Energy - Environmental Science - page 304

the method chosen, decommissioning adds to the total
costs of nuclear power as an energy option.
At least 228 large commercial reactors worldwide
(20 in the United States) are scheduled for retirement
by 2012. However, the NRC has approved extending
the 40-year expected life expectancy of at least 20 U.S.
reactors to 60 years. Opponents contend this could in-
crease the risk of nuclear accidents in aging reactors.

dence on imported oil. Other analysts point out that
use of nuclear power has little effect on U.S. oil use be-
cause burning oil typically produces only 2-3% of the
electricity in the United States (and in most other
countries). Also, the major use for oil is as gasoline and
diesel fuel in transportation, which would not be af-
fected by increasing the use of nuclear power plants to
produce electricity.
Nuclear power advocates also contend that in-
creased use of nuclear power would reduce the threat
of global warming by eliminating emissions of CO 2
compared to burning coal. Scientists point out that this
argument is only partially correct. Nuclear plants
themselves are not emitters of CO 2 , but the nuclear
fuel cycle does produce some CO 2 . However, such
emissions are much less than that produced by burn-
ing coal or natural gas to produce the same amount of
electricity (Figure 13-10). Environmentalists and many
energy experts argue that reducing energy waste and
increasing the use of wind turbines, solar cells, and hy-
drogen to produce electricity are better ways to reduce
CO 2 emissions.

Science and Terrorism: “Dirty” Bombs
Terrorists could wrap conventional explosives around
small amounts of various radioactive materials that
are fairly easy to get, detonate such bombs, and
contaminate fairly large areas with radioactivity for
decades.
Since the terrorist attacks in the United States on Sep-
tember 11, 2001, concern has been growing about the
threats posed by “dirty” bombs. Such a bomb consists
of an explosive such as dynamite mixed with or
wrapped around an amount of radioactive material
small enough fit in a coffee cup.
Such radioactive materials can be stolen from any
of thousands of poorly guarded and difficult-to-pro-
tect sources or bought on the black market. For exam-
ple, hospitals use radioisotopes (such as cobalt-60) to
treat cancer and diagnose various diseases. Other po-
tential sources include university research laborato-
ries, and industries that use radioisotopes to detect
leaks in underground pipes, irradiate food, examine
mail and other materials, and detect flaws in pipe
welds and boilers.
Since 1986, the NRC has recorded 1,700 incidents
in the United States in which radioactive materials
used by industrial, medical, or research facilities have
been stolen or lost. Since 1991, the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) has detected 671 incidents of il-
licit trafficking in dirty-bomb materials.
Detonating a dirty bomb at street level or on a
rooftop does not cause a nuclear blast. Nevertheless, it
could kill as many as 1,000 people in densely popu-
lated cities and spread radioactive material over sev-
eral blocks. This would pose cancer risks for decades
and cause widespread terror and panic—the primary
objective of terrorists.

Economics of Nuclear Power
Even with massive government subsidies, the nuclear
power fuel cycle is an expensive way to produce
electricity compared to several other energy
alternatives.
Experience has shown that the nuclear power fuel cy-
cle is an expensive way to produce electricity, even
when huge government subsidies partially shield it
from free-market competition with other energy
sources. In 1995, the World Bank said nuclear power is
too costly and risky. Forbes magazine has called the
failure of the U.S. nuclear power program “the largest
managerial disaster in U.S. business history, involving
$1 trillion in wasted investment and $10 billion in di-
rect losses to stockholders.”
In recent years, the operating costs of many U.S.
nuclear power plants have dropped, mostly because of
less downtime. Environmentalists and economists
counter that the cost of nuclear power must reflect the
entire nuclear power fuel cycle, not merely the operat-
ing costs of individual plants. According to these ana-
lysts, when these costs (including nuclear waste dis-
posal and decommissioning of worn-out plants) are
included, the overall cost of nuclear power is very
high (even with huge government subsidies) com-
pared to many other energy alternatives.
Partly to address these concerns, the U.S. nuclear
industry hopes to persuade the Congress and utility
companies to build hundreds of smaller, second-gen-
eration plants using standardized designs. The indus-
try claims these plants are safer and can be built more
quickly (in 3-6 years).

Science: Can Nuclear Power Reduce
Dependence on Imported Oil and
Help Reduce Global Warming?
Because so little oil is burned to produce electricity ,
building more nuclear power plants is neither a way
to reduce dependence on imported oil nor a major
way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Some proponents of nuclear power in the United
States claim it will help reduce the country's depen-