Comparison of Nuclear Running head: COMPARISION OF NUCLEAR AND COAL

Comparison of Nuclear, Coal, and Other Forms of Energy Kurt Woolner Western Governors University

Comparison of Nuclear Abstract While coal and other fossil fuels continue to expand in use, nuclear power has reached near

pariah status in the U.S. Despite common beliefs to the contrary, nuclear power has proven itself to be safe, environmentally friendly, and economical compared to other forms of power generation. Coal, on the other hand, has very serious environmental and health consequences which have been publicly discussed, but largely ignored in policy decisions. A survey conducted for this paper demonstrates the general lack of knowledge of the public on the health and environmental consequences on the issues of energy production. The misunderstanding of these two critical energy sources must be addressed so our society can continue to grow and thrive into the future.

Comparison of Nuclear

Since the discovery of fire, human development has been linked to the development of energy sources beyond his own muscles. Fire and domestic animals raised early standards of living; wind was used to free farm laborers from monotonous work; the industrial age saw coal energy replace human energy for powering machines; and oil became invaluable as modes of transportation modernized in the early 20th century. Nuclear power, most recently, has shown itself to be an energy source with potential far beyond all the power sources ever previously discovered. In fact, a single pound of uranium can produce as much energy as burning 2.7 million pounds of coal (Morris, 2000). Yet despite this, more people object to nuclear power than any other power source (Table 2). Much of the objection to this remarkable technique comes from the idea that the danger to people and the environment is substantially greater than other sources of power. In truth, despite such high profile events as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, power derived from nuclear fission remains a safe, efficient, and environmentally friendly power source as compared to other forms of power. Since coal currently produces nearly half of all the electrical power in the U.S. and also has the greatest reserves left of all the fossil fuels (How Coal Works, 2000), the future energy needs of the U.S. will be met by either coal or nuclear. Because of this, the comparisons below will focus primarily on coal and nuclear with some comments on other sources of power. First, it is necessary to address the objections of people who say that the future belongs to renewable sources, such as wind, solar and hydroelectric. While they show great promise and may someday live up to the expectations we have of them, currently they do not. Wind and solar require both enormous amounts of space, which disrupts local ecosystems; as well as specific types of geography and weather to function. Solar plants in northern latitudes would need to be

Comparison of Nuclear about 50 square miles (a plot of land about 7 miles x 7 miles) in size to produce the same power as a single 1000 MW nuclear or fossil power plant (Morris, 2000). Clearly this is impossible in population dense areas. Hydroelectric can only be built where rivers can be dammed, which destroys the habitat around the river. Loss of power through transmission lines means that any power needs to be generated relatively close to the place it will be used. Because of this, wind

power in Wyoming, for example, cannot be used to power New York City. The very places that need the most power have the least amount of space in which to generate it. Still, these sources should not be dismissed, as the potential for a clean, renewable source of power with minimal waste products is too great to pass up. One of the serious misconceptions of nuclear power is that somehow there is a small nuclear explosion going on in the middle of a reactor. In fact, a nuclear plant does not have enough of the correct isotope (atoms of the same type but different weight) of uranium to ever cause a nuclear explosion (McCarthy, 2004). In most Western-built plants, pellets of uranium are put into fuel assemblies in the reactor core which are then induced to generate heat through fission, the breakdown of atoms. This is regulated by control rods which slow the reaction to whatever is needed to meet the electrical demand. Water surrounding the core is heated and moved to a heat exchanger where a separate enclosed system of water is heated from the first. This prevents the transfer of radiation. The water in the second boils and is used to generate electricity the same way all other power plants do: by driving a turbine. The steam is then condensed and returned to the system. The entire system is fully enclosed, except when spent fuel is replaced. It is true that nuclear reaction produce neutrons which are, without protection and in large quantities, fatal to humans. But it is similarly true that burning coal produces

