briefing: the pros and cons of nuclear power

CF-11-01-TC THREAT CONVERGENCE | THE FUND FOR PEACE

Briefing

The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power

Merkel to temporarily close seven of the nation’s

seventeen nuclear power plants. In addition, China has

announced that it will suspend new plant approvals

until safety regulations are reviewed. On the other

hand, France, which relies on nuclear energy to

provide nearly eighty percent of the country’s

electricity, has not indicated that it will take any steps

to limit production at its nuclear plants.1 To date, there

are thirty countries operating nuclear power reactors

worldwide and approximately twenty others have

expressed an interest in building nuclear reactors for

the generation of electricity. Therefore, as nations

around the world reexamine their nuclear energy

policies, it is helpful to examine the pros and cons of

nuclear power.

T he ongoing crisis at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station

has renewed international concern regarding the safety of nuclear

energy. In Germany, domestic pressure has forced Chancellor Angela


www.fundforpeace.org 2 Threat Convergence

and contribute to the warming of the planet. The

burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas

emits carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, which has,

according to well-documented scientific evidence,

negatively impacted the planet by contributing to

global warming and climate change. Sustained reliance

on fossil fuels will continue to drive climate change,

which is why more attention is being paid to

expanding the use of alternative energy sources--

including wind, solar, and nuclear--to meet the rising

global demand for energy. Scientists report that to

avoid the worst consequences of climate change, major

reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are needed. A

2006 projection called for a 50-85% reduction in

greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.2 As nuclear energy

emits very few greenhouse gases, it could continue to

replace fossil fuels as a source of electricity production,

which is responsible for approximately 1/3 of global

greenhouse gas emissions.3 Nuclear power is currently

responsible for approximately 15% of global electricity

production, thus reducing carbon emissions by two

billion tons annually.4 Prior to the recent situation in

Japan, global investments in nuclear power production

were expected to grow significantly in the coming

decades, in large part because of concerns over

greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

The Pros of Nuclear Power

neighborhoods. Today, nuclear power accounts for

approximately 20% of America’s electricity supply,

whereas wind and solar account for less than 2%

combined.5 While a nuclear power plant can generate

as much as 2.2 million kilowatts, solar plants can

generate 150,000 kilowatts and onshore wind plants

100,000 kilowatts. Furthermore, nuclear power requires

relatively little land in order to produce energy, unlike

wind and solar.6 Therefore, current wind and solar

technology is unlikely to substantially curb fossil fuel

use and greenhouse gas emissions without the

contribution of nuclear power.

N uclear power provides substantial amounts of energy while emitting very few greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases trap solar heat in the atmosphere

N uclear power can generate more power than other alternative energy sources. Nuclear power plants produce enough electricity to run cities, not

References 1. Judy Dempsey & Sharon LaFraniere, “In Europe and China, Crisis

Renews Fears About Nuclear Power,” The New York Times, March 16, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/business/global/17atomic.html?src=busln.

2. Sarah Ladislaw, Kathryn Zyla, & Britt Childs, “Managing the Transition to a Secure, Low-Carbon Energy Future,” Center for Strategic & International Studies, February 2008, http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/080204_managing_the_transition.pdf.

3. Michael Totty, “The Case For and Against Nuclear Power,” Wall Street Journal, June 30, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121432182593500119.html

4. World Nuclear Association, “Nuclear Energy: Meeting the Climate Change Challenge,” http://www.world-nuclear.org/climatechange/nuclear_meetingthe_climatechange_challenge.html

5. Totty. 6. Cyrus Sanati, “ Why the U.S. Can’t Abandon the Nuclear Renaissance,”

CNN, March 17, 2011, http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/17/news/nuclear_energy_alternatives.fortune/?section=magazines_fortune

7. Charles Ferguson, “Japan’s Crisis for Nuclear Power,” interview by Toni Johnson, Council on Foreign Relations, March 15, 2011, http://www.cfr.org/japan/japans-crisis-nuclear-power/p24377.

8. David Jolly & Denise Grady, “Radiation in Tokyo’s Water Has Dropped, Japan Says,” The New York Times, March 24, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/world/asia/25japan.html?ref=world.

9. Clive Cookson, “Nuclear Power: Hell and High Water,” The Financial Times, March 13, 2011, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a93dc5a6-4daa-11e0-85e4-00144feab49a.html#axzz1Gsav4orK.

10. Ferguson. 11. Michael A. Levi, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy,” The Washington

Post, March 16, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/5-myths-about-nuclear-energy/2011/03/15/AB9P3Oe_story.html

12. Matthew L. Wald, “Japan Nuclear Crisis Revives Long U.S. Fight on Spent Fuel,” The New York Times, March 23, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/us/24yucca.html?pagewanted=1&ref=world.

13. Frank N. Von Hippel, “It Could Happen Here,” The New York Times, March 23, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/opinion/24Von-Hippel.html?_r=1&hp.

14. David Biello, “Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Trash Heap Deadly for 250,000 Years or a Renewable Energy Source,” Scientific American, January 28, 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source&page=3.

