The Nuclear Option
by Jason GodeskyNuclear power has, ironically enough, become the new panacea touted by environmentalists and the Bush administration–two groups one rarely finds on the same side of any issue. We see nuclear power raised here routinely as the “solution” to Peak Oil, and a means of perpetuating our current level of complexity indefinitely. “Gunnix,” a regular commenter here, recently took us to task for our views on nuclear power, so this article is our response: why we don’t think that nuclear power will create any kind of significant solution to the problems our civilization faces in the near future.
I’m no kind of expert on the energy sector, much less on nuclear energy, so in this article I’m not relying on my own knowledge; rather, I’m merely collecting the opinions of those experts that I feel are credible into a single article. Our resident energy guru is Jim Camasto, with the Illinois Solar Energy Association, and a personal friend of, well, everybody in the Tribe of Anthropik.
First, it is worth noting that nuclear power belongs under the broader heading of a “techno-fix,” and thus inherits all the drawbacks shared by all members of that class, as discussed in thesis #16, including unintended consequences and susceptibility to Jevons Paradox. Specifically here, nuclear power is intended to alleviate a proximate cause of collapse–the diminishing returns of extraction for fossil fuels–but does so only by compounding the ultimate cause of collapse–creating still more complexity, and driving the marginal return on complexity even lower. If nuclear power were to succeed in this goal, it would still not avert collapse, but rather, simply postpone it, so that our society can continue to grow in population and scale, so that when collapse finally does occur, it will be with a larger population, and an even more diminished ecology, resulting in greater destruction of the natural world, a larger human death toll, and a much reduced possibility of our species’ survival. The longer collapse takes, the more destructive it will be.
In addition to these systemic problems, nuclear power has its own shortcomings. It is true that nuclear power does not generate the volume of pollution we get from fossil fuels. Instead, nuclear power creates a much smaller volume of a far more deadly pollutant: nuclear waste. Nuclear energy requires very little fuel, but the fuel it does require is uranium–a fairly rare element on the earth. “Gunnix” challenged the assertion that I’ve made on several occasions that we have only 50 years’ worth of uranium left. This assertion is not my own; I, like others, am merely citing the conclusion reached in a summary of uranium resources published jointly by the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD and the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency, which found that there are 3 million tons of known uranium deposits in the world. The world’s uranium usage is currently holding steady at 60,000 tons per year, so at current consumption levels, only 50 years of uranium remain. To ramp up nuclear usage on the scale envisioned by those advancing nuclear power would also mean ramping up consumption–and reducing how long those reserves will last, drastically. More reserves might be found–or might not. More efficient means of using uranium will no doubt be found, but as we already discussed, nuclear power is subject to Jevons Paradox–greater efficiency would increase, not decrease, consumption, and thus shorten the period still further. So, at the moment, 50 years seems quite optimistic.
The Uranium Information Center’s briefing paper, “The Economics of Nuclear Power,” discusses how and why any consideration of nuclear power’s economic potential must include the significant initial cost of building a plant. As Benjamin Shender pointed out elsewhere, in the past fifty years since the Atomic Age began, we have built some 450 nuclear power plants worldwide. To ramp up to the production levels called for by Bush, environmentalists and others would require 520 new plants to be built every year, starting in 2004, in order to meet our energy requirements in 2030. Two years in, we are nowhere near that kind of production–nor does it seem likely that we ever could see that kind of miraculous feat. That becomes even more unlikely when you consider that the first 450 plants were built during a time of rising oil production, when our energy supply was increasing. Now, our energy supply has peaked and is in decline. It takes more than just raw materials to build a nuclear power plant–it takes energy. Like any other unit of complexity, a nuclear power plant has a cost in terms of energy, and it has a return in terms of energy. Such investments are the things people see to when energy is abundant, not when it is scarce. If we could not perform such feats when our ability to do so was increasing, how can we hope to do so when our ability to do so is decreasing?
