Anti-nuclear movement

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Nuclear waste is really really bad)
(Plausible anti-nuclear arguments)
Line 15: Line 15:
  
 
It is worth noting that the cost of building nuclear power plants is inflated by [[nuclear exceptionalism]] enshrined in law, though it's unclear to what extent.
 
It is worth noting that the cost of building nuclear power plants is inflated by [[nuclear exceptionalism]] enshrined in law, though it's unclear to what extent.
 +
 +
A variation of the above. Anti-nuke groups say that nuclear waste is uniquely dangerous, remains deadly for centuries / millennia / (invent your own number of zeros), and cannot be safely contained.  Furthermore no country has constructed a final repository for either commercial spent nuclear fuel or high level waste yet.  The two are often confused and those who do not know the difference often mistakenly believe that the smaller quantities of the latter constitute the entirety of the problem of dealing with very radioactive wastes.
 +
 +
Vast amounts of commercial spent nuclear fuel have been accumulated with the boundless optimism that some solution will be found by somebody sometime in the future.  (So lets let them worry about it).  According to the Department of Energy, the 103 licensed nuclear reactors in the U.S. produced 47.023.4 million metric tons of commercial spent nuclear fuel between 1968 and 2002.  (See U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration, '''Spent Nuclear Fuel Data, Detailed
 +
United States''' as of December 31, 2002, at [http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/spent_
 +
fuel/ussnfdata.html]. Most of that toital is stored at reactor sites awaiting some sort of disposal as (no doubt at public expense).  Smaller amounts of high level nuclear waste is waste accumulated largely from nuclear weapons production by the Department of Energy (and the former Atomic Energy Commission) at the nuclear weapons facilities at the [http://www.hanford.gov/ Hanford], Washignton, Idaho National Laboratories, and Savannah River locations.
 +
 +
Suggested options for reducing the problem include the following:
 +
:: Reprocessing can dramatically reduce the lifetime of nuclear waste - from 10 000 years<ref>This is the time it takes for spent fuel to become less radioactive than the ore it was produced from. Anti-nuclear groups usually do something different: take the half-life of the longest lived isotope and multiply it by 10 (which is a misapplication of a rule of thumb for short-lived isotopes), or just make up a large number.</ref> to about 300.
 +
:: [[Fast reactor|Certain designs]] of reactors that are not cost effective yet, but known to be practical, can reuse the waste as fuel, because it still contains around 95% of its energy.
 +
Note however that these carry no measure of woo-nocity because they are as yet unproven or uneconomic technologies.
  
 
===Not enough people to operate the reactors===
 
===Not enough people to operate the reactors===

Revision as of 20:56, 21 November 2010

The mightiest
of them all

Nuclear energy

Icon nuclear.svg
Radioactive pages

The Anti-nuclear movement is a loosely connected, international community of organizations and individuals that oppose the use of nuclear technology.

The movement was founded by scientists involved in the Manhattan Project, and its first goal was nuclear disarmament. This version of the movement gained broad political and public support and successfully lobbied the Cold War superpowers to accept bilateral nuclear test ban treaties and carry out strategic arms reduction talks. After the primary goal was achieved with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,[1] which forbids nuclear explosions for any purpose, the pacifists lost much of their interest in the movement and were replaced by hard greens. The movement has slowly transformed into a pseudoscientific endeavor that attempts to stop the use of nuclear technologies, with the most vicious attacks being directed at the most useful of them, namely nuclear power. It was substantially boosted in the US after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, and in Europe after the Chernobyl disaster.

Today's anti-nuclear movement is something entirely different from the noble struggle against military overlords it was in the 50s and 60s. It appears that few actual energy experts support it,[2] though it occasionally does garner the support of prominent scientists from unrelated fields. Currently it is one of the most pervasive pseudoscience and anti-technology phenomenons, stronger than the anti-GMO movement.

Contents

Plausible anti-nuclear arguments

Nuclear power is expensive

Anti-nukes say that nuclear power is very expensive and therefore uneconomical. Also common are claims that it survives only because of government subsidy - this is examined later.

In absolute terms nuclear power is indeed expensive. Costs of a new reactor are measured in billions of dollars. It is also expensive when compared in terms of dollars per kilowatt of capacity - from 1600$/kW to over 7000$/kW depending on the technology and location. The picture changes when talking in terms of levelized cost of electricity. Because of the long operating life of reactors (currently 60 years[3]), high capacity factor and low cost of fuel, nuclear comes out comparable to coal and less expensive than PV or wind, but more expensive than natural gas when gas prices are low.[4]

It is worth noting that the cost of building nuclear power plants is inflated by nuclear exceptionalism enshrined in law, though it's unclear to what extent.

