Shrader-Frechette.qxp 17/8/09 11:28 Page 58
Nuclear
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Nuclear Energy
a report by
Kristin Shrader-Frechette
O’Neill Family Endowed Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame
Hopes of Using Nuclear Power to Reduce Climate Change proponents such as the US Department of Energy (DOE) state that on
In 2009, a pro-nuclear Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) average over the last seven years, actual US wind prices are 4.8
report claimed that atomic energy is “a practical and timely option for cents/kWh, or more than three times cheaper, than nuclear power. By
deployment at a scale that would constitute a material contribution 2015, long before any commercial reactor could be completed if
to climate change risk mitigation”.
1
Similarly, the Intergovernmental construction were begun in 2009, the DOE says that solar photovoltaic
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted that nuclear power could (PV) energy will cost 5–10 cents/kWh, be economically competitive with
make “an increasing contribution to carbon-free electricity and heat all energy technologies and be far less expensive than commercial
in the future”.
2
fission.
7
Even now, renewable-energy technologies (such as wind),
conservation and efficiencies are all much cheaper than nuclear power.
8
Eager to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs) by curtailing the
use of fossil fuels, many people agree with the MIT and IPCC claims. Of course, a carbon tax could make atomic energy more economically
Consequently, they propose tripling the number of atomic energy competitive with fossil fuels. However, such a tax would not improve
plants from about 450 to 1,000–1,500 globally so that they would nuclear economics compared with those of renewable energy
supply roughly 20% of global electricity by 2050; proponents say technologies such as solar and wind power.
that this is the largest reasonably achievable nuclear expansion.
3
Urging this fission increase, many advocates say that there is a new Citing poor nuclear credit ratings, high nuclear construction costs,
‘nuclear renaissance’.
4
numerous plant cancellations, equipment malfunctions, a competitive
energy market and a long history of reactor cost over-runs and delayed
High Costs Undercut Any Nuclear Renaissance plants, the World Bank,
9
the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Since the beginning of commercial atomic energy in the early 1950s, Development (EBRD),
10
the Asian Development Bank (ADB),
11
the
every nation with reactors has provided massive taxpayer nuclear African Development Bank (AFDB), the European Investment Bank
subsidies that have been far higher than those for other energy (EIB), the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) and most other
technologies.
5
Despite this fact, the MIT report noted that today “there market lenders say nuclear power is ‘uneconomic’; as a matter of
are only few firm commitments” to new nuclear plants, mainly in China, policy, most refuse nuclear loans or investments.
12
Consequently, all
India and Korea; in the US, “no new nuclear units have begun nations who seek fission-generated electricity must heavily subsidise it.
construction” since the completion of the last reactors, ordered in Credit-rating companies also say they downgrade the ratings of any
1974.
1
The World Nuclear Association (WNA), the main industry lobby utilities with nuclear plants; they claim that even large, continuing
group, confirms the fission downturn. It says that global atomic energy taxpayer subsidies may not make commercial reactors economical.
13,14
has been decreasing since the 1990s and, by 2030, nuclear-generated
electricity will decline from 16 to 9% of global electricity.
4
The Emissions Argument for Using Nuclear Power
Besides questions about costs, there is the issue of whether atomic
What can explain the failure of most nations to use increased atomic energy should replace scrubbed coal plants. Is nuclear power a good
energy to help address climate change? One reason may be costs. (low-carbon) way to generate electricity? As noted, the MIT and IPCC
According to credit-rating firms, even if one ignores heavy expenses such reports suggest so. The US DOE, the UK Environment Secretary
as reactor decommissioning, permanent waste storage and full insurance and others make the ‘emissions argument’. They say that atomic
coverage, fission-generated electricity still costs three times more than energy must be tripled because it is ‘carbon-free’.
8,15
Official US
energy from new natural gas plants and two times more than energy government, Nuclear Energy Institute and World Energy Council
from scrubbed coal plants; credit-rating firms say fission-generated documents, respectively, claim that more nuclear power is necessary
electricity costs at least 15 cents/kWhr.
6
However, atomic-energy because it is “clean” and “emission-free”, “does not emit greenhouse
gases” and is “not a source of carbon dioxide”.
16–18
However,
subsequent paragraphs suggest that this argument is erroneous. It
Kristin Shrader-Frechette is the O’Neill Family Endowed Professor at the University of
Notre Dame, where she teaches in the Department of Biological Sciences and the
trims nuclear-related GHGE and ignores analyses showing that
Department of Philosophy. Her research focuses on quantitative (human health) risk
renewable energy technologies produce fewer emissions.
assessment, environmental impact assessment and energy policy. She has written 350
articles that have appeared in journals such as Science, BioScience and Risk Analysis. She
has completed post-doctorate work in three different areas (hydrogeology, economics Trimming Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the
and biology) and holds degrees in mathematics and the philosophy of science.
Nuclear-fuel Cycle
Annually, she and her students take part in about 30 pro bono environmental justice
projects worldwide.
To understand how the emissions argument is erroneous in claiming
that atomic energy is emission-free, one must recognise that the
E: kshrader@ nd.edu
nuclear-fuel cycle has 13 stages: uranium mining, milling, conversion to
58
© TOUCH BRIEFINGS 2009
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84