“Gunnix” mentioned two possible developments to alleviate these problems: breed reactors, and thorium. These both suffer from the Achilles’ heel of so many such developments: they’re theoretical. As Jim Camasto explained:
[There] are only a handful of breeder reactors existing worldwide, mostly one-offs and prototypes, and most of those have already been shut down or decommissioned for a variety of reasons. They may offer less waste - but more potential for proliferation of nuclear arms - which if used as such, would be considerably more dangerous than the wastes of conventional reactors.
If the “peak-energy” folks are anywhere near correct - it’s too late to attempt to shift a large enough percentage of our energy demands to any kind of new reactors. Not to mention nuclear power is already the least cost effective energy source available, cradle to grave. Or that only national governments can/will insure them.
The issue of thorium has been raised many times, as well. Wikipedia’s entry on “Thorium” outlines some of the problems it has as a nuclear resource:
Problems include the high cost of fuel fabrication due partly to the high radioactivity of U-233 which is always contaminated with traces of U-232; the similar problems in recycling thorium due to highly radioactive Th-228; some weapons proliferation risk of U-233; and the technical problems (not yet satisfactorily solved) in reprocessing. Much development work is still required before the thorium fuel cycle can be commercialised, and the effort required seems unlikely while (or where) abundant uranium is available.
In other words, in both cases, these solutions have some potential–but neither is ready for use. Or, they may never be ready: not every avenue of research yields a useful end result, not even the very promising ones. Often, problems are insurmountable, and ideas like breeder reactors and thorium fuel sit on the shelves abandoned for problems of scale, or insurmountable difficulties they incur.
Most importantly, the key needed to bring either of these up to speed is research. As we saw in thesis #14, research is one aspect of complexity, and subject to diminishing returns. As we saw in thesis #15, we have passed that point, and our capacity for research is now in decline. To make this work, we need more effective research; instead, we have less. Even if the solutions are found, we need more energy to implement them; instead, we have less.
The problem of swapping out our carbon economy for a nuclear one is an enormous one. It’s one that would have posed trouble for us even at our zenith. But now, we are in decline. What we could not achieve at our peak, we are now struggling to achieve while we are diminished. The very things that are in decline are the very things we need to stop our decline–our capacity for innovation, research, and technological development, and the energy to implement those advances on a wide scale. And the prize, should we achieve such a miraculous feat? A brief hiatus, before an even more gruesome collapse. Nuclear energy would be a terrible idea, with long-ranging consequences for the human species and all life on earth; fortunately for us, it will be impossible to achieve on the scale required to result in such terrible ends.
In addition, Nuclear Energy doesn’t even provide what civilization will need in the short run (next decade)–FOOD. Modern Agrobusiness, uses massive amounts of petrochemicals to allow depleted soil to produce foodproducts. Having Nuclear powered tractors wouldn’t cut it, food production would decrease. No point in having the lights on, computer working, fridge on if you don’t have food in the fridge. As it stands much of the food products in the US require Oil even if the energy for equipment could be replaced in short-order with ‘alternate’ energy sources.
Why environmentalists would get behind Nuclear is beyond me, since isn’t the idea sustainability, not to provide just enough extra time for the baby boomers to live out their retirements?
Building Nuclear power plants are Billion dollar ventures, and take a fair amount of time. When it comes down to it, potable water & food in the belly will not come from Nuclear. So if anyone wants to be a techno-optimist, you are again left with ‘praying for NanoBots’ to turn the world into a Nano-Digital playground where whoever controls the technology can turn carbon monoxide into clean water etc. etc.
Comment by Bubba — 20 February 2006 @ 1:50 PM
If hydrogen cells pan out, then you can charge them up with nuclear power, and if we can retrofit the entire fleet of freight trucks, tractors, etc., with hydrogen cells, then you can continue to get that from nuclear power. Then, petroleum extraction is no longer bound by the economics of a fuel, but it’s instead extracted for fertilizers and the like. Then, if it takes a barrel’s worth of oil to extract a barrel of oil, you can still possibly deal with that.