A variation of the above. Anti-nuke groups say that nuclear waste is uniquely dangerous, remains deadly for centuries / millennia / (invent your own number of zeros), and cannot be safely contained. Furthermore no country has constructed a final repository for either commercial spent nuclear fuel or high level waste yet. The two are often confused and those who do not know the difference often mistakenly believe that the smaller quantities of the latter constitute the entirety of the problem of dealing with very radioactive wastes.

Vast amounts of commercial spent nuclear fuel have been accumulated with the boundless optimism that some solution will be found by somebody sometime in the future. (So lets let them worry about it). According to the Department of Energy, the 103 licensed nuclear reactors in the U.S. produced 47.023.4 million metric tons of commercial spent nuclear fuel between 1968 and 2002. (See U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration, Spent Nuclear Fuel Data, Detailed United States as of December 31, 2002, at [http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/spent_ fuel/ussnfdata.html]. Most of that toital is stored at reactor sites awaiting some sort of disposal as (no doubt at public expense). Smaller amounts of high level nuclear waste is waste accumulated largely from nuclear weapons production by the Department of Energy (and the former Atomic Energy Commission) at the nuclear weapons facilities at the Hanford, Washignton, Idaho National Laboratories, and Savannah River locations.

Suggested options for reducing the problem include the following:

Reprocessing can dramatically reduce the lifetime of nuclear waste - from 10 000 years[5] to about 300.
Certain designs of reactors that are not cost effective yet, but known to be practical, can reuse the waste as fuel, because it still contains around 95% of its energy.

Note however that these carry no measure of woo-nocity because they are as yet unproven or uneconomic technologies.

Not enough people to operate the reactors

This isn't used often by the anti-nukes. Due to a long period of unpopularity, there is a generation gap in the skills and expertise required to construct, maintain and operate nuclear power plants. An expansion of nuclear power would therefore require large investments in education and training.

Bogus anti-nuclear arguments

ZOMG RADIATION!!!

Typical reactions.

Anti-nuclear organizations usually maintain that even the lowest dose of radiation is harmful. This is a somewhat distorted interpretation of the linear no-threshold hypothesis, which says that health effects of ionizing radiation are directly proportional to the dose, and vanish only at zero dose. The hypothesis appears to be disproved by several studies and some scientific bodies reject it, but for now we'll assume it is true.

The problem with this argument is that absolutely everything on Earth is slightly naturally radioactive, and even with no nuclear power, people would be exposed to small doses of radiation. This is called background radiation (not to be confused with cosmic microwave background) and varies considerably from place to place. The usual background dose is 3 mSv per year, but there are considerable variations; many places have higher levels of about 10 mSv/year, and record spot can have up to 240 mSv/year. These variations do not cause any statistically significant differences in cancer rates or other radiation-related illnesses between low- and high-radiation areas. The dose from normally operating nuclear power plants is many orders of magnitude smaller than the variations in the background, so logically the minuscule additional dose is completely harmless.

Nuclear waste disposal is an unsolved, perhaps unsolvable problem

A variation of the above. Anti-nuke groups say that nuclear waste is uniquely dangerous, remains deadly for centuries / millennia / (invent your own number of zeros), and cannot be safely contained. Furthermore no country has constructed a final repository for either commercial spent nuclear fuel or high level waste yet. The two are often confused and those who do not know the difference often mistakenly believe that the smaller quantities of the latter constitute the entirety of the problem of dealing with very radioactive wastes.

Vast amounts of commercial spent nuclear fuel have been accumulated with the boundless optimism that some solution will be found by somebody sometime in the future. (So lets let them worry about it). According to the Department of Energy, the 103 licensed nuclear reactors in the U.S. produced 47.023.4 million metric tons of commercial spent nuclear fuel between 1968 and 2002. (See U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration, Spent Nuclear Fuel Data, Detailed United States as of December 31, 2002, at [http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/spent_ fuel/ussnfdata.html]. Most of that toital is stored at reactor sites awaiting some sort of disposal as (no doubt at public expense). Smaller amounts of high level nuclear waste is waste accumulated largely from nuclear weapons production by the Department of Energy (and the former Atomic Energy Commission) at the nuclear weapons facilities at the Hanford, Washignton, Idaho National Laboratories, and Savannah River locations.

Suggested options for reducing the problem include the following:

  • Reprocessing can dramatically reduce the lifetime of nuclear waste - from 10 000 years[6] to about 300.
  • Certain designs of reactors that are not cost effective yet, but known to be practical, can reuse the waste as fuel, because it still contains around 95% of its energy.

Note however that these carry no measure of woo-nocity because they are as yet unproven or uneconomic technologies.

More: Nuclear waste

Terrorists will hurt us

Anti-nuclear groups claim that nuclear power stations are vulnerable to terrorist attack. Armed assault on the plant or a plane crash is the usual scenario.

