Major Paper 2 Revised

Published on May 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 31 | Comments: 0 | Views: 204
of 7
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Ben LaRoche 1
Ben LaRoche
English 131 R
Lubna Alzaroo
11/27/2015
The Potential of Nuclear Energy with Respect Global Warming
“The dinosaurs never saw that asteroid coming. What’s our excuse?” -Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
In order to avoid catastrophic global consequences from climate change, renewable and
green energy sources need to expand in the energy mix. According to The Presidential Climate
Action Project, in order to keep the atmosphere at a stable temperature, there can be no more
than 2 degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels. To achieve this goal, carbon emissions
have to be cut by about 60% globally and low carbon energy should account for 80% of energy
production by the year 2050 (Hassol). In order to reach a safe level of carbon emissions, a very
large portion of fossil fuels must be phased out.
Some people view nuclear power (NP) as a mode to phase out fossil fuels. The rationale
for this solution is the fact that NP has the second lowest life cycle carbon emissions out of any
energy producer. Additionally, unlike renewable energy sources, NP is a large base load power,
capable of supplying huge amounts of electricity without interruption (Kleiner). Contrary to all
the potential advantages NP holds, only 3 of the USs’ 104 nuclear reactors have been built in the
last 30 years. Even so, the US still produces 20.7% of the total energy need from NP (World). It
is a mystery as to why NP has not been perused more vehemently to secure a low carbon future.
The potential NP has to restrict climate change is mainly dependent on the scalability of
NP. This paper will explore the scalability of NP and thus its potential to mitigate global
warming. The issues hindering scalability of NP include construction limitations, economic

Ben LaRoche 2
feasibility, public opinion of safety, and nuclear waste. After close scrutiny of the aforementioned
restrictions, it is evident NP cannot be expanded currently to reach emissions goals even though
it has potential scalability.
Construction Limitations
The Nuclear industry claims that they have the ability to construct new nuclear reactors in
a timely manner. Agneta Rising, Director General of the World Nuclear Association, claims that
“the nuclear industry stands ready to deliver more to help tackle climate change. Nuclear
generation could provide 25% of the world's electricity with low carbon generation by having
1000 gigawatts of new build by 2050” (World). In order to reach that estimate, a steep increase in
construction of nuclear reactors is necessary as existing ones are decommissioned. According to
The Nuclear Energy Agency, the amount of new NP necessary to keep warming under 2% is the
following: on average about 16 GWe/year till 2020, 20 GWe/year between 2020 and 2030, 30
GWe/year between 2030 and 2040, and over 46 GWe/year between 2040 and 2050. Considering
that global grid connections were at 30 GWe/year between 1978 and 1987 the aforementioned
values are attainable, assuming the participation of China (AlFarra). Even though the industry is
ready to construct NP, appropriate land to build on still needs to be located.
Nuclear reactors require certain land regulations in order to build which can make
locating a construction site difficult. Derek Abbott, a professor at The University of Adelaide,
explains that each plant requires about 20.5 square km of land away from dense populations,
natural disaster zones, and near large bodies of coolant water. Furthermore, sites that were used
previously for NP take about 20 years to decommission before a new reactor could be built. The
US has a little less than 60 of these authorized locations and there are only about 100 more zones
that prove to be capable of hosting NP (Abbott). Scholar Brian Wang clarifies, while finding a

Ben LaRoche 3
site to be authorized may be difficult, it will not significantly hinder the construction process.
Multiple reactors can be built on one site; this will reduce the need to find more land to authorize
(Wang).
Economic Feasibility
The high capital cost of nuclear power is prohibitory to new nuclear power plant
commission. Based on the Blue Map scenario put forth by the International Energy Agency,
roughly $883 billion dollars would be needed for the US and Canada to meet their carbon
emission goals by 2050 using nuclear power (AlFarra). A high capital investment must be
followed by high returns in order to attract investors. Generally, nuclear power gives an
extremely slow return on investment, sometimes taking decades to recoup initial costs. Investors
generally don’t like to wait that long to see their investment pay off (Indiviglio). In order to
make nuclear power economically feasible, government support is necessary. A political
consensus about NPs role in the energy mix must be reached and maintained in order to reach
energy generation goals. Once new nuclear power plants are financed and regulated by the
government, it can be expected that the private sector will be more likely to risk the investment
and follow the government's lead.
NP will only succeed in expanding if it is cost competitive with other fuel sources. A
study from Nuclear Energy Association called Carbon Pricing, Power Markets and the
Competitiveness of Nuclear Energy, compares the costs of nuclear energy with coal and gas. The
study found that if there was even a minor carbon tax, nuclear power would be more cost
effective than coal but less than gas (Economics). It is widely acknowledged that a carbon tax
will be implemented in the near future. When this happens NP will grow as investors view it as a
profitable venture.