But you’ll note, that’s a lot of “if”s
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 February 2006 @ 2:38 PM
The really scary thing about nuclear power stations is not the level of complexity reuired to make them so much as the level of complexity required to maintain them - and to deal with the waste afterwards. There’s the need for security to keep people out of the station, the need for dumping and monitoring of waste and the power plant itself and the need for safety mechanisms galore. There’s probably more but I don’t know much about nuclear power plants - we don’t have them down here.
All of that requries a great deal of beuaracracy and technology AND the will to care about the harm this stuff can cause. This will is at least partially dependant on the general public playing a watchdog role and keeping the corporations and government on the job.
What this all means when civilisation starts to fall apart is something I think most people are too scared to even speculate about.
Comment by Aaron — 20 February 2006 @ 4:08 PM
Indeed. Techno-salvationists pin their arguments to, “if the political will were to appear…” so I granted them that premise for the purpose of this argument. But, that premise is, itself, fairly insurmountable.
The problem with building a nuclear weapon is not the weapon itself. That is simple. Even you or I have the resources to do so. Plans can be found online. Materials are common and easily acquired.
The reason that we have any hope of controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons is because the hard part is the weapons-grade radioactive material–the kind of material that largely has to come out of a nuclear reactor.
Would nuclear powers allow nuclear power in third-world country? How well are the five nations of the UN Security Council reacting to the possibility of Iran and North Korea building nuclear power plants? That is, so far, what they’ve done–the concern is that a nuclear power plant also means nuclear material, for a nuclear weapon.
(This is the same reason it was so easy to discount the idea of Saddam having nukes–the facilities required to weaponize nuclear materials can be seen from space.)
Neither does electricity “export” very well–we need booster stations for that. So, we can’t just put nuclear power plants in a few places and run the electricity for thousands of miles. To use nuclear energy, you need a nuclear power plant somewhere in your general region.
There’s the biggest problem with nuclear power: nobody wants it in their own backyard. Even when people prefer it in principle, they don’t want it anywhere near them, because of the many environmental and health dangers involved.
The kind of political shift it would take to even consider such a Herculean feat in the first place would be, itself, miraculous. Politics and bureaucracy is another form of complexity. In the case of nuclear power, even before we begin the argument here, we’ve already further aggrevated our more fundamental crisis by creating greater political complexity. Then, we create further complexity in research, and top it off with further complexity in technological implementation.
Such unlikely things do happen occasionally, but only a fool would count on them–and only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of fools would count on three in a row.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 February 2006 @ 4:19 PM
Yes too many IFs involved in the scenarios. In addition the time frame everyone speaks about tends to be in the realm of 20yrs, which doesn’t coincide with the likely collapse well before then.
From what I have read one nuclear power plant costs around 3-5Billion dollars to build, and takes 3years+
so the investment would be HUGE with no short term time frame. Not too many Nuclear Power plant building companies around, in addition to the massive security issues during the building & of course ‘forever’ after.
Quite a few Nuclear Plants in OH, close by “downwind” of me, very few people even like that, and they are many miles away.
Comment by Bubba — 20 February 2006 @ 5:03 PM
I, for one, would be fascinated to see how a tight regimen of building ‘enough’ nuclear power plants would work given the current climate situation.
So, somehow you have (a) the political will, (b) the resources and (c) the energy to overall the entire grid.
Then comes Katrina or another cold snap or a heat wave, wind storm, tornado, mega-storm, earthquake — all of which are common.
Damn. That pushes construction back a little. Oh, and adds to the cost. And may make that piece of land you’re building the power plant on infeasible.
This makes building the pyramids look tame by comparison.
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 20 February 2006 @ 6:04 PM
Whoops… overhaul, not overall
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 20 February 2006 @ 6:05 PM
If only the first part of your argument was correct, then it could be dismissed by most people by noting that 50 more years of civilization is better for their selfish needs compared to the option of collapse in ten years. Also, they’d make a counter-argument, that this stopgap will buy the civilization time to come up with an unexpected and more long-lasting solution, which we do not yet see.