Terrorists assaulting a nuclear power plant would have a tough job, because the guards are armed with automatic weapons and are trained to withstand attack from multiple groups coordinating with each other. Slamming an aircraft into it would probably cause a lot of damage, but would not destroy the reactor, because its containment building is essentially a very sturdy bunker designed to withstand airplane hits, missiles and earthquakes.[7]

There is a related issue of terrorists stealing something very radioactive and spreading it in a city using explosives. This is not very dangerous, but would have a giant psychological impact, because many people are mortally afraid of anything radioactive. See: dirty bombs.

Nuclear power will lead to nuclear proliferation

Nuclear reactors produce a small amount of plutonium during their operation. This plutonium can be extracted and reused as fuel. However, plutonium is also the material used in most nuclear bombs. Therefore, say the activists, more nuclear power, and more nuclear reprocessing in particular, will naturally lead to more nuclear weapons. And we wouldn't want that. A more extravagant version is that "nuclear power industry is a fig leaf on the nuclear weapons industry".

The main flaw with this argument is that there are different kinds of plutonium, varying in their isotopic composition, and they have vastly different weapons potential. Nuclear weapons typically require plutonium that is at least 93% 239Pu. To obtain it, rods made of 238U (aka depleted uranium) have to sit in the reactor for only 30 days. Longer irradiation causes a buildup of 240Pu and 242Pu, which are not fissile. Typically, nuclear fuel sits inside a power reactor for five years. The plutonium in spent fuel has only about 60% 239Pu. It also contains up to 1% of 238Pu, which emits large quantities of heat and gamma radiation. This is completely useless for weapons.[8]

It is possible that very elaborate weapon designs could make even reactor-grade plutonium explode. However, this has never been achieved in practice, and it would be a challenge even for existing nuclear powers. It would be absurd for a proliferant state to spend its resources on a very dubious route of obtaining nuclear weapons, when there are more affordable ways that are known to work. Those include constructing a plutonium production reactor or using high enriched uranium.

There are some civilian technologies that do have genuine proliferation potential. Uranium enrichment is one of them, which is why enrichment facilities are closely controlled by international bodies. Another possible route are research reactors, which are designed for easy insertion and removal of samples. India has manufactured some weapons-grade plutonium in a research reactor called CIRUS, supplied by Canada. Yet another possibility are obsolete dual-use reactors, such as Magnox or RBMK, which have on-line refueling systems. However, none exist outside of states that already have the bomb - the last RBMK outside of Russia (Ignalina in Lithuania) was closed at the end of 2009.

It should be noted that none of the countries that have obtained nuclear weapons so far did it using existing civilian infrastructure. In fact, none of them had any at the time their first weapons were built. As of 2010, 26 nations have nuclear power stations but no nuclear weapons; 2 have nuclear weapons but no nuclear power.

Reactors will explode

The Chernobyl disaster was no doubt a very severe accident, with wide reaching consequences. Anti-nuclear groups claim that any reactor can explode just like Chernobyl and render a large area uninhabitable for many centuries.

This ignores the following facts:

  • The Chernobyl reactor design, called RBMK, was very different from reactors used in other countries. For example, it had no real containment building. Nobody is proposing building more of them.
  • The accident was a product a massive pile-up of screwups that would be unthinkable with today's technology and strict safety regulations, which had been excluded from and/or disregarded in the Soviet Union for the sake of official secrecy.[citation needed]
  • Every remaining reactor of this type has been modified to prevent this scenario from happening.
  • Chernobyl area is not a dead zone. In fact, it's more like a wildlife preserve.[9]

Uranium will run out soon

Super condensed answer: it will not run out anytime soon, even if many new reactors are constructed. The current reserves are good for several decades; there has been very little exploration for uranium more expensive than 80$/kg; and if the price becomes sufficiently high, tapping the vast reserve of uranium in the seawater becomes economically feasible.

See: Peak uranium

Nuclear is unfairly subsidized

Anti-nukes say that nuclear power would make zero economic sense were it not for massive subsidies and tax breaks given to it by the government. If the subsidy was removed, they say, renewables would quickly displace nuclear power and fossil fuels.

A quick look at the numbers indicates that there's little more to this claim than the usual persecution complex. In the US, the total amount of market subsidies for nuclear over the years 1950-2006 were comparable to those given to hydro and twice as big as those for non-hydro renewables. However, nuclear power produced far more energy than either of them, so renewables received much more money in terms of dollars per unit of produced energy. Over the period 1994-2003, federal R&D expenditure for non-hydro renewables was two times higher than for nuclear.[10]

Nuclear can't be built fast enough to make a difference

Here the claim is that nuclear power plants are slow to build, so they will be late to the party and fail to avert catastrophic climate change.

