[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: My $0.02 Re: Just barely off topic: Can Nuclear Energy ever be "sustainable?"

Thanks Scott for the question and what interesting replies.  Rather than barely on topic I think this is a pressing frontal issue.
As the extraction, processing, use and dissemination of radioactive materials increases the incidence of damage to reproductive systems (man-made contributions have already doubled average background, not to mention horrific hot-spots around military, testing and industrial sites) of all life-forms, it is hard to imagine how this can be considered a sustainable direction to be going in.  Life began on this earth when radiation levels dropped low enough to allow for stable development.  The single-celled animals which provide the base for all food chains have no protection from radiation. 
Our history of uses of these materials does not provide any confidence that that level would come down or even remain where it is.  This counts for fusion, too, which creates radioactive materials by induced radiation, (even though it doesn't use uranium raw materials).  We should not assume perfect engineering systems and accident-less practices.  We should assume the real world, which has seen an industry which looks for uses for wastes, (to avoid the costs of disposal), which sends slightly radioactive clothing to be laundered, and which emits small amounts to the air in normal operations.  Think of persistent, bioaccumulating and toxic chemicals - we do not regard the continued use and release of these to be sustainable in any way.  Why do we give DNA-disrupting materials a pass?  The effect of continuous use and dispersion of radioactive materials will lead to a gradually increasing level of background radiation and an increasing number and extent of contaminated areas.  Hard to see how that could be sustainable unless you assume perfect closed-loop operations.  Besides the difficulty of assuming perfect operations, the loop is nowhere near being closed, and the only way to close it involves serious transportation risks as well as sacrifice zones. 
But if that isn't enough, and the fact that nuclear power is inextricably linked to the increased risk of nuclear war, because it does make it so much easier to get materials for bombs, and it does maintain a core of available nuclear expertise; just think about how it works.  It is a very very hot pot.  It involves large amounts of water or air for cooling.  Is this what we need to deal with a warming earth?  Every summer now we have seen nuclear plants being shut down because they cannot draw cooling water...the rivers they discharge into are already too hot.  This is clear handwriting on the wall concerning the suitability of this technology for our greenhouse world.  We need "cool" technologies, not hot ones. 

From: owner-p2tech@great-lakes.net [mailto:owner-p2tech@great-lakes.net] On Behalf Of Rick Yoder
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 4:41 PM
To: Butner, R Scott
Cc: P2 Tech list serve; Patrick Wheeler; Andrew Jameton; Christopher Decker; Brady D Beecham
Subject: My $0.02 Re: Just barely off topic: Can Nuclear Energy ever be "sustainable?"

Going Nuclear?
“This is where the summer ends…”  - Ryan Adams


Thanks for raising the issue.  I copied some others who might be interested in commenting.  Until now I have paused long enough on this question only to do a gut check, with the result being a dope slap upside the head, exclaiming, “No!”  Like most people, I generally trust much to unconscious thinking; I appreciate this excuse to consider the subject just a bit more, for my own understanding if nothing else.   But just because I needed to work through this doesn’t mean that it will be useful to you. I focused mostly on framing; I find myself wishing I had the time to paw through the research some….

With regards to your question, “Can Nuclear Energy ever be ‘sustainable?’”:  

1)  Definitions:   In contrast to the Brundtland Commission’s positive-sounding description of desired outcomes, I think it useful to portray sustainability as a set of solutions to multiple examples of the dual problem:
       a) An overdemand of available resources or carrying capacity, and
       b) An inequitable distribution of resources.        