Comparison of Nuclear extreme heat (fire) which, without protection and in large amounts, is likewise fatal to humans. The difference is the type of shielding required to protect a person from the effects of each. Energy production generates waste. The waste may be gasses emitted from burning fossil fuels, toxic chemicals in solar cells, or radioactive waste from nuclear fission. The issues are: how much waste is generated; how does it affect the environment and human health; and how do we deal with it? In nuclear power, low level waste has very low levels of radiation: usually exposed equipment or minor byproducts of fission. These materials can usually be handled with minimal protection and disposed of easily. High level waste is what most people consider nuclear waste. This is highly radioactive and/or toxic chemicals and spent fuel (Murray, 1994). Coal, also, generates a number of waste products including carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas; sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide, both which contribute to acid rain; and solid coal ash. Carbon dioxide levels, it should be noted, have increased from pre-industrial levels of 280 parts per million (ppm) to 360 ppm currently (Schelling, 1998), largely due to coals predominance. Table 1 shows the remarkable difference between coal and nuclear waste volume

generated to produce 25,000 KWH, which is approximately the amount of electricity an average person in the U.S. consumes every year. For this quantity, the total amount of waste for coal is over 28 tons, while nuclear generates less than one ounce. Indeed, one persons lifetime commitment of nuclear waste could literally be held in the palms their hands. In addition, while water in a nuclear plant is almost entirely self contained, 10 tons of coal heats 157,000 gallons of water an average of 16o which is them dumped into the water supply, potentially disrupting local ecosystems (How Coal Works, 2000). Coal also releases small amounts of highly toxic chemicals such as mercury, arsenic, lead, cadmium and, ironically, uranium into the atmosphere.

Comparison of Nuclear Surprisingly, the amount of radiation released by coal plants through trace elements is greater than those released by nuclear plants1 (Morris, 2000). Coal mining has its own ecological effects (Cohen, 2002). The most common means of coal extraction is through strip mining, which involves the removal of up to 200 feet of a large stretch of the surface to reach the coal. Another strip mining technique literally removes the top of a mountain to extract the coal. Neither technique has claimed much success in land reclamation after the material is removed. Underground mining does not have the obvious surface effects, but it does cause acid drainage into water supplies, making the water unsafe for humans and animals. Coal seam fires in mines are not uncommon, generating air pollution before the coal can even produce a single watt of power. Also, since each 500 MW coal plant must be supplied with 40 coal cars of fuel per day, transport alone is estimated to cause 450 deaths and 6800 injuries per year in accidents in the U.S. (How Coal Works, 2000). While

uranium must still be mined, the amount of material that must be removed is orders of magnitude lower, allowing for far fewer environmental consequences. Disposing high level nuclear waste safely is a problem, but not an insurmountable or even a particularly challenging one. Long term disposal is handled by encapsulating the material in a solid insoluble material sealed in corrosion resistant containers, and isolating the containers underground in geological stable rock formations far from human populations (Murray, 1994). Technically, the odds of an accident or leakage are not zero, but the odds are stacked vastly in favor of nuclear waste containment than the guarantee of massive waste release by the coal industry. The current policy of using Yucca Mountain is highly politically charged but seems to be a safer solution than seabed disposal, ice-sheet disposal or disposal in space (Murray, 1994).

Comparison of Nuclear Beyond the environmental consequences of burning large volumes of coal, there are direct health effects as well. The most serious is the amount of dangerous particulate matter ejected from a plant. Every year an estimated 64,000 die in the U.S. from exposure to tiny particulates generated by coal burning (Clean Air: Dirty Coal Power, 2004). Most come from

respiratory ailments and infections, but heart attack frequency is also increased. By contrast, the waste from nuclear plants is estimated to cause less than 100 deaths per year (Cohen, 2002). One significant difference between coal and nuclear is that the nuclear industry is required to adequately and safely dispose all of its waste material; coal, by contrast, ejects many of its wastes into the atmosphere. A study was undertaken to calculate actual costs per kilowatthour of electricity generated, including internal costs such as investment, fuel cycle, and maintenance; and external costs, including waste, climate change, human impact, and even major accidents. While coal had a marginal advantage in internal costs at $.06/kwh vs. $.064/kwh, once the external costs were factored in, nuclear cost only increase by $.002/kwh to $.0642/kwh, while coal jumped $.031/kwh to $.091/kwh: 40% higher than the cost of nuclear (Radetski, 2000). Also, while projections of fossils fuels shows declining availability, nuclear power with breeder technology2 is estimated to be able to last billions of years (Cohen, 2002). All the previous points have focused around day to day energy production of a nuclear plant. Many of the fears around nuclear power, though, come from the threat of a major catastrophe. There is no question that the Chernobyl disaster, the worst nuclear accident to date, was a tragic event, but the reaction of the Soviets and the world was far more detrimental than the accident itself. A recent study published by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (2000), shows that only 31 deaths can be directly attributable to the accident, while 17 more deaths in the years since the accident are probably