15. Wald. 16. Biello. 17. Cookson. 18. Sanati.



environment, necessitating evacuation of those within

the immediate vicinity. Persons directly exposed to

increasing levels of radiation could suffer from

radiation poisoning, which can result in acute sickness,

hair loss, bleeding, and death. However, the true death

toll from a significant release of radiation will not be

immediately evident, as exposure to radiation

heightens the likelihood of cancer, particularly thyroid

cancer, which can occur years after exposure.7

In 1979, the nuclear power plant at Three Mile Island

near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania experienced a partial

meltdown, triggering panic and the release of some

radioactive gas, although the incident is not believed to

have resulted in any fatalities. In 1986, the Chernobyl

nuclear power plant in Ukraine experienced a full

meltdown, releasing vast amounts of radiation, killing

dozens of workers and emergency responders, and

spiking cancer rates in the surrounding region. The

current crisis at the Fukushima plant has triggered an

evacuation and raised substantial fears regarding the

impact of the released radiation. The detection of

radioactive iodine in Tokyo’s drinking water has

caused government officials to urge young children

and pregnant women to avoid drinking the city’s tap

water.8 Although the death toll of the nuclear crisis is

likely to be much lower than that of the earthquake and

tsunami which induced the crisis, nuclear crises trigger

panic and can have long-term environmental impacts

on the surrounding region.9

While these risks are severe, the vast majority of

nuclear power plants operate relatively safely. It took a

near “perfect storm” to contribute to the crisis at

Japan’s nuclear power plant. First, the largest Japanese

earthquake in 140 years struck off the coast, thus

triggering an automatic shutdown of the Fukushima

plant. Then, the tsunami struck the coastal plant,

knocking out electricity and backup generators that

were necessary to pump water to keep fuel rods and

spent nuclear materials from overheating and releasing

radiation. Clearly, there was a breakdown in the plant’s

backup safety measures, and its placement along the

coast near a major fault line appears to be a dangerous

mistake.10 Although this series of events is out of the

ordinary, the nuclear crisis highlights the potential

dangers of nuclear energy and the need for careful

planning and sufficient safety measures.

It appears as if a well-planned terrorist attack could

replicate the multiple failures that occurred at the

Fukushima plant, although such an event is highly

unlikely. Most nuclear power plants, both in the U.S

and abroad, utilize extensive barriers and security,

making penetration difficult and the replication of

large-scale damage unlikely.11

N uclear power entails safety and security risks. In the unlikely event of a nuclear meltdown, dangerous levels of radiation are released into the

T here is no simple way to dispose of the waste from nuclear fuel, which could pose an environmental and security risk for thousands of years due to its

long half-life. After its use in energy production, spent

nuclear fuel is placed in cooling pools until it reaches a

point where it will not melt during long-term storage.

This cooling phase can take several years.12 After the

shutdown of power at Fukushima, operators and

emergency responders have struggled to keep these

pools filled with cooling water. As a result, some of

Fukushima’s spent fuel may have melted and released

radiation. Spent fuel pools in the United States are

believed to be more heavily loaded than in Japan.

According to independent analysts, pools in the United

States often store up to five times more spent fuel than

they were designed to, and much of the spent fuel has

cooled enough for long-term storage.13

However, the United States has no clear plan for long-

The Cons of Nuclear Power



have begun in the United States since 1996, the U.S.

government recently promised $55 billion in new

subsidies for plant construction. One project in

Georgia, which is projected to cost $14 billion, is likely

to receive $8 billion in subsidies if construction moves

forward.17 This means that nuclear power production is

much more expensive than power generated by natural

gas. Whereas nuclear power can cost as much as $5,339

per kilowatt, natural gas only costs $978 per kilowatt.18

N uclear power entails substantial start-up costs which may inhibit the construction of new nuclear facilities. Although no new nuclear projects

term storage, which has often provoked sharp political

debate. Currently, spent nuclear fuel is stored on-site in

dry casks, a system in which fuel rods are immersed in

inert gas inside a container layered with steel and

concrete. These dry casks cost $1 million each, but they

still emit low levels of radiation, are only a temporary

solution, and could be a security or health

vulnerability.14 The scattering of these dry casks

throughout the country necessitates strong security

measures at each site to ensure that they aren’t stolen

for use in a dirty bomb. A proposed spent fuel

repository in the Nevada Desert at Yucca Mountain

could store substantial amounts of the nation’s spent

fuel, but this project stalled after the Obama

administration withdrew governmental support.15

Opponents to the proposed site argue that the site is at

risk from earthquakes and that the fuel could

contaminate drinking supplies. The spent fuel

repository would centralize spent fuel deposits so that

they could be more easily secured from theft, however.

An additional option would be to recycle the spent fuel

through enrichment at reprocessing centers, a method

conducted by the U.K., France, Japan, and Russia.

However, this method runs into cost-effectiveness

issues, still produces radioactive waste, and is how

governments generate plutonium for use in advanced

nuclear weapons, which could potentially be targeted

for theft.16

About the Fund for Peace

The Fund for Peace is an independent, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) non-profit research and educational

organization that works to prevent violent conflict and promote sustainable security. We

promote sustainable security through research, training and education, engagement of civil

society, building bridges across diverse sectors, and developing innovative technologies and tools for policy

makers. A leader in the conflict assessment and early warning field, the Fund for Peace focuses on the problems

of weak and failing states. Our objective is to create practical tools and approaches for conflict mitigation that are

useful to decision-makers. To support the work and mission of The Fund for Peace, visit www.fundforpeace.org.

Copyright © 2011 The Fund for Peace. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written consent from The Fund for Peace.

The Fund for Peace Publication CF-11-01-TC (11-04A) - Circulation: PUBLIC - Compiled by Ryan Costello

www.fundforpeace.org

briefing: the pros and cons of nuclear power

Documents