2) Supply v. Demand.  The danger to our high dependence on fossil fuel resources (known variously as the end of oil, peak oil, or oil shock) offers an obvious driver for the question.   This classic concern posed by petroleum-fueled energy demand outstripping the accessible reserves has been subject of much discussion since at least 1956 when Hubbert presented it to the Spring Meeting of the Southern District, American Petroleum Institute, Plaza Hotel, San Antonio, Texas (positing what is now known as Hubbert’s Peak). The details of the precise time of overshoot is still subject of much discussion, most recently in  Matthew Simmon’s book, Twilight in the Desert, http://www.twilightinthedesert.com/ (some nice slides, http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/Twilight%20in%20the%20Desert%20Presentation.pdf ), but I doubt anyone seriously disagrees with the concept.
              Nuclear energy could certainly do much to prolong the existing reserves of oil. Add to that the French example that nuclear power gives them energy independence, and one can understand why we’re hearing talk about going nuclear.  But distancing the date of the end of resources is hardly evidence of sustainability, any more than adding electrical production from coal is sustainable.  Both nuclear and coal depend on a finite supply of fuel.  Mathematically, one simply changes the shape of the bell curve, moves the timeline for Hubbert’s Peak  to make this a problem for future generations and unrealized (but hopefully improved) future technologies. In this context, nuclear can be described as a bridging technology, but not a sustainable one.  I’m not doing any serious reading for my opinion here, but it seems possible that Hubbert may have had something to say about this in his 1956 paper, Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels, M.K. Hubbert, link available in references of this Wikipedia article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._King_Hubbert .  BTW, I like the quote he is credited with, “Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know.”

[Note to save the discussion about discounting the future for a different day.  Be sure to discuss the concept that discount rates are not simply numbers pulled out of a table and plugged into present value formulas, but are functions of several factors, including supply and demand of resources.  Also discuss findings in the nascent field of neuroeconomics which suggest that people are hard-wired to discount the future.]

Sustainability tally:          
Overdemand: Fails, but need curves to gauge magnitude.
Inequitable distribution: Fails due to temporal shift of impact.

3)  Climate Change.  A second driver for the question, i.e., the growing concern about climate change (some say overemphasis, did you hear the author of Cool It on NPR the other day  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14285997&ft=1&f=3 ?  (I also worry about overemphasis, but I’d like to see his numbers supporting that viewpoint)), has also been the subject of research for some time, popularly presented in An Inconvenient Truth.  As pointed out in EPA’s 2007 Draft U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report, coal-fired power is the biggest contributor to this problem here in the US (lo-res summary image posted http://www.memagazine.org/april07/features/pwindow/38.jpg ).   Nuclear energy’s ability to generate power with little impact on climate change provides a reasonable basis for characterizing it as a sustainable source of power with regards to climate change.  From a systems viewpoint, added associated costs that come to mind:  petroleum-fueled transportation-related impact will increase as volumes to existing mining areas increases and as a developing mining and refining support system feeds new locations of nuclear reactors.
               A clarification/reiteration of the definitional framework:  Here, the question is whether an increasing production of greenhouse gases creates a reduction in available resources as opposed to an increasing extraction leading to a reduction in the availability of a natural resource.  Environmental quality represents a limited resource as much as does resource quantity.  I don’t think anyone on the P2Tech list serve is surprised that the increase in a pollutant creates a resource limitation, and the above problem statement uses the terms “available resources or carrying capacity” to include measurable (but not minable) concepts such as clean air, clean water, glacial ice mass, temperature degree days at a given latitude, etc.  

Sustainability tally:          
Overdemand: Fuel use passes; but nuclear fuel mining & transportation have impact.
Inequitable distribution: Passes, no impact identified.