Comparison of Nuclear related. While the report goes on to show an increase of 1,800 cases of thyroid cancer in

children in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, there has been no statistical increase in leukemia, birth defects, stillborns, or other cancers in the general population; in fact, some have declined. While it is possible that more long term health risks will develop over time, UNSCEAR itself gives a reasonably upbeat projection of health effects. 421. Finally, it should be emphasized that although those exposed as children and the emergency and recovery operation workers are at increased risk of radiation induced effects, the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident. For the most part, they were exposed to radiation levels comparable to or a few times higher than the natural background levels, and future exposures are diminishing as the deposited radio-nuclides decay. Lives have been disrupted by the Chernobyl accident, but from the radiological point of view and based on the assessments of this Annex, generally positive prospects for the future health of most individuals should prevail. (UNSCEAR, 2000, p. 517)

Before this report was released, some estimates ranged up to 280,000 long term deaths due to cancer (Makhijani & Saleska, 1999). While the UNSCEAR report clearly contradicts this grim prediction, it does show the level of fear associated with nuclear accidents. Not coincidentally, the most significant effects of Chernobyl have been psychological and economic. Bate (2002) estimates that 200,000 women unnecessarily aborted their pregnancies during this time to avoid the dubious consequences of radiation on their unborn children. UNSCEAR (2000) attributes a dramatic increase in emotional disorders in evacuees to social change and weakened economic conditions brought about by fear of radiation, a situation exaggerated by

Comparison of Nuclear media coverage announcing tens of thousands dead, and hundreds of thousands exposed to dangerous radiation (Bate, 2002). Table 2 shows estimations of the number of people who died due nuclear accidents as vastly higher than reality. About 30% indicated that they no idea how many people had died due to these events. In fact, there have only been 48 deaths attributed to

Chernobyl, and none to Three Mile Island, which demonstrates the level of misinformation in the public consciousness. Terrorism, or the deliberate sabotage of a nuclear plant, is another major concern. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has issued a report (Lyman, 2004) on the effects of a theoretical attack designed to release a large amount of nuclear material at the Indian Point reactor near New York City. According to the study, the number of near term deaths from this facility is 3,500, while long term cancer deaths would total 100,000. This uses the 95th percentile worst case scenario, assuming terrorists would pick an ideal time for their operation, to show the impact of an attack. Considering the report by UNSCEAR on the relatively minor confirmed effects of an actual large scale radiological release at Chernobyl, the numbers from USC are somewhat suspect. Still, this report cannot be dismissed, and we can, and should, use this information to improve our defenses rather than to shut down the plant. A different study conducted by the Electric Power Research Institute (Deterring Terrorism, 2002) concludes that an attack similar to those on 9/11 would not be able to damage any buildings at Western-style nuclear plants to the point of threatening the public. Obviously, we cannot know what will happen with certainty unless such an attack takes place, but even if the projections of the UCS are correct, it would take 1,361 Chernobyl-type failures, or an Indian Point attack every 19 months, to reach the death toll caused, without fanfare, by coal power every year.

Comparison of Nuclear

10

Nuclear power is not perfect. There are many legitimate concerns about the safety of the production, waste disposal, and potential disasters from accidents or terrorism. But when comparing the safety records of fossil fuels against the record of nuclear power, including Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, nuclear is far safer both for the environment and for human health. Add to this the abundance of nuclear fuel, responsible waste disposal, and reliability of nuclear energy, and you have the latest step of the energy ladder, from muscle to wood to coal to oil to the atom. Each step has brought significant revolution in raising our standard of living. Each step has brought us closer to the future.