And, Jason, we are at our peak right now. If we have the power to implement any solution, now is the time in which we have the most power. Remember how the US oil production curve looks like? There is a secondary rise due to Prudhoe Bay. We may fall from the peak only to be supported temporarely by alternatives and this might actually buy enough time for baby boomers to live out their retirement in relative comfort.
Comment by _Gi — 20 February 2006 @ 6:42 PM
No, because 50 more years may make it entirely impossible to survive. Do you want to live 50 more years inside of civilization with a high probability of dying at the end of it, or survive 10 more years inside of civilization with a high probability of surviving another 50 years beyond it? 60 > 50.
Except that this stop-gap isn’t achievable.
If the depletion rate is that modest, then there won’t be much threat of collapse from it. But we’re looking at a possible depletion rate of 18%, and that would mean collapse in the next ten years.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 February 2006 @ 7:02 PM
This argument only works for people who have a reasonable expectation of living another 50 years.
The actuarial science isn’t predicting a high chance of that for people of my age, and none of the insurance companies are counting on most of their clients living a forager lifestyle.
Comment by _Gi — 20 February 2006 @ 7:07 PM
Even so, living in the woods with your children and grandchildren can give you another 20 years or better–twice what you can get otherwise.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 February 2006 @ 7:17 PM
Wow, nice article and good links Jason
I agree with your points completely.
While not an argument against yours (just to add up to the nuclear discussion) I saw that this fast breeder reactor (though only a small prototype) at India seems to be a success and already runs since 1985 :
http://www.kalpakkam.com/
They are now building a much bigger reactor there, ironically the building site was flooded by the tsunami, slowing the progress. But still the Indians believe it will be a success (breeder reactor with thorium)
Some interesting info about India’s program:
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/955/safeguarding-breeder-reactors
It seems that their thorium reactor technology isn’t that bad…
But ofcourse, all the arguments why nuclear energy won’t stop collapse or postpone it much still stand. It’s nice to have this article on anthropik, as it did first seem a bit like that Jason and others just were dismissing it (as real pessimists
) without adding much information as to why.. The only stuff I did find myself were strangely very optimistic discussions about nuclear energy on peak oil websites. But I did notice that those discussions are only optimistic because they talk about nuclear energy in specific and many times don’t tend to look at the problems facing civilization as a whole, like is done at this place (which I’m very pleased with). It’s probably our education which makes us think of stuff like they are in a vacuum alone. The perfect scientific situation (?).. which doesn’t exist and seems to cripple our thoughts a lot.
As I was discussing on a forum in a topic about “nuclear energy and it’s future” I couldn’t even mention the other things related to our energy problems and why nuclear energy wasn’t going to become so superb as some thought to be, before I was told to stay on topic (”we’re not talking about that, we talk about this”). With many people having this kind of attitude I’m even more certain that collapse is inevitable.
Comment by gunnix — 20 February 2006 @ 8:49 PM
Just stumbled on this article “Fast-breeder reactors - a dying breed”:
http://www.geocities.com/m_v_ramana/nucleararticles/breeders_dying.htm
(The writer is a research associate at the Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University, U.S.)
Comment by gunnix — 20 February 2006 @ 9:23 PM
In northeastern Illinois, we have eleven operating nuclear reactors located on six sites, the most capacity, per state, in the US (of 104 reactors nationwide.) As much capacity in Illinois as in the U.K.
Tritium has been leaked/spilled into the groundwater on multiple occasions, at multiple sites, potentially since 1996 - most recently exposed in the county next door to mine and next door to that of more than 7 million other people.
Closer to home, quite literally in my backyard, a former NIKE surface to air missile launch battery (cum community park district) has leached trichloroethylene into the groundwater.
Note that IL nuke plants are within ~100 miles of the largest body of surface freshwater in the world…
ah, fun fun fun…
Lets not forget to include “healthy water” to the ingredient list for healthy soil, healthy food, healthy anything….
Comment by JCamasto — 24 February 2006 @ 5:43 PM