4) Quality of Life.  http://static.flickr.com/34/100660983_3e39fdc74f_b.jpg Kevin and his fellow Nevadans take a systems view and build on the concept that we limit a resource by increasing a waste when they remind us that the Yucca Mountain waste storage facility represents the dwindling capacity for storage of nuclear waste material.  Existing nuclear energy use has created overdemand for diminishing areas of waste storage, already in short supply at a static production rate and unchanged for at least a generation (time which may contribute to a renewed interest).   Tied to this is the system impact of intensive government involvement in nuclear waste storage development (as well as reactor safety regulation and siting), which keeps public funds from other government provided services.
              Another resource stressed by the use of nuclear energy is posed by the risks to human health and the environment associated with increased quantity, transport, and accessibility of nuclear waste.  I heard Hunter Lovins make the point succinctly the other day by asking, “How many people ask to see the evacuation plan for a wind farm?”  (That’s not to say that opposition to wind doesn’t exist (
http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/65706/detail/ (I couldn’t find a link to the Comedy Central source, video 91140)).  Risk and risk perception are two different things, obviously.  The perception of risk is relative – and public perception can be changed to change the quantifiable value of the resource, “safe distance” from nuclear materials. A good education program can help keep public perception positive.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zPCfrxA4y4  provides probably not a good example, but an entertaining one.  
              That is not to say that nuclear wouldn’t have some QoL benefits.  Various studies indicate that sulfate pollution from coal-fired power plants is currently responsible for 45,000 to 50,000 premature deaths every year.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that a worst-case disaster associated with a nuclear plant would be around 100,000 in the US.  If nuclear energy displaced sulfur-emitting coal, QoL in this regard would improve.  Your question was not about comparing the two, however.
              Nuclear energy’s increased risks would occur concurrently with the increasing risks associated with other fundamental quality of life issues, such as the overdemand of food supply (I believe World Overshoot Day occurs in just a couple of weeks).  I don’t know that academicians have developed a good measure of the carrying capacity associated with quality of life and multiple risks posed to it. Concerns have been part of the zeitgeist for years, check out the still pertinent introductory scene to the 1973 film, Soylent Green,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKjT1v5A4Wo .

[A brief sidenote & soapbox:  One of the things which irks me about discussions promoting the positives of nuclear power (in this case) is the sleight of hand, the biasing of information associated with advocates for the position.  How anyone can suggest that nuclear, or coal, be seriously considered as a perfect solution, de-emphasizing the inherent problems, strikes me as naive at best and perhaps willful ignorance.  Like the promises of the dot-com or real estate booms, we consumers of information need to always be a little watchful (not everyone is from Missouri, but we should all be thinking, “show me”). In the heat of promotion, even the downsides are described as positives, which is an example of the logic of “The Parable of the Broken Window” (don’t confuse with “Fixing Broken Windows”) and used to great comic effect in the movie, “The Fifth Element” when antagonist Zorg breaks a glass to illustrate that destructive behavior is a good thing for society. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krcNIWPkNzA    The parable was told by  Frederic Bastiat in 1850, who is also credited with the following useful quote, “…the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.  In fact, it is the same in the science of health, arts, and in that of morals.”   That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen, http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html ]

As Kevin pointed out, the folks around Yucca Mountain think they are subject to an inequitable impact (But what about the compensation of additional jobs?  See Parable of the Broken Window, cited above.)  Here in Nebraska, our current Senator Ben Nelson, then governor, left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth by the way that his administration reneged on a multi-state compact to use Boyd County as a site for low level radioactive waste.  I think the socio-politial situation clearly indicates the perceived and probably measurable inequity in resource distribution, e.g., the resource of living at a “safe” distance from waste materials.  Adding more plants, even without adding more storage facilities, only exacerbates the inequality to those along transportation routes and storage areas by increasing the frequency of potential exposures of nuclear waste.  
            The quality of life issues here are strongly tied to inequitable distribution. In part, this is due to the nature of political decision-making, in part because of the still prevalent business practice of seeking to externalize as many costs as possible.  By definition, such externalization means that one party benefits by discharging their responsibility or adverse outcomes to another party, often without their express or implied consent.  

Sustainability tally:          
Overdemand: Fails by increasing risks and reducing availability (quality) of multiple common pool resources.
Inequitable distribution: Fails due to (a) externalization of costs which impacts (b) disparate parts of society.

