Four Seasoned Nuclear Scientists Endorse Nuclear Energy Push by Four Climate Scientists

Nuclear Power’s Role in Responding to Climate Change
Andrew C. Kadak, Richard A. Meserve, Neil E. Todreas, Richard Wilson
January 22, 2014
On November 17th, 2013, four internationally recognized climate scientists issued a plea to
fellow environmentalists that nuclear energy needs to be a part of the global climate change
solution. https://plus.google.com/104173268819779064135/posts/Vs6Csiv1xYr
We join them and others who recognize the need to reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.
Although electric generation from solar and wind can play a role in meeting future energy needs,
their intermittency means they are not scalable to the level needed to meet the world’s energy
needs without significant gains in storage technology. However, as we elaborate below, nuclear
power can deliver electric power in a sufficiently safe, economical and secure manner to
supplement supply from other carbon-free sources.
Safety
Today there are 100 nuclear power plants operating in the United States supplying close to 20%
of the electricity needs. Worldwide 432 reactors provide electricity to 32 nations. Sixteen nations
receive over 25% of their electric energy needs from nuclear power safely and reliably without
CO2 emissions that threaten the planet. In total, the nuclear industry has accumulated over 14,500
cumulative years of civil reactor operational experience since the first commercial nuclear plants
were built over 60 years ago.
There have been three serious accidents that challenged the safety record of nuclear power: the
Three Mile Island (TMI) accident in 1979, the Chernobyl accident in 1986, and the tsunamiinduced Fukushima accident in 2011. The presidential commission (the Kemeny commission)
appointed to investigate the TMI accident reported that the major effect on heath, fortunately
short lived, was the stress on people both evacuated and not evacuated. In all these accidents
there were no immediate public fatalities and only at Chernobyl were there workforce fatalities
(28) arising from radiation exposure. The increased incidence of thyroid cancer arising from the
Chernobyl accident had two major causes: the silencing of those advising children not to drink
milk and the authorities’ failure to restrict distribution of dairy products immediately after the
accident. Additional health effects, if any, from all these accidents to either workers or the
affected public are predicted to be a non-detectable increment (3-4%) above the normal
background level of cancer mortality in the general population. These small effects should be
compared with the significant number of deaths from other energy generating technologies, such
as natural gas accidents or health impacts caused by air pollution from coal plants.
The operating and safety record of US operating plants has improved steadily since 1979. Today
the plants typically perform near 90% of their maximum potential. No serious incidents have
occurred in the US since that at Three Mile Island, due largely to applying the lessons learned
from that accident. The plants are continually upgraded to meet the ever more stringent safety
standards and expectations of the nuclear industry. As a result of the terrorist attack on the US on
September 11, 2001, the nuclear industry modified the plants to handle terrorist attacks of all

1

types, including aircraft impact. These modifications have made the nuclear plants capable of
providing electricity and cooling water to important systems at the plant, regardless of the
availability of traditional sources of power and cooling water. This record of improvement
continues today with additional capabilities being installed to deal with extreme natural disasters
such as the one experienced at Fukushima.
The nuclear industry is one of the most highly regulated industries in the world. In the United
States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has at least two resident inspectors at each power
reactor overseeing operations and maintenance. NRC staff monitors the performance of the
plants and provide the results in reports available to all at the NRC website (www.nrc.gov). This
oversight should provide the public with further assurance of the safety of US operating plants.
Cost
A nuclear power plant is a long-term investment which can last from 40 to 60 years (the license
granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission). It is widely recognized that nuclear plants are
more costly to build than natural gas and coal plants. However, because of the relative
insensitivity of the fuel cost to the price of electricity, the cost of power from nuclear plants is
more predictable over the long term than that of fossil fuels. This is the real advantage of nuclear
energy – namely, a predictable and nonvolatile cost of electricity for consumers.
The average production cost of electricity from existing nuclear plants (excluding the capital
cost, which is paid off at this point for most reactors) is 2.4 cents/kWhr in 2012. On average, this
is less than the production cost of electricity from natural gas or coal. Of course, some plants
have costs above the average and operate in regions with extraordinarily low gas prices.
Recently two nuclear plants have shutdown as a result. The low price of natural gas may force
other less competitive plants to shutdown based on local market conditions. But overall, most of
the fleet remains competitive even in a period of remarkably low gas prices.
The anticipated capital cost of new advanced nuclear plants such as the US-developed AP 1000
pressurized water reactor is about $7 Billion. Four such plants are currently under construction in
Georgia and South Carolina, which are due to start up in 2017–2020. Despite this high capital
cost, the long-term cost of power is estimated to be 8.4 cents/kWhr, which is competitive with
natural gas prices of $9.5/MMBtu. Although this break-even cost may be higher than the current
price of natural gas, the stability in the cost of nuclear electricity provides an important hedge
against future price increases in natural gas, as well as protection from supply interruptions.
And, of course, the cost of electricity from natural gas plants does not include any recognition of
the carbon emissions that they produce.
The cost of natural gas is very volatile. In 2009 before the shale gas findings it was about
$13/MMBtu and gas in Europe today costs about three times the US price of about $4/MMBtu.
If the US becomes a major gas exporter, the price of gas in the US will rise toward the world
price, with the attendant rise in cost of gas generated power. An important feature of nuclear
power is that it will weather the price vulnerability of fossil fuel plants and is considerably
cheaper than highly subsidized wind and solar power projects, which must overcome the