This is true when one considers current construction rates in the West. However, the required build rates are comparable to the highest historic rates. To replace all fossil fuel electricity with nuclear power and not be late, we would need to construct 3000 new reactors over 60 years, which is equivalent to 50 GW per year or one new 1 GW reactor per week. The highest historical rate of construction was 34 GW per year.[11] And this was before the industrialization of China.

There is a supply bottleneck for pressure vessels

One of the more advanced arguments is that pressure vessels for modern nuclear reactors are very large and can only be forged by only a few manufacturers. Sometimes the claim is that only Japan Steel Works can do it, and it has a capacity of only four vessels per year.

The current capacity for large forgings might be insufficient, which is mainly because there was a stagnation during the 80s and it made little sense to invest in heavy forging capacity that would be unused. It doesn't mean that new forging capacity can't be quickly installed if needed. Despite the long lull in nuclear construction there are several suppliers for the heaviest components: Japan Steel Works, China First Heavy Industries, and OMX Izhora (Russia). New manufacturing capacity is being built in Korea, France and India.[12]

It should also be said that there is some truth in the JSW bottleneck claim, but it is only relevant to the EPR design by Areva. Making its pressure vessel requires a forging press capable of taking 600-ton steel ingots. Currently the throughput is four vessels per year, but JSW intends to double this soon. Other designs require smaller forgings, which are available from multiple suppliers, and some - such as CANDU - do not require them at all.[13] Therefore the lack of manufacturing capacity is unlikely to pose any significant problems.

Effects of the movement

While the movement is rarely successful in shutting down existing plants (though it has happened a few times), it is quite effective in preventing new plants from being built and imposing absurd regulations embodying nuclear exceptionalism. This exacerbates global warming, because when new baseload demand cannot be provided by nuclear power, new coal power plants are built - not wind or solar power as the anti-nuclear groups imagine.

Important anti-nuclear groups and people

  • Austria[14]
  • Alec Baldwin
  • Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
  • Helen Caldicott
  • European Union[15]
  • Friends of Earth
  • Germany[16]
  • Greenpeace
  • International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
  • Jan Willem Storm van der Leeuwen
  • Amory Lovins
  • National Resources Defence Council
  • Nuclear Information and Resource Service
  • Rocky Mountain Institute
  • Sortir du nucléaire
  • Sierra Club
  • Union of Concerned Scientists
  • World Wildlife Fund, aka World Wide Fund for Nature

Notable defectors

Note: this only lists people who were high-profile anti-nukes but then regained sanity.

  • Stewart Brand
  • Mark Lynas[17]
  • Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace)
  • Stephen Tindale (former director of Greenpeace)[18]

Footnotes

  1. CTBT is not actually in force, but breaking its terms by any country would cause a big fuss.
  2. http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter4.html - a survey from 1980, just after TMI, shows that 95% of energy experts and 100% of nuclear experts supported the development of nuclear energy.
  3. It's hard to say what the real operating life of reactors will be. Reactors built in the 70s are now expected to operate for 60 years. They might work for 80 or 100 years, but don't know yet, because nuclear power is only 53 years old.
  4. WNA: Nuclear Power Costs
  5. This is the time it takes for spent fuel to become less radioactive than the ore it was produced from. Anti-nuclear groups usually do something different: take the half-life of the longest lived isotope and multiply it by 10 (which is a misapplication of a rule of thumb for short-lived isotopes), or just make up a large number.
  6. This is the time it takes for spent fuel to become less radioactive than the ore it was produced from. Anti-nuclear groups usually do something different: take the half-life of the longest lived isotope and multiply it by 10 (which is a misapplication of a rule of thumb for short-lived isotopes), or just make up a large number.
  7. Video of an F-4 fighter plane crashing into a nuclear containment building wall. Larger planes don't do much more damage, because their airframes absorb more energy on impact.
  8. Depleted Cranium: Why you can't build a bomb from spent fuel
  9. BBC News: Wildlife defies Chernobyl radiation
  10. Issues in Science and Technology: The U.S. Energy Subsidy Scorecard
  11. David MacKay, Sustainable energy - without the hot air, page 171
  12. Nuclear Engineering International: New nuclear build – sufficient supply capability?
  13. The pressure vessel in CANDUs is composed of a multitude of small tubes, which can be manufactured using more common industrial methods.
  14. One of only 2 countries prohibiting civilian nuclear energy; the other one is Uruguay.
  15. EU has a track record of requiring closure of Soviet-built nuclear power plants as a condition of accession. In one particularly egregious case of blind stupidity, Bulgaria was forced to close four of its six reactors, even though IAEA specialists determined that there is absolutely no rational reason closing two of those and the public was overwhelmingly in favor of continuing their operation. See: [1]
  16. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf43.html
  17. http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2010/01/nuclear-power-lynas-greens
  18. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/nuclear-power-yes-please-1629327.html
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support