5) Path Dependance.  Economists describe production technology choices as “path dependence,” a term that was coined by Amory Lovins in his 1977 work, Soft Energy Paths: Towards a Durable Peace. The hard path, as he described it, is the choice of coal and nuclear, and the soft path is a choice of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.  Once a path is chosen, which we have now lived with for some time, other paths are closed.  
             Rather than increasing a demand for production technologies of the soft path, nuclear represents an overdemand of the hard path square peg into ever more rounding holes.  As noted above, nuclear energy is in essence an extension of the mining extraction and coal-fired power plant path, a path about which we are once again asking the questions posed in the `70’s.  As such, it’s a continuation of an unsustainable path.  One could just as easily substitute another fuel source, e.g., vivoleum, into the system, but that wouldn’t make the system more sustainable.  It’s a bit like the  concept of the man with a hammer – everything around him looks like a nail.  Vivoleum:
http://www.theyesmen.org/en/hijinks/vivoleum and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkLzK13rI-Y .
              Goodstein does a good job describing associate inequalities.  “First, infrastructure and R&D investments are increasingly directed toward supporting the chosen technology and diverted from the competing path.  Second, the chosen technology is able to exploit economies of scale to consolidate its cost advantage.  Third, complementary technologies develop that are tailored to the chosen path, further disadvantaging the competing path.” Economics and the Environment, 4th ed. Goodstein, E.S. 2005

Sustainability tally:          
Overdemand: Fails by limiting resources for possible alternative technologies.
Inequitable distribution: Fails to provide a level playing field.

Hope that helps, Scott.   Left for another day is a discussion about the definition of equitable.  It’s been fun to consider the question, “Can Nuclear Energy ever be ‘sustainable?’”

IT COULDN'T!"  - Frank Zappa

Richard Yoder, PE
Director, P2ric.org
University of Nebraska at Omaha
6001 Dodge Street, RH308
Omaha, NE 68182
vox: 402-554-6257
fax: 402-554-6260


P2RIC, the Pollution Prevention
Regional Information Center, is
a proud member of the Pollution Prevention
Resource Exchange, P2Rx.org.

"Butner, R Scott" <scott.butner@pnl.gov>
Sent by: owner-p2tech@great-lakes.net

09/06/2007 03:50 PM

Please respond to
"Butner, R Scott" <scott.butner@pnl.gov>

"P2 Tech list serve" <p2tech@great-lakes.net>
Just barely off topic:  Can Nuclear Energy ever be "sustainable?"

Fellow P2TECH-ies  --

Well, can it?

And if the answer is "yes" -- what would it take to make it so?

These are not idle musings on the part of a scruffy, distractable, overweight nerd, either.

Nope.  Not idle in the least.  

(The rest is pretty much spot on, of course.)

I ask these questions because I've been approached about making a presentation on this topic at a conference which is coming up later this fall, and wish to gather some informed perspectives on the subject.  As I often do when faced with a question that's over my head, technically, I've come to P2TECH in hopes of finding some bits of wisdom.  And maybe some viewpoints that challenge my own.

I recognize this is an open-ended question -- I think by now we all have a grasp of what the notion of sustainability means, but am not sure I've seen anything really robust in terms of quantifiable definitions.  

Yes, I'm aware of any number of sustainability metrics and indicators that have been used (and in fact plan to use them prominently in my talk).

But most of these metrics allow for more wiggle room than my most comfy blue jeans, now that I've lost 22 lbs.

(had to sneak that in there, somewhere!)

So consider it an invitation to open-ended answers, as well.  

If you have an opinion regarding either question:  whether nuclear power CAN be sustainable, or what it would take to MAKE it sustainable -- I'm eager to hear it.  If I end up using your ideas in my talk, I'll be sure to provide appropriate attribution.  

The conference is in mid-November, but I'd be especially interested in comments I receive early enough to incorporate into a broader framework -- say, Oct 1.  

I'll be sure to share the presentation with any who wish to see it, once it's been prepared.

Thanks in advance,

Scott Butner
Senior Research Scientist, Knowledge Transformation & Integration Group

Pacific NW National Laboratory

PO Box 999

Richland, WA  99352

Voice: (509)-372-4946/Fax: (509) 375-2443

E-mail: scott.butner@pnl.gov