threat convergence briefing the pros and cons of...

Threat Convergence Briefing

The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power

March 2011

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.

Copyright © 2011 The Fund for Peace.

All rights reserved.

This program description is proprietary to The Fund for Peace.

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 Transnational Threats

Threat Convergence Series Editor

Patricia Taft

Report Written by

Ryan Costello

The Fund for Peace Publication FFP : TTCVR1102 (Version 11E)

Circulation: PUBLIC

The Fund for Peace

1720 I Street NW

7th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20006

T: +1 202 223 7940

F: +1 202 223 7947

www.fundforpeace.org

2 The Fund for Peace www.fundforpeace.org

Background

The 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 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.


Nuclear Power

Overview

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.

The Fund for Peace offers a wide range of

initiatives focused on our central objective:

to promote sustainable security and the

ability of a state to solve its own problems

peacefully without an external military or

administrative presence. Our programs fall

into three primary thematic areas:

• Conflict Early Warning and Assessment;

• Transnational Threats; and

• Sustainable Development, Sustainable

Security.

After three years of project work, in

January 2009, The Fund for Peace established

its program on Threat Convergence to

explore the linkages among the three biggest

threats to global security: fragile states, the

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

(WMD), and terrorism. The program aims to:

• raise the profile of the challenges in

vulnerable, fragile and ungoverned regions

on the nonproliferation agenda;

• explore how these regions may serve as

enabling environments for nuclear

terrorism;

• promote more coherent and strategic

policy approaches to nuclear terrorism and

illicit nuclear trafficking; and

• become a hub for threat convergence-

related analysis.

The program encourages innovative and

fresh approaches to the issue by convening

experts, performing extensive field research

in some of the world’s most difficult

environments, and by partnering with

international and regional organizations to

explore how the threat of catastrophic

terrorism emanating from weak and failing

states can be prevented.

About Threat Convergence

About The Fund for Peace

Nuclear Power

The Pros of Nuclear Power

Nuclear power provides substantial

amounts of energy while emitting very few

greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases trap

solar heat in the atmosphere 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.


Clean Energy

Nuclear power can generate more

power than other alternative energy sources.

Nuclear power plants produce enough

electricity to run cities, not 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.

Efficiency


Nuclear Power

The Cons of Nuclear Power

Nuclear power entails safety and

security risks. In the unlikely event of a

nuclear meltdown, dangerous levels of

radiation are released into the 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

Safety and Security

There 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-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

Difficulty of Disposal


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

Nuclear power entails substantial

start-up costs which may inhibit the

construction of new nuclear facilities.

Although no new nuclear projects 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

Start-Up Costs



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.

Introduction

The Pros of Nuclear Power

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.


References

Endnotes

www.fundforpeace.org

The Fund for Peace Transnational Threats

FFP : TTCVR1102

threat convergence briefing the pros and cons of...

Documents