Environmental Problems, Their Causes, and Sustainability 1

Detonating a dirty bomb at street level or on arooftop does not cause a nuclear blast. But such an explosionand subsequent cancers in a densely populatedcity could kill a dozen to 1,000 people, spread radioactivematerial over several to hundreds of blocks,and contaminate buildings and soil in the affected areafor up to 10 times the half-life of the isotope used.Cleaning up such an area would cost billions of dollars.In addition, detonating a dirty bomb would causeintense psychological terror and panic throughoutmuch of a country. As a result, terrorists would succeedin their primary objective.Since 1986, the NRC has recorded 1,700 incidentsin the United States in which radioactive materialsused by industrial, medical, or research facilities havebeen stolen or lost. And since 1991, the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has detected 671 incidentsof illicit trafficking in dirty-bomb materials.Can We Afford Nuclear Power? BurningMoneyEven with massive government subsidies, thenuclear power fuel cycle is an expensive way toproduce electricity compared to a number ofother energy alternatives.Experience has shown that the nuclear power fuelcycle is an expensive way to produce electricity, evenwhen huge government subsidies partially shieldit from free-market competition with other energysources.In the United States, costs rose dramatically in the1970s and 1980s because of unanticipated safety problemsand stricter regulations after the Three MileIsland and Chernobyl accidents. In 1995, the WorldBank said that nuclear power is too costly and risky.Forbes business magazine has called the failure of theU.S. nuclear power program “the largest managerialdisaster in U.S. business history, involving $1 trillionin wasted investment and $10 billion in direct losses tostockholders.” And the Economist says, “Not one [nuclearpower plant], anywhere in the world, makescommercial sense.”In recent years, the operating costs of many U.S.nuclear power plants have dropped, mostly because ofless downtime. But environmentalists and economistspoint out that the true cost of nuclear power must bebased on the entire nuclear power fuel cycle, notmerely the operating cost of individual plants. Accordingto them, when these costs are included the overallcost of nuclear power is very high (even with hugegovernment subsidies) compared to many other energyalternatives.Partly to address cost concerns, the U.S. nuclearindustry hopes to persuade Congress and utility companiesto build hundreds of smaller second-generationplants using standardized designs, which they claimare safer and can be built more quickly (in 3–6 years).These advanced light-water reactors (ALWRs) havebuilt-in passive safety features designed to make explosionsor the release of radioactive emissions almostimpossible. However, according to Nucleonics Week, animportant nuclear industry publication, “Experts areflatly unconvinced that safety has been achieved—oreven substantially increased—by the new designs.” Inaddition, these new designs do not eliminate the threatsand the expense and hazards of long-term radioactivewaste storage and power plant decommissioning.Each new plant will cost up to $2 billion. Nuclearpower proponents want Congress to provide the industrywith up to $350 million in taxpayer subsidiesbetween 2004 and 2009 for new advanced reactor startupcosts.Is Breeder Nuclear Fission a FeasibleAlternative? A Failed TechnologyBecause of very high costs and bad safety experienceswith several nuclear breeder reactors, this technologyhas essentially been abandoned.Some nuclear power proponents urge the developmentand widespread use of breeder nuclear fission reactors,which generate more nuclear fuel than they consumeby converting nonfissionable uranium-238 intofissionable plutonium-239. Because breeders woulduse more than 99% of the uranium in ore deposits, theworld’s known uranium reserves would last at least1,000 years, and perhaps several thousand years.However, if the safety system of a breeder reactorfails, the reactor could lose some of its liquid sodiumcoolant, which ignites when exposed to air and reactsexplosively if it comes into contact with water. Thiscould cause a runaway fission chain reaction and perhapsa nuclear explosion powerful enough to blastopen the containment building and release a cloud ofhighly radioactive gases and particulate matter. Leaksof flammable liquid sodium can also cause fires, whichhave happened with all experimental breeder reactorsbuilt so far.In addition, existing experimental breeder reactorsproduce plutonium so slowly that it would take100–200 years for them to produce enough to fuel asignificant number of other breeder reactors. In 1994,the United States ended government-supported researchfor breeder technology after providing about$9 billion in research and development funding.In December 1986, France opened a commercialsizebreeder reactor. It was so expensive to build andoperate that after spending $13 billion, the governmentspent another $2.75 billion to shut it down per-376 CHAPTER 17 Nonrenewable Energy Resources