Part One of Two Parts
The big conference in Paris on Climate change where one hundred and ninety six nations agreed on measures to confront climate caused by carbon dioxide emissions stirred up a lot of commentary on various aspects of the climate change problem. One issue that is relevant to this blog is the call by some prominent climate scientists for the use of nuclear power to reduce carbon dioxide emission from the generation of electricity. This has been met by some critics as another form of climate change denial. This charge has, in turn, inspired some commentators to ridicule the accusation of "denier" against these climate scientists who call for more nuclear power. The supporters of the climate scientists say that they merely "disagree" about the best way to reduce carbon emissions and that to call them deniers is underserved slander because, in the supporters view, "denier" implies willful ignorance.
I don't know if "denier" is the correct term for climate scientists who say that nuclear power is a good way to reduce carbon emissions but I do have to support the idea that there is willful ignorance at work here. For the average person not to know all the problems with nuclear power generation is understandable and forgivable. But for climate scientists concerned about carbon emissions, it is not understandable and forgivable. They are academics with professional reputations who can influence decision makers with their expertise and statements about serious problems. If they are going to make pronouncements about the benefits of a particular power source with respect to carbon emissions, they cannot, in good faith and honoring their profession, ignore problems and only focus on the fact that nuclear power plants emit less carbon than fossil fuel sources. They are duty-bound to also consider many problems that come with nuclear power before they start advising that it be expanded.
1. Nuclear power is not carbon free. It requires fossil fuels to mine, refine and transport uranium fuel. The massive amount of concrete required for plant construction and cooling towers gives off carbon dioxide as it dries. And this carbon debt is incurred during start up. It requires years to pay off.
2. The cost of nuclear power keeps rising and the cost of renewables keeps falling. They are reaching parity now and then the cost of nuclear power will keep climbing. Investors are not particularly excited about the prospects of nuclear power's ability to compete in today's power marketplace.
3. The spent nuclear fuel pools are filling up and there is no permanent repository for spent fuel in the U.S. and most other nuclear nations. Spent fuel will have to be stored temporarily in dry casks which are made of concrete and steel. The manufacture of such casks will generate carbon emission. And this must happen soon.
4. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been less than rigorous in ensuring adherence to regulations on the part of the nuclear industry. In some cases, officials at the NRC have secretly colluded with owners of nuclear power plants to change regulations in favor of the owners.
5. The nuclear industry has often put profits above proper construction, safety, training and maintenance at nuclear power plants in the U.S. and other countries. The Fukushima disaster was largely the fault of the company that owned and operated the nuclear power plant. This type of negligence invites more major accidents.
Please see Part Two