Ben LaRoche 4
Safety and Public Opinion
NP is inherently dangerous due to the massive amount of energy and radiation confined
to a small environment. In order for NP to expand, safety measures must be improved to win
positive public opinion. Ultimately, public opinion sways the production of nuclear power by
influencing politicians. Over the course of NPs fifty-year history, there have been three
significant accidents. These accidents stir up public disapproval which hindered new projects
from reaching approval. To acquire public opinion, safety regulation should assure that the
accidents that occurred in the past cannot happen again.
In 1979, the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor had a cooling malfunction which caused
part of the core to meltdown. Even though there were no adverse health effects, the event gave
way to vast skepticism from the US public. The drop in public confidence lead to a decline in
nuclear construction from the 1980s to the 1990s (World).
The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design and gross
negligence on the part of operators. After a steam explosion expelled part of the reactor core into
the atmosphere, 58 people died. Serious social and economic disruption occurred in Belarus,
Russia, and Ukraine. Several hundred thousand people had to be relocated out of the
contaminated area. A certain culture of fear and distrust was created around nuclear power
(World).
In 2011 after a massive earthquake followed by a tsunami, three Fukushima Daiichi
reactors in Japan had meltdowns. There were no deaths from the incident but over a hundred
thousand people had to be evacuated from the surrounding area. The event caused an immediate
20% drop in public approval of NP in the US (Clemmitt).

Ben LaRoche 5
After each accident occurred strict safety measures were enacted to ensure that the issue
didn’t occur again. Even so, if the pattern of nuclear accidents continues every decade or two,
low public opinion will surely regulate the expansion NP. Without strong public support, it's
unlikely that the full construction potential of the nuclear industry will be realized.
Nuclear Waste
Nuclear waste has been an ever present issue of NP. If NP is expanded, then the capacity
to deal with nuclear waste will also need to be grown. Professor Derek Abbott notes that since
the creation of nuclear power there has yet to be an agreed upon mode of disposal. This creates a
certain amount of uncertainty about where future waste will go. An expansion of nuclear power
will only create more uncertainty and increase the risk of poorly stored radioactive material
(Abbott). The World Nuclear Association acknowledges the decentralized method of waste
management but assures that "safe management practices are implemented or planned for all
categories of radioactive waste”. The waste is stored in multi-barrier geological repositories at a
depth in a location that will not experience seismic activity for thousands of years. This
eliminates the chance of radiation seeping into water supplies or resurfacing. Deep geological
repositories are widely viewed as a feasible standard but are still not used universally. Sweden,
Finland, and the US have begun using geological repositories (World). While a proper method to
dispose of radioactive material is in use, it is still not universal. NP will expand more easily if a
universally used method for waste management is put in place. Standardization makes it easier
for new nuclear projects to adopt methods quickly rather than having an obligation to create their
own.
The scalability of NP is largely restricted at the present moment. Even though the nuclear
industry is prepared to expand production there are outside limitations. The high capital

Ben LaRoche 6
investments and low-cost competitiveness of nuclear do not make it economically favorable,
making an immediate expansion unlikely. Although, if either government subsidies or a carbon
tax is initiated, a large-scale growth of NP will occur. Public opinion about the safety of NP has
to be sustained in order for growth to occur. Additionally, a universally employed mode of waste
management would increase the scalability of NP. It doesn't appear the nuclear power currently
has the potential to help curb carbon emissions to the degree necessary to reach emissions goals.
A close investigation into alternative green energy sources should be ardently pursued.

Ben LaRoche 7
Works Cited
Abbott, Derek. "Is Nuclear Power Globally Scalable?" Proceedings of the IEEE 99.10 (2011):
1611-617. Oct. 2011. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.
AlFarra, Hasan Jamil, and Bassam Abu-Hijleh. "The Potential Role of Nuclear Energy in
Mitigating CO2 Emissions in the United Arab Emirates." Energy Policy 42 (2012): 27285. Science Direct. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.
Clemmitt, Marcia. "Nuclear Power." CQ Researcher 10 June 2011: 505-28. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.
"Economics of Nuclear Power." OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. N.p., 2012 July 2012. Web. 14
Dec. 2015.
Hassol, Sussan Joy. "Emissions Reductions Needed to Stabilize Climate." Emissions Reductions
Needed to Stabilize Climate. Climate Communications. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.
Indiviglio, Daniel. "Why Are New U.S. Nuclear Reactor Projects Fizzling?" The Atlantic.
Atlantic Media Company, 01 Feb. 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2015.
Kleiner, Kurt. "Nuclear Energy: Assessing the Emissions." Nature. 24 Sept. 2008. Web. 6 Nov.
2015.
Wang, Brian. "Nuclear Power Is Globally Scalable If It Does Not Follow Rules Made up by the
Anti-nuclear Side." Next Big Future. N.p., 17 Apr. 2011. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.
"World Nuclear Association." Nuclear Power in the USA. Oct. 2015. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close