2

vagaries of wind and the daily unavailability of sunlight to make a major contribution to
electrical supply.
Waste Management
Nuclear waste management or disposal is often cited as an objection to building more new
nuclear plants. The nuclear waste is classified into two main categories from operating reactors –
low-level waste and used nuclear fuel, often referred to as high-level waste. At present both are
safely and effectively managed. Low-level nuclear waste is disposed of at federally and state
licensed disposal facilities in monitored land burial sites. The activity of this waste typically lasts
less than 300 years due to radioactive decay (a natural process that leads to non-radioactive
materials).
The high-level waste in the form of used nuclear fuel is temporarily stored at reactor sites in used
fuel storage pools or in dry casks in shielded concrete canisters. Some believe that this used fuel
is a resource that could be reprocessed in the future to provide more fuel for reactors, since not
all of the energy value is consumed in the initial period of reactor operation. The French policy,
as well as that of several other nations, is to reprocess this fuel not only to produce more fuel and
but also as a part of a high-level waste management strategy to make its ultimate disposal much
less challenging by reducing its content of very long lived radioactive isotopes.
An early international consensus based on a US National Academy of Sciences report of 1957 is
that geological disposal, regardless of waste form (used fuel or reprocessed waste), is the
preferred final state for high-level waste. One properly designed repository will be able to handle
all the high-level waste for all US operating reactors for their lifetime. The scientific studies for
the US Yucca Mountain Repository Project did not change this preference, but its abandonment
led to the formation of the “Blue Ribbon Commission,” which was asked to recommend a path
forward for the disposition of used fuel. The Commission’s recommendation was to proceed with
centralized interim storage of spent fuel and a “consensus” process to site a new repository(s), an
approach included in current bipartisan waste legislation in the Senate. Several other nations are
already proceeding with their geological repositories. The current leaders are Sweden and
Finland; both have selected a site and are developing detailed designs for used fuel disposal.
These efforts, while still uncompleted, are well on track to a successful resolution. At the same
time, a geological disposal site for transuranic waste arising from defense programs (a form of
high-level waste) near Carlsbad, New Mexico, is successfully operating.
Proliferation Risk
Nuclear power does involve proliferation risk because of the possibility that enrichment and
spent fuel processing capabilities could be used for development of weapons materials. This
threat is currently managed through international treaties and the conduct of inspection
programs. The risk may be amenable to future reduction by technological developments;
research is ongoing to develop advanced reactors which can drastically limit the enrichment
capacity needed for civil nuclear power, as well to develop reprocessing technology that will
produce materials that are much less desirable for weapons utilization. Current light water cooled
power reactors, which are the type needed for substantial expansion of civilian nuclear power,

3

are not easily modified for production of the plutonium most suitable for weapons.
While a commercial nuclear power program can be used to mask the initial stages of a covert
nuclear weapons program, weapons development by all countries including the United States,
France, United Kingdom, Russia, China, India, South Africa, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel,
has been done independently of, and usually prior to, a commercial nuclear power program.
Additionally a rogue nation such as North Korea can develop a nuclear weapon without
developing nuclear power reactors for electricity production. For these reasons we do not agree
that proliferation risk is a compelling basis upon which to oppose the deployment of civil nuclear
power plants. The reality that nuclear power is already widespread suggests that continuing
efforts are appropriate to strengthen the international regime to control proliferation.
Life Cycle Emissions Analysis
There have been numerous studies conducted about the life cycle impact of various technologies
in terms of CO2 emissions. When compared on an equal basis, nuclear energy (including all
aspects of mining, construction, operation and decommissioning of power facilities) ranks as one
of the lowest overall emitters of CO2. The figure below from the International Panel on Climate
Change provides this comparison and shows that nuclear energy is indeed a “green” source of
power.

The Future
Today advanced nuclear power stations are being deployed worldwide based on proven light
water reactor technology. New light water reactor designs are under development which will
provide further enhanced safety and security features. Additionally, there are new innovative
reactors being developed. Most are small modular reactors employing not only water coolants,

4

but also helium gas, molten salts, and liquid metals with improved safety performance based on
inherent design safety features. (One such design – the high temperature pebble bed heliumcooled gas reactor – is now under construction in China and is designed to produce 200 MWe of
power.)
Conclusion
The energy needs of the world are large and growing. The one billion people that do not even
have access to electricity cannot be denied the ability to improve their quality of life. Nuclear
energy provides a scalable, clean source of safe power which, with other clean energy sources,
can meet the world’s needs in a sustainable manner. We applaud and support the efforts of the
climate scientist authors of the originally cited letter, Drs. Caldeira, Emanuel, Hansen, and
Wigley, for bringing the issue of the need for nuclear power to the world environmental
community and policy leaders.
Sincerely,

Andrew C. Kadak
Former President of the American Nuclear Society and Member of the US Nuclear Waste
Technology Review Board

Richard A. Meserve
President of the Carnegie Institution for Science and a former Chairman of the US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission

Neil E. Todreas
Korea Electric Power Company Professor (emeritus) and a former Chairman of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering

Richard Wilson
Mallinckrodt Research Professor of Physics (emeritus) and a former Chairman of the Harvard
University Department of Physics

5

Four Seasoned Nuclear Scientists Endorse Nuclear Energy Push by Four Climate Scientists

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Four Seasoned Nuclear Scientists Endorse Nuclear Energy Push by Four Climate Scientists

Similaire à Four Seasoned Nuclear Scientists Endorse Nuclear Energy Push by Four Climate Scientists (20)

Plus de Earth Institute of Columbia University

Plus de Earth Institute of Columbia University (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Four Seasoned Nuclear Scientists Endorse Nuclear Energy Push by Four Climate Scientists