I have covered many topics related to radioactivity in this blog including reactors, bombs, accidents, organizations, heath effects, environmental effects and so on. During my research for these blog articles, I have come to the conclusion that it is time to end the use of nuclear reactors to generate electrical power. There are many arguments pro and con for the inclusion of nuclear generation in the mix of sources of commercial electricity. I have mentioned both in previous blog entries. In my estimation, the reasons to stop using nuclear power far outweigh the reasons to keep using it.
In future blog posts I am going to concentrate on the arguments against nuclear power including profiles of groups that are opposing its use. I have tried to be honest and objective in writing this blog, reporting as accurately as I can the results of my research into matters nuclear. I will continue to be as honest as possible about the nuclear power situation but I will be concentrating on criticisms of this source of power.
I understand that the world is currently in a desperate position with respect to the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere leading to global warming, the rise of sea level and wild weather with more droughts, hurricanes, record breaking temperatures, etc. It is absolutely critical that we roll back our production of CO2 from power generation and fossil fuel use or we risk the end of our global civilization. Nuclear power has been offered as a way to reduce fossil fuel consumption and CO2 production. Setting aside all the dangers and problems association with nuclear power for the moment, I want to focus on why the CO2 argument is a lot weaker than most people realize.
The construction of a nuclear power plant is a huge undertaking. A great deal of fossil fuel is utilized in the creation of the materials and equipment required. The transportation of all these things to the site and the preparation of the site consume fossil fuels. The mining and refining of uranium for fuel requires fossil fuels. The enormous amount of concrete that goes into building a nuclear power plant generates a huge amount of CO2 as it cures. If the spent fuel rods are stored on site in dry casks, they are made of steel and concrete which consumes fossil fuels. If the spent fuel rods are transported to some temporary or permanent storage site, more fossil fuels are burned. And the creation of a permanent spent fuel rod facility will require still more fossil fuels to dig. And finally, nuclear power reactors have a limited lifespan after which they have to be decommissions which depend on fossil fuel. All of these activities require the burning of fossil fuels which generate huge amounts of CO2. When the CO2 footprint of nuclear power generation is discussed, there is not enough emphasis on all this CO2. I have heard it said but I cannot quote the research to prove it that it takes about fifteen years of full time operation of a nuclear reactor generating power before it compensates for all the CO2 generated to create a fuel it. And most reactors are licensed for about 30 years initially although many have their licenses extended.
One of the primary arguments for nuclear power generation, the reduction of CO2 production, is not as beneficial as it has been portrayed. Other arguments such as low cost of such power have been proven false. When nuclear power generation was being sold in the 1950s to civilians, some proponents claimed that the power would be so cheap that it could be given away for free. Well, that has certainly turned out to be false. With the price of alternative sustainable power constantly dropping and the cost of nuclear power stable or rising, it is far past time for the world to begin phasing out nuclear reactors for commercial electric power generation.