Comparison of Nuclear Bate, R. (2002, January). Chernobyls Real Victims. Retrieved from Tech Central Station: http://www.techcentralstation.com/012402A.html Dr. Bate provides an interesting summary of the losses involved in the Chernobyl accident. He focuses mostly on the significant consequences stemming from panic and misinformation, instead of the relatively light damage caused by the accident itself.

11

Clean Air: Dirty Coal Power (2004). Retrieved December 30, 2004, from the Sierra Club: http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp The Sierra Club provides some excellent statistics on the dangers of coal power plants. The site includes details on soot, acid rain, and other toxins created by coal plants as well as estimated number of deaths and illnesses per year.

Cohen, B (2002). The Nuclear Power Advantage. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from Environmentalists for Nuclear Power: http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/nuclear_advantage_Cohen.en.ht m Dr. Bernard Cohen is a prolific writer on the subject of nuclear power. He is widely respected in his field and is often referenced by other writers. This article discusses in non-technical terms the comparative effects of nuclear power vs. fossil fuels. He includes information on the estimated impact on life expectancy of various risks.

Deterring Terrorism: Aircraft Crash Impact Analyses Demonstrate Nuclear Power Plants

Comparison of Nuclear

12

Structural Strength (2002, December). Retrieved January 1, 2005, from World Nuclear Association: http://www.world-nuclear.org/opinion/epri.pdf This study, by the Electric Power Research Institute, discusses the consequences of a terrorist attack such as 9/11 on a US power plant. The general conclusion is that US power plants, designed with disaster protection in mind, can withstand the impacts equivalent to jet liners.

How Coal Works (2000, February). Retrieved January 10, 2005, from The Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/CoalvsWind/brief.coal.html This briefing contains excellent information on the different types of coal. It discusses the life cycle of coal from creation, to mining, to waste from burning, to the future of coal.

Lyman, E. (2004, September). Chernobyl on the Hudson?: The Health and Economic Impacts of a Terrorist Attack at the Indian Point Nuclear Plant. Retrieved December 29, 2004, from the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_terrorism/page.cfm?pageID=1508 Lyman discusses the consequences of a large scale radiological release at the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York state. His conclusions are based on the 95th percentile of worst possible conditions. This work has presented an alternate viewpoint to the safety of nuclear plants and represents a large segment of the US population.

Makhijani A. & Saleska S. (1999). The Nuclear Power Deception. New York: The Apex Press

Comparison of Nuclear

13

Makhijani and Saleska present evidence to show that nuclear power plants do not reduce greenhouse gasses nor provide the economic benefits the nuclear industry claims. They also claim that the industry is adding to the nuclear weapon threat around the world. These are beliefs commonly held by the general public and need to be addressed by any agency promoting nuclear power.

McCarthy, J. (2004, August 30). Frequently Asked Questions About Nuclear Energy. Retrieved December 29, 2004, from Stanford University, Formal Reasoning Group: http://wwwformal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html McCarthy has put together a simple Q&A about various aspects of nuclear power. The answers, designed for the general public, avoid the over-technical tone and vocabulary used by scientists for precision.

Morris, R. (2000). The Environmental Case for Nuclear Power: Economic, Medical, and Political Considerations. St. Paul: Paragon House In this book, Morris, a Ph.D. in Science Education, attempts to make the case for replacing fossil fuel power generation with nuclear power. He examines the history and possible futures of power generation from a technical, economic, and political point of view, looking at potential consequences of actions taken. This work is an excellent starting point for anyone looking to understand the large issues involved in energy management.

Murray, R. (1994). Understanding Radioactive Waste (4th ed.). Columbus: Battelle Press

Comparison of Nuclear This work, originally prepared for the Department of Energy (DOE) by Raymond Murray, a professor of nuclear engineering at North Carolina State University, was

14

written as an unbiased report on nuclear waste from creation to disposal, including health and environmental effects. Murrays intent was to create an informative work that could be used by the DOE and interested members of the public without the usual bias and conflict of interest that accompany many writings on nuclear energy.

Nuclear Facts (2004). Retrieved December 30, 2004, from the Nuclear Energy Institute: http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=106 This site discusses the process of nuclear energy production. It includes a variety of facts about nuclear power and plant operations. I have used this a source for the amount of power generated and waste products both generated and saved by use of nuclear power.

