What can we say about a power source that produces highly toxic wastes that persist for tens of thousands of years?
Can we say that it is carbon neutral? No. Nuclear power requires tremendous quantities of fossil energy to extract raw materials, process, assemble plants. Extraction, transportation and refining of urnanium, iron and ores of other metals such as zirconium used for fuel cladding are extremely carbon intensive. Additional carbon-rich “embedded energy” comes in the form of coal, burned with coke to convert iron ore into steel; limestone in to lime for cement. Finally, the enrichment of uranium at federal facilities is extremely fossil-energy intensive
Can we say that nuclear power is sustainable? No. Like any non-renewable power supply, it requires fuel. Spent fuel must be sent to a cooling pool for a decade before dry storage in air casks. Nuclear fuel adds an ongoing carbon impact to nuclear plants. In addition, because the containment chamber that holds nuclear fuel is constantly bombarded by radiation, the concrete and steel experience induced radioactivity. Not only does the containment chamber become radioactive, concrete and steel in the chamber becomes more brittle and weaker over time. Eventually the containment vessel reaches its lifespan and the reactor must be carefully demolished. Highly radioactive reactor chambers minus fuel (military and civilian) are frequently dumped en masse into pits on federal lands such as Hanford.
What can we can say about nuclear power? How about that it’s a non-starter for America in the 21st century?
Eric Teegarden
Brier
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
