Nuclear Energy Unsustainable: Won't Mitigate Climate Impacts
by John Laumer, Philadelphia 
on 06.13.05
According to a controversial study...we TreeHuggers always always love a good energy source dust up...the nuclear fuel cycle is a complex process with many steps, some of which consume a large amount of fossil fuel. The corresponding carbon dioxide emissions have been calculated by by Jan Willem Storm Van Leeuwin, a senior consultant in energy systems, together with Philip Smith, a nuclear physicist"..."For high-grade ores the energy inputs are much less than the electricity generated. But, the quantity of known uranium reserves with ore grades richer than this level is so small, that it would only last for a few decades at the current usage rate". Add more nuclear plants for growing economies in China, India, Korea, Iran and so on and the sustainability of nuclear power, by these calculations, looks questionable indeed.
For more common low-grade ores, Van Leeuwin and Smith report that "the total fossil energy consumption associated with uranium mining, milling, enrichment and power station construction is so large that nuclear power emits more carbon dioxide than a gas-fired power station".
This TreeHugger has questions that need to be posed by those who underwrite rebuilt and new nuclear plants to 'save the world' from climate disaster. Ask the designers where the fuel will come from and what it will cost 40 years hence. Inquire as to who will be responsible for cleaning up the uranium mill tailings ponds (graphic above shows existing tailing cleanup sites) that will be dotting the US West once we have to go after the low grade ores? The uranium is there indeed, but in very low concentrations. The fossil fuel needed to benefact it won't be getting any cheaper.
TreeHugger recognizes that different conclusions may be supported with identical or similar data sets. We welcome comments and referencing links from those who see it differently. What's important now is to get the uranium sustainability issue publicly discussed, before some House/Senate markup committee earmarks taxpayer money to support an expansion of nuclear energy on the basis of a claim that it will mitigate climate change.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
Completely agree: also, the new 'cleaner' nuclear technology isn't actually in place anywhere yet. How much more has to be invested to bring it here & how far could that go toward renewables? What would that same money achieve if it was put toward efficiency measures plus micro-generators with salt-cell batteries on individual buildings? The appropriate cost-benefit analysis is the the householder cost of micro energy production v's the *retail* delivery cost of central-produced energy (not the wholesale cost of building a power plant which is often the comparison figure used).
Also, nuclear plants have a history of blowing their budgets, so what is the % allowance for exceeding the budget forecast, including the ultimate costs of dismantling and clean-up. Although 'cleaner nuclear' will produce less radioactive waste, it still has waste to store and apparently the ear-marked sites are unlikely to have adequate capacity. The budget also must include costs of storing and protecting the waste... indefinitely. (Including protective measure against a targeted deep-penetrating missile - nuclear weapons spending is now at a record high, including new earth/mountain penetrating technology).
But look at the corporation donations to govt: international donations to US govt are increasing, including significant monies by British nuclear interests who want the US to accelerate the nuclear research agenda.
We do need to look at the total greenhouse gas cost including uranium mining processes. But most important of all ... has the case study for any power plant considered alternatives to take simple measures that can drastically reduce demand without affecting lifestyles or productive output? Unfortunately there's no financial incentive for industries to support that approach is there?
I agree that we need to be open to consider (and experiment with) alternatives, including nuclear, but apply the precautionary principle and don't rush ahead with a poorly considered strategy (esp when it's funded by vested interests).
A couple of quick thoughts:
- Pebble bed reactors, like China has chosen to implement, would be much safer than existing reactors.
- You don't have to mine more fuel -- we already have all we need from nuclear weapons taken offline. The US has made 70,000 warheads since 1945, and 60,000 are no longer operational and in various stages of disassembly or storage. (Global Nuclear Stockpiles 1942-2002, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) We could also use this opportunity to purchase weapons-grade uranium and plutonium from Russia, removing those hazards from the world.
-The waste dilemma always remains. However, would it be better to store the waste, or the weapons-grade uranium to build bombs?
Whatever the pros/cons of nuclear - how will it stop the burning of fossil fuels? Oil is just too convenient, and alternatives or increased efficiency just mean more oil for those who couldnt care less!
The issue of the 'real' CO2 contribution of nuclear power is becomming very important as the industry tries to use the evidence of global warming as a way to make ' a comeback'. So, it is important that treehugger makes a contribution, a contraversial contribution, to this growing 'debate'. However the research referred to here cannot be followed up in the usual way as there is no referecne to where the study of Smith and van Leewing was published (wasit published). Where did this come from. If treehugger really wants to stimulate debate it should give references to go to the original work.
Thank you for your wise comment. Apparently the cited authors are self published (web site media) only on this topic. HOwever,the link in this post take you not only to their publication on nuclear fuel but to additional links that take you to detailed curriculum vitea with other publications listed and to a full explanatiion of their data sources. This is far more depth and background than you would find in most online vanity posts originating from the parties that will be taking the opposite view: e.g. the various think tanks and "astro-turf" groups fronting for right wing extremists or vested interests. I did check into the background of the authors prior to posting and was unable to find any such affiliation with political or vested interest groups. They appear to be doing this out of academic or personal interest.
At a more general level, what they are doing is not really a matter of science. Rather it is a matter of resource management. Not a topic likely to be given a spot in a peer reviewed journal. It is the same for studies of the depletion rates of coal or oil reserves or any other natural resourcee. The best one could expect would be to find a publication paid for and published by a US government agency such as the USDOE or USGS, counting on the professional credentials of the project manager to conduct appropriate reviews.
Third party study of uranium reserve sustainability is made difficult by the circumstance that uranium plays a role in bomb making, and would be treated as confidential, and that uranium extraction is done by a mixture of public and private entities. Presumably the nuclear industry itself is a source of some information. It seems unlikely that they would proactively publish peer reviwed research on such a topic. Perhaps subsequent coomments here will prove this assumption wrong.
you know. Wouldn't you mine a fuel that produces no GHG's when it's being burned, rather than a fuel that creates smokestacks, acid rain, smog, etc? Of course I'm referring to coal being the fuel that has to be dug up anyway.
you know. Wouldn't you mine a fuel that produces no GHG's when it's being burned, rather than a fuel that creates smokestacks, acid rain, smog, etc? Of course I'm referring to coal being the fuel that has to be dug up anyway.
Would you rather be tortured by having your fingernails removed or be boiled in acid?
Right - you'd rather enjoy a day in the park.
There's more than two options on the table.