Radetzki, M. (2000). Coal or nuclear in new power stations: the political economy of an undesirable but necessary choice. The Energy Journal, 21(1), 135-147. Radetzki compares the costs of both coal and nuclear power including internal costs (e.g. fuel) and external costs (e.g. environmental). He also discusses the public perception of risk and acceptance in each. He concludes that while internal costs are insignificantly different and external costs greatly favor nuclear, much of the public continues to see nuclear as uncertain and therefore risky.

Schelling, T. (1998). The environmental challenges of power generation. The Energy Journal,

Comparison of Nuclear 19(2), 115-124. This paper, delivered at the Kyoto conference in 1997, discusses the history of the

15

science of the greenhouse effect. Coal, as a primary source of CO2 emissions, is the main focus of this work.

UNSCEAR 2000 Report: Annex J: Exposures and Effects of the Chernobyl Accident (2000). Retrieved January 5, 2005, from United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation: http://www.unscear.org/pdffiles/annexj.pdf UNSCEAR has compiled official UN data on deaths, illnesses, and environmental effects of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. Given the wide discrepancy of data from sources with political motivations, this seemed to be the best source for unbiased information.

Comparison of Nuclear Footnotes

1

16

This is not to say that coal releases significant amounts of radiation; in fact, a person

receives 4 times more radiation from elements within their own bodies than they would if they lived at the fence line of a nuclear or coal plant (McCarthy, 2004; Morris, 2000).
2

Breeder reactors are designed to generate more fissionable material as they run. They

can use the far more abundant U238 as fuel, and in doing so generate Pu239, which is another fissionable fuel (Morris, 2000). This is a case where the fuel output is greater than the fuel input, as long as we can continue to extract U238 from the earths crust and oceans.

Comparison of Nuclear Table 1 Waste Created to Generate 25,000 KWH of Electricity Fuel Required Coal 20,000 lbs (10 tons) Uranium (4% enriched) .02 lbs

17

Waste Generated CO2 Sulfur dioxide Nitrous oxide Ash/ Sludge 25.9 tons 140 lbs 142 lbs 2.2 tons Low level waste High level waste 1.06 cm3 .021 lbs (< 1 cm3)

(How Coal Works, 2000; Murray, 1994; Nuclear Facts, 2004)

Comparison of Nuclear Table 2 Survey on Public Awareness of Energy Safety and Cost Question: Rank the following types of power plants in terms of safety/ cost effectiveness: Safety scale: 1 = extremely safe, 5 = adequate, 9 = extremely dangerous Cost scale: 1 = extremely expensive, 5 = average, 9 = extremely expensive Listed from Greatest Cost to Least Nuclear Gas Petroleum Coal Hydroelectric Other renewables 6.0 6.0 5.4 4.6 4.6 4.5

18

Listed from Greatest Danger to Least Nuclear Coal Gas Petroleum Hydroelectric Other renewables 7.0 5.8 5.4 4.7 2.0 1.8

Question: Estimate the number of deaths caused in the US each year by each of the following sources of power (including emissions, waste products, plant accidents, and environmental effects): Source Coal Nuclear Petroleum Gas Hydroelectric Renewables Lowest Estimate 12 0 10 10 0 0 Median 100 20 50 50 5 5 Highest Estimate 2500 450 500 1000 100 100 Average Estimate 670 90 125 331 19 20

Comparison of Nuclear

19

Question: Estimated number of deaths caused to date by the following events: Event Lowest Estimate 5 115 Median 500 10,000 Highest Estimate 10,000 150,000 Average Estimate 1,983 24,600

Three Mile Island (1979) Chernobyl (1986)

Twenty-eight percent of respondents said they had no idea how many died from Chernobyl, while 33 percent said the same about Three Mile Island.

Question: If you could eliminate the use of one or two of the preceding types of power plants, which would you chose and why? Question: If you could expand use of one or two of the preceding types of power plants, which would you chose and why? Eliminate Source Nuclear Coal Gas Petroleum Hydroelectric Other renewables Percent of Respondents 84 68 10 8 0 0 Source Nuclear Coal Gas Petroleum Hydroelectric Other renewables Expand Percent of Respondents 0 12 0 0 42 91