year would need to be brought online safely for the next 40 years (approximately 960 new plants).  In addition, at least 10 new storage facilities the size of Yucca Mountain (see below) would have to be brought online.  This is a near impossibility given the high costs of commissioning a plant safely and the immense technological challenges associated with long-term waste storage.  Compromising current safety standards would be necessary (MIT).
 
Myth 2. Nuclear has lower CO2 emissions than fossil fuel plants.
If you go on the NEI website, you will read that a nuclear power plant produces 0 carbon emissions.  Yes at the plant, zero CO2 is emitted, but what about the construction of the plant, the sourcing of uranium, and the transportation and long-term storage of its waste?  If you factor these energy expenditures into the equation (including storage costs modestly estimated through 2070), a typical 1500 megawatt plant emits approximately 400g of CO2 per kWh, making it roughly equivalent to a natural gas plant (Oxford Research Group).
 
Myth 3. Nuclear energy is safe.
OK, lets forget that Three Mile Island and Chernobyl ever happened, and lets just pretend that we didn’t know about the enormous and apocalyptic environmental impacts of a nuclear reactor gone wrong (the 30 km “Exclusion Zone” around Chernobyl will not be habitable for a century or more).  Human error and the potential for earthquakes are a constant looming threat in the day-to-day operations of a nuclear plant.  Just last year, a reactor in Tennessee leaked 9 gallons of highly enriched liquid Uranium, which could quite easily have triggered a spontaneous unprotected nuclear reaction of unprecedented proportions.
 
Myth 4. Nuclear waste is a manageable problem.
Currently nuclear waste is stored in 126 locations across the United States, including many unsecured nuclear power plants which are now forced to temporarily contain their waste in “dry casks,” or large metal tubes that encase the highly radioactive spent fuel in a layer of inert gas.  Many of these facilities are far beyond capacity, and (way back in 1978) were promised a safe and secure storage facility by 1998.  That deadline has long come and gone as the Yucca Mountain Deep Storage Facility continues to be beset with problems.  The Yucca Mountain deadline has been extended to 2017, and optimistic estimates put the opening at 2020 after massive costs overruns and a wave of layoffs this year.  Current estimates put the total cost of the facility at $96 billion (38% more than anticipated) and that does not include $11 billion in estimated liability of the DOE, which had promised the utility companies a safe storage facility (EE & E).
 
Myth 5. Nuclear energy is affordable.
It’s an astounding feat that the Nuclear industry was somehow been able to pass the burden of waste storage onto taxpayers, considering those costs are so enormous.  But even if you do factor out these waste costs, the economics of nuclear still do not add up.  A typical plant is usually estimated at $4 billion per plant, or $30 per mWh (roughly equivalent to Coal).  Many point to Europe for examples of cost-effective nuclear implementation, but if you look at actual numbers a plant (like Finland’s new EPR) can cost up to $6.5 billion to safely bring online.  And then there are the annual desalting procedures, in which the plant continues to operate at great costs without producing energy.  It’s thus not surprising that the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) stated that US loan guarantees of nuclear power have a 50% chance of defaulting.  Banking institutions (including Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs) have told the DOE that private capital would not be available for nuclear investment unless US taxpayers backed 100% of debt incurred.  Clearly, not a sound business proposition (via Greenpeace).
 
Myth 6. Nuclear energy won’t affect our national security.
According to an MIT study, just 1 percent of global uranium enrichment capacity can produce 200 nuclear weapons per year.  North Korea received all of its depleted uranium from commercial nuclear power plants.  It is impossible to imagine that expanded nuclear energy production would not result in the expanded proliferation of nuclear weapons. In addition, the Dept. of Homeland Security has acknowledged that nuclear power plants are themselves prime terrorist targets and that 911 architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had originally planned to fly a plane into a nuclear facility in New Jersey.  The Congressional Research Service has shown that current construction standards are not in any way designed to withstand an airline attack.  In recent simulations, terrorists “reached and simulated destruction of safety systems that in real attacks could have caused severe core damage, meltdown and catastrophic radioactive releases.”
The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.
    Next »
Tail pipe "Blade" adds 3.8 MPG

Comments(11)

Sort by:
Posted By Anonymous - Tue, Sep 01 2009 at 11:03 AM EST

Fear-mongering at its finest!!!

This article is so hilariously biased, it should not be viewed as anything other than biased crap.

Clean energy? Where do you get all the parts to manufacture windmills, solar panels? What types of harmful chemicals are used to make these devices? Who is mining for the rare earths that go into these devices?

Did you know that 3 mile island released the equivalent of something like 10 x-rays? In the 70s? And how about comparing the current situation to soviet Russia? That is also very intelligent of you!

Come on, lets get real people. The industry has improved safety since then.

They are developing breeder reactors that produce much less waste than this joker is claiming.

And lastly, despite the US having lots of uranium in the ground, if we do have to import a fuel, wouldn't you rather do it from our allies of Canada and Australia than the OPEC countries.

Posted By Sally - Sat, Aug 29 2009 at 7:56 PM EST

Nuclear Facts

Not useful?? Well I agree it is not useful if your goal is to prevent people from gaining important and under-reported facts about nuclear energy. One day nuclear will be an important part of the equation, but that day is probably about 10 years out, when scientists have perfected a way to make nuclear waste safe and affordable. Right not it is neither.

Posted By David - Sat, Aug 29 2009 at 6:54 PM EST

Not a useful article

Any sound energy policy should include nuclear energy. I'm not sure a post from MNN can denounce claims from people because they're biased...

Posted By Anonymous - Mon, Jan 05 2009 at 9:18 PM EST

Suggested reading material

Posted By Anonymous - Mon, Jan 05 2009 at 11:04 PM EST

Thanks for suggestions.

I'm familiar with some of these books, and they certainly range in quality. I'm very much look forward to interviewing one of the top scientists working on "clean" nuclear technologies. I want to state for the record, I'm not opposed to nuclear energy in theory. It is quite likely in 100 years we will be powering our entire civilization using some form of nuclear energy. I just don't think we're even close as a society to being able to implement it safely.

I have two other concerns, that are not "environmental" per se:

The first is economic. Why on earth, should the government fund the implementation of risky untested technologies, when many totally clean alternatives already exist and are market-ready, alternatives which according to a recent study at MIT create 4-10 times the number of jobs. Just doesn't make sense to me.

The second is political. Nuclear energy requires nuclear isotopes, isotopes which are also used in the production of very powerful weapons. As the growing troubles in Iran attest, there will also be political strife if SOME countries are allowed to have nuclear while OTHERS are not. You can't kill someone with a solar panel. But you can with uranium. And without uranium, there ain't not nuclear power (currently).

Posted By Al White - Tue, Dec 16 2008 at 10:54 AM EST

Al Gore tells you what is on

Al Gore tells you what is on his agenda, nothing but half truths. Sure, the earth is warming, it has been for some time. The earth's temperature has fluctuated up and down throughout history. Have a look at this article from the NY post.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03222007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/als_warm...

Posted By Anonymous - Tue, Dec 16 2008 at 7:01 PM EST

The real question..

I understand lots of people don't like Al Gore, but this is not about Al Gore. Here's the real question. Even if over 5,000 of the most preeminent scientists in the world are all wrong, and humans are NOT causing global warming, why are you opposed to slowing down global warming? What is wrong with making the US more energy independent, creating green jobs, and cleaning up our air? How is that a bad thing?

Its really about taking action versus doing nothing. So the question is do we just sit around and do nothing, until we're absolutely positively sure that our actions will have no impact?

I recommend watching this video (not Al Gore I promise) on the arguments for and against taking action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

Posted By Anonymous - Thu, Dec 04 2008 at 3:56 PM EST

clean nukes

Thank you for opening my eyes to the problems that are associated with Nuclear energy. I was being brain-washed by all the green-friendly talk...but still something inside me knew that "safe nukes" was an oxymoron.

Posted By Anonymous - Mon, Dec 01 2008 at 4:17 PM EST

These may all appropriate for current technology reactors...

What information could you share with everyone regarding next-generation reactors? The Wikipedia article is located here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Also, could you compare some of the Carbon Footprint data and other manufacturing and transportation-related costs you note above with other renewable energy sources?

Thanks

Posted By Karl Burkart - Thu, Dec 04 2008 at 6:13 PM EST

Next-gen nuclear

You're in luck. I will be interviewing a top next-gen nuclear scientist next month. Great strides in the lab have been made to downcycle waste safely, getting both more power out of the uranium and less resulting radioactive waste (current tests are showing that depleted uranium with a half-life of 100 years is possible). But according to the scientist I spoke with, this is a decade or more away from full implementation. It's theoretically possible right now, but the costs associated with building such reactors today are exorbitant.

In terms of pebble power, there a are a few reactors operating. While they reactors themselves are much safer and the waste easier to transport, the waste itself is not any more or less radioactive, just more difficult to enrich. From what I understand, it also takes quite a bit more energy to manufacture the pebbles, but this is offset by the fact that the nuclear reactors never need to be shut down, a major problem with all first-gen reactors.

In terms of CO2 footprints, there are of course CO2 impacts associated with the production of solar and wind. Solar (silicon crystal), believe it or not, is quite comparable to nuclear in terms of CO2 (very roughly 25 g CO2 per kWh). Like Nuclear, it also requires extraordinary amounts of water, an impact rarely calculated into the equation. Thin-film solar is significantly less resource intensive (and less expensive) but the clear winner is Wind (at about 14 g CO2 per kWh). Wind also has the added advantage of recyclability. When nuclear reactors have reached their life span, they are destroyed. The millions of silicon solar cells currently in use will have to be landfilled (on 25-50 years). But the aluminum or steel blades of the wind turbine can be recycled indefinitely.

Here is an at-a-glance comparison on Mother Jones:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/05/nuke-vs-solar-the-carbon...

Look for more a follow-up report on MNN in January.

Posted By Anonymous - Mon, Jan 12 2009 at 4:21 PM EST

two words - base load

If you think solar or wind have a chance of contributing significantly to base load capacity you're living in a fantasy world.

With significant advances in energy storage technologies (fuel cells, batteries, etc.), maybe some day - but not soon.

Add your comment

You can't fool Mother Nature
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

ADVERTISEMENT

About Karl Burkart

Karl's RSS Karl's profile

FROM OUR SPONSOR

Work Together. Apart. Green Tips for Your Car
Green Tips for Your Home Green Tips for Your Office

Karl's BLOGROLL

EcoGeekFast Company
MongabayPhysorg Tech
Red Green and BlueTrendHunter Eco
TreehuggerGetting Hot in Here
Triple PunditWeb Ecoist

KARL'S RECENT POSTS

THE LATEST IN GREEN TECHNOLOGY