Conclusion

Thank you very much for taking the time to read some of my blog posts! I hope to continue posting - all be it less frequently - in the future as the "nuclear future" becomes the "nuclear present"!

Any questions or queries about nuclear energy would be most welcome on this post.

Nuclear Energy and Christianity

As a Catholic I thought it would be interesting to examine the Christian ethical stance on nuclear energy and compare it to my own. From initial scans of literature it is clear that I am not exactly aligned with the general attitudes of the Church. The first explicit opposition to nuclear energy was provided by Pope Francis in an audience with the Bishops of Japan. He likened the human quest for nuclear energy to the Biblical story of the “Tower of Babel”. This story saw humans exceeding their role within the natural restraints – by attempting to build a tower directly to heaven. This project ended in their own destruction – Pope Francis therefore feels humans are going beyond what we are naturally here to achieve, meaning human destruction is potentially a result (Buff 2015). This was in response to the Fukushima disaster, where Japanese Bishops at the time demanded the state shutdown all reