Center for Reactor Information

Facts about Applying Nuclear Technology to Generate Electricity

Book Report by the Center for Reactor Information
By Richard A. Beatty, Retired
Argonne National Laboratory
Prepared August 1997

Abstract

This public awareness document, provided by the Center for Reactor Information, reviews the book by Dr. Alan E. Waltar entitled America the Powerless - Facing Our Nuclear Energy Dilemma. The book was published in 1995 by Cogito Books (Medical Physics Publishing), Madison, Wisconsin, and is available from The American Nuclear Society, 708-579-8251.

Alan Waltar is a recent Past-President of the American Nuclear Society (ANS). He received his Doctorate from the University of California (Berkeley) and has held management positions at Westinghouse Hanford Company. Dr. Waltar is co-author of a textbook on fast breeder reactors that is a standard international text in the field. He has published over 50 refereed scientific articles. In 1984 he was elected Fellow of ANS, the Society's highest peer recognition for technical excellence.

About the book review

This review includes many quotes excerpted from the book and summarized in brief. The page in the book where excerpts are found is indicated by [brackets]. In the book is found in-depth analyses of excerpts; statistical data, graphs, tables; references to sources of information; and the facts about nuclear technology and comparisons with their myths.

The reason for this public awareness document

Vast numbers of people have been led to believe that nuclear energy 1) is not needed, 2) is unsafe, 3) poses an unfathomable waste disposal problem, 4) increases the chances of nuclear war, 5) represents the ultimate insult to our environment. [p. xvi] None of these beliefs is true. This PAD encourages readers to get Alan Waltar's book and see for yourself.

The Need for Energy

All possible energy sources should be maintained and developed, for they will all be needed as we move toward a long-term nuclear and solar-based sustainable system.

This was the major plea of perhaps the most comprehensive global energy study yet undertaken. It was completed in 1980 by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis to assess viable paths to a sustainable energy future. The study concluded that such a future could be achieved, but only if massive investments were made to wean world citizens away from fossil fuels and into nuclear and solar systems. [Material above is extracted from pages 11 and 12 of Dr. Waltar's book.]

Nine years later, we read: Based on present trends, and the smallest conceivable needs, a substantial power plant building program is required to replace existing electrical power plants. This was from a 1989 study by EPRI, the Electric Power Research Institute, that focused on electricity supplies needed over the expected life span of a new born child. [pp. 12 & 13 in the book] Nuclear energy would have to increase by over a factor of ten above its present capacity to meet the need. Roughly 75 power plants of 1000 megawatts each would have to be built each year for the next 75 years. [p. 13]

Unless we choose to engage in a self-inflicted long-term recession, a substantial new building program for electrical power plants is urgently needed. [p. 15]

During the hot summer of 1988, Commonwealth Edison serving the Chicago vicinity averted a disaster that few people even knew was in the making.

On August 2 Commonwealth Edison delivered a record peak of electrical power to meet the burgeoning demand of its customers, barely enough to keep the electrical-grid system from collapsing. Without the Braidwood nuclear plant, nearly cancelled by the Illinois Public Utility Commission as not needed until at least the year 2005, the Chicago vicinity would have been faced with rolling blackouts, or total system failure and a blackout throughout much of the Midwest. [pp. 15 & 16]

The power glut is over. No matter how we look at it, we must face up to the question of providing new means to generate electricity. [p. 16]

Safety

No one was killed or injured as a result of the 1979 nuclear accident at the Three Mile Island power plant in Pennsylvania. The news reporters who flew into Harrisburg to cover the story were the ones at greatest risk. They received greater radiation exposure from cosmic rays at high altitudes than the residents around the plant. [p. 19] Nuclear fission's safety record has been substantially better than competitive means to generate electricity. [p. 54]

By direct comparison with overall safety aspects of other energy options, the nuclear energy option is remarkably good. [p. 104]

Nuclear Waste

Nuclear energy may be the first large industry in history that is capable of removing essentially all its wastes from the biosphere. [p. 108] It is important to recognize that the waste quantities we need to deal with are quite tractable, much smaller than the waste of any comparable industrial endeavor. [p. 111]

If Americans received all their electricity from nuclear energy, rather than the 21% we receive today, the amount of high level nuclear waste (HLW) we would each be responsible for annually could be contained in three small marbles. By any relative measure, the volume of HLW that we must deal with is small, incredibly small. [p. 112]

Nuclear Proliferation, Theft of Nuclear Materials, and Terrorism

Currently 36 nations have nuclear energy, yet only six nations have publicly admitted to having the bomb. [p. 130]

A complete shutdown of all U.S. commercial nuclear power facilities would have zero impact on the ability of any other country in the world to obtain the bomb, if they made that goal a national priority. The knowledge is available, and there are plenty of potential suppliers other than the U.S. [p. 137]

The security infrastructure in the U.S. has been developed over several decades and, although not invincible, is certainly much more impenetrable than in the developing countries. Consequently, a cessation of commercial nuclear energy in the U.S. would have very little if any effect on the international threat of nuclear terrorism. [p. 138]

The Environment

The concentration of gasses known to cause the greenhouse effect is gradually increasing in the atmosphere. If present rates continue, the atmospheric (carbon dioxide) content could double in about one century. Where does this increase in carbon dioxide come from? Most of it, about six billion tons per year, comes from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas, and wood). [p. 172]

France responded to the 1973 oil embargo by making a national commitment to nuclear energy. By displacing fossil fuel plants over (a 7-year) period, they were able to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from 82 million tons to 13 million tons per year. [p. 176]

In many areas of the country, utilities are being required to install scrubbers to reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide entering the atmosphere. This can help, but at best it can only reduce the magnitude of the problem. It cannot eliminate it. In the case of acid rain, nuclear energy stands out favorably among the known sources for generating large amounts of electricity. It is a completely "smoke-free" energy source. [p. 181]

It should be noted that coal-fired plants also release several thousand tons of toxic heavy metals (arsenic, chromium, lead, mercury, and nickel compounds) into our biosphere annually. These elements, never decay. Because they have infinite half-lives, they stay in the environment forever. [p. 183] The point here is that if our goal is to preserve or even improve our environment, nuclear energy looks impressive. [p. 185]

To date, there is no evidence that plutonium has ever caused a human death anywhere in the world--including plutonium workers. Despite the above evidence, many people continue to argue that one particle of Plutonium can cause cancer. Arsenic, cadmium, and chromium are all officially identified as carcinogens. Yet all of these substances are naturally present in every cell of our bodies. [p. 187]

Transportation of Radioactive Materials

Approximately 100 million radioactive packages have been shipped in the U.S. during the past 50 years without a single radiation-induced injury to any member of the public. [p. 122]

Support by Scientists

For scientists most familiar with nuclear energy (nuclear experts), 100% favored the continued pursuit of the nuclear option. As in any other professional field, most nuclear experts are both conscientious and competent, and continue to pursue their careers because they firmly believe their work is of high humanitarian value. [p. 25 & 26]

Other Energy Options

Oil provides more benefits to humankind than its use as fuel. [p. 36] The growing U.S. use of natural gas increases our dependence on yet another nonrenewable fuel, the bulk of which must be drawn from beyond our national border. [p. 39]

There are some serious safety and environmental questions (specifically discussed in Chapter 9 of the book, America the Powerless) that must be objectively addressed before concluding that coal is the answer to our energy future. [p. 42]

I know of no responsible energy planner who expects solar energy to be the sole source of electrical supplies of the future. [p. 45] Perhaps the major impediment to the growth of hydroelectric power is the lack of acceptable sites. [p. 46]

Enormous land masses are required to produce reasonable amounts of power from alternate energy sources. [p. 48] For a 1000 MW output, it will take 150 square miles for wind power, and 10 square miles for solar energy. As for the biomass option, if all the trees in the United States were used for energy production on a renewable basis (i.e., trees would be growing at the same rate they were being harvested), their contribution could amount to only about 10% of our total energy needs. [p. 49]

For the geothermal option, there are few places on earth where the hot magma is close enough to the earth's surface to make engineered systems practical. [p. 50] The conditions necessary for a functional nuclear fusion power plant are exceptionally difficult to achieve. [p. 51] For example, an extremely high temperature of about a hundred million degrees is required in one part of the plant, and an extremely low temperature near absolute zero is required in another.

Even a doubling of our personal conservation efficiency would reduce the national energy needs by only about 10%. Conservation will not solve our energy problem. [p. 32]

Conclusion

Based on the information in the book, America the Powerless, it should be clear that nuclear energy deserves another look. [p. 59]

For additional information, please contact CFRI, an independent organization of retirees with extensive nuclear experience.