Sam OttoENVIR 100 AH

Nuclear Energy as a Solution to Clean Energy Needs

A deceptively pressing issue, global warming is a prevalent existential crisis facing the

Earth. Since 1980, the earth has experienced its 20 warmest years, and ten of these have

happened in the last 12 years (NASA 2014). The vast majority of scientists hold the use of fossil

fuels as the cause. These gasses trap solar radiation from the sun into the Earth’s atmosphere,

resulting in global temperatures rising. As a result of this rise in temperature, large ice sheets in

both Greenland and Antarctica have shrunk significantly. Greenland alone has “lost 150 to 250

cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica

lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005” (Sullivan 2014).

The loss of these ice sheets decreases the albedo of the planet, causing more warming.

Developing green technologies such as solar and wind energy can help humanity face the crisis

that is global warming, however they can’t compare to the power and efficiency of nuclear

energy. Nuclear energy is the most effective way to face growing energy needs while at the same

time stressing the environment the least.

Electrical demands have increased greatly over the last 20 years. Electrical demand

nearly doubled between 1990 and 2011, and is growing at a rate of 81% between 2011 and 2035

(World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power 2014). With projected increases in technology and

population, and little commitment from less developed countries to implement clean

technologies, the extra fuel load will likely be taken on by fossil fuels. To avoid this, countries

must have clean energy that can be consistently relied upon for “base load” power to cities and

infrastructure. A base load is the amount of energy that is always needed by a community (a

comparison between intermediate loads, peak loads, and base loads throughout the seasons is

seen in Figure 3). The energy generation method used must also be close in proximity to the

places needing power.

Nuclear is certainly not the only form of clean power generation, however, other

prominent forms such as wind and solar cannot be relied upon for base load power generation

support in the same way that nuclear can be. This is because solar and wind energy are

“intermittent,” technologies. They rely upon outside, uncontrollable factors to operate. Also,

Sam OttoENVIR 100 AH

these forms cannot work in an incredibly diverse set of environments (ex. Solar will not operate

well in cloudy environments such as Seattle). According to the Energy Information, the

“competitiveness of various renewables-based electricity generating technologies typically

depends on favorable local conditions” (W.E.O. 2011). Therefore, solar is only cost effective

when placed in areas with bountiful sunlight, and wind is only effective in higher elevation areas

with plenty of open land. This problem was characterized by in Altamont Pass. “In 1985 the

world’s largest wind facility was in Altamont Pass in California. It generated enough energy for

250,000 people, but electricity was only generated 10% of the time. This compares to fossil-fuel

plants working 65-70% of the time and nuclear in excess of 90%” (Smil 2003). Globally, wind

energy can only hope to meet roughly 6 TWh out of the 34,000 TWh electrical requirement for

projected globally by 2035, “So wind will be an important supplement, but wind could not be

used for base loads because sudden drops of 20-30% would be intolerable” (Smil 2003).

Nuclear energy, on the other hand, relies upon a fuel source; it is therefore much more

suited to handling the burden of base load power generation needs. Modern reactors can remain

operational for years at 90% of their nameplate capacities without ever stopping, this ability to

constantly operate at very high capacities is what makes nuclear a highly viable form of energy

generation, much less clean energy generation. There are also, unlike solar and wind, few

requirements for where reactors must be located. They must be near a consistent source of water,

however this same requirement stands for the operation of any fossil fuel plant. The efficiency of

nuclear separates it from other generation forms. “100 MW of wind on a poorly diversified grid

will statistically produce roughly 75% of that 100 MW through gas instead of wind. 1000 MW

produced by a nuclear plant will yield about 93% of that capacity” (Emsley 2013). This adds to

the economic competitiveness of nuclear.

Initial capital costs are typically high for nuclear plants. This is due to the use of a large

amount of materials such as concrete, a number of technical intricacies, the high cost of permits,

and stringent safety standards. This high initial investment is exemplified in Figure 1, which

breaks down the average levelized costs (ALC) for nuclear plants coming online in the U.S. by

2019. Referencing Figure 1, nuclear energy has an ALC that is relatively high at around

$71.4/mWh. This cost is typically matched by other clean energy sources, such as solar or

Sam OttoENVIR 100 AH

hydroelectric generation. None of the renewable energies can compete with the real cost of fossil

fuels.

Nuclear is better, however, when it comes to real fuel cost. Uranium, the fuel used in

reactors has very high energy density. In the words of the OECD, “Uranium’s high energy

density (1 tonne of uranium produces the same energy as 10 000-16 000 tonnes of oil with

current practices)… storage of a large energy reserve is easier than for fossil fuels” (OECD 5).

Figure 1 shows that, including the process of enrichment and processing, in comparison to other

primary energy options, nuclear energy still shows a lower cost for operation and management

(O&E). Including government subsidies, energy from nuclear is very competitive, in cost per

megawatt hour, with both hydroelectric and fossil fuels. It has a significant competitive

advantage over solar and wind energy. The fact that it produces virtually zero carbon emissions

and has only a modest ecological impact (in comparison to hydroelectric power), makes nuclear

technology a clean and economical option for energy production.

In contrast to initial impressions put forth by the accidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl,

the largest attraction of nuclear power is safety. Modern reactors are made with both active and

passive preventative measures, which make them able to shut down safely in an instant. Also,

modern reactors are made to not remain intact in the event of a targeted attack aimed at them.

According to John Mueller, “Containment structures were designed to withstand attacks by

aircraft and missiles well before 9/11, and a 2002 analysis by the Electric Power Research

Institute found that a fully laden Boeing 767-400 would not break through any U.S. containment

structure.” (Mueller, 2011) Figure 2 shows that nuclear power produces only roughly .04 deaths

per Terawatt hour; in comparison to renewables, this is particularly safe. It is largely due to a

combination of stringent safety standards enacted in the construction of plants, and the stringent

safety standards set by and for workers in the plants to stay safe. Fossil fuel deaths are especially

high, since worldwide, mining operations for these energy forms is more unregulated and unsafe.

Also, these are to blame for many respiratory illnesses. In the words of the World Nuclear

Organization, “Currently nuclear energy saves the emission of 2.5 billion tonnes of CO₂ relative

to coal. For every 22 tonnes of uranium used, one million tonnes of CO₂ emissions is averted.

Energy inputs to nuclear fuel cycle produce only a few (eg 1-3) percent of the CO₂ emissions

saved. Doubling the world's nuclear output would reduce CO₂ emissions from power generation

Sam OttoENVIR 100 AH

by about one quarter” (The Nuclear Debate). The fact that uranium is so energy dense, combined

with the consistent yet cleanness of these technologies, makes this technology an economic, yet

environmentally safe technology.

Use of fossil fuels has admittedly allowed for the greatest and most rapid advancement of

human technology since the start of the human species. However, the over exploitation of the

earth’s resources, particularly through these fossil fuels, has led to a truly unsustainable amount

of greenhouse gas emissions into the Earth’s atmosphere. These emissions have already clearly

led to a huge increase in global temperatures, which has in turn led to the melting of icecaps and

subsequent rise in sea levels. Carbon pollution from these fuels has caused widespread health,

especially respiratory, issues in urban populations. With worldwide populations that are

projected to increase, it is of the utmost importance that humans find alternate, clean sources of

energy to draw from. The future of renewables in the energy landscape is hopeful, however

nuclear technology is the only solution to fully support the base load needs of a country like the

United States. Incidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima have left a negative mark on the

perceptions people have toward nuclear technologies, however the continuous increase in safety

procedures and standards in the nuclear energy generation make these incidents much less likely

to take place again.

If society can overcome its aversion to nuclear energy, it could take advantage of an

economically competitive, safe, environmentally friendly technology. The only other form of

clean energy that can compete in this manner with nuclear energy is hydroelectric power,

however, hydroelectric power is very harmful to local ecologies, it is location based, and most

available hydroelectric resources have already been exploited. Nuclear, on the other hand, does

not suffer much from constraints on location, and is overall less harmful on the environment. For

these reasons, countries, starting with the United States, should accept nuclear as the most viable

way to cleanly produce energy today.

I received only one peer review, however, the grader of that review made some very good

suggestions. I found the comments on my first paragraph particularly helpful. The grader told me

that it did not flow as well as it could, and suggested combining some of the staccato sentences

that I was utilizing. I took the grader’s advice on this matter, changing my first paragraph in

Sam OttoENVIR 100 AH

multiple ways, from general wording to sentence structure. The peer reviewer also pointed out

that I could split my conclusion paragraph into two separate paragraphs. I took that advice, in my

view making the final paragraph less clunky and generally more manageable. I did not, however,

take the grader’s advice to add clearer cut conclusions to the end of my paragraphs. In my view,

this kind of cookie-cutter structuring makes the research paper seem less professional and less

mature, in terms of writing. I would prefer to allow the reader to interpret the paragraphs for

themselves, using my research and argumentations, instead of forcing the point upon them.

Sam OttoENVIR 100 AH

Appendices

Figure 1

Sam OttoENVIR 100 AH

Figure 2

Figure 3

Sam OttoENVIR 100 AH

Works Cited

NASA, (20 Nov. 2014) Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Retrieved from http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Emsley, I. (2013, September 10). The Global Nuclear Fuel Market: Supply and Demand 2013-2030. World Nuclear Association.

Cont, J. (2014). Annual Energy Outlook 2014. Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2014).pdf

Mueller, J. (9, September 2011). Terror, Security, and Money: Balancing the Risks, Benefits, and Costs of Homeland Security. Retrieved from http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller//MID11TSM.PDF

Smil, V. (2003). Energy at the crossroads: Global perspectives and uncertainties. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Sullivan, T. (15 Dec. 2014) Physics 102 Lecture 15. Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio.. Lecture.

World Nuclear Association. (2014). The Nuclear Debate. Retrieved from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/The-Nuclear-Debate/

World Nuclear Association. (2014). World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power. Retrieved from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/world-Energy-Needs-and-nuclear-power/

World Energy Outlook 2010. Paris: International Energy Agency, 2010. Print.

World Energy Outlook 2011. Paris: IEA, International Energy Agency, 2011. Print.

World Energy Outlook 2013. Paris: OECD/IEA, 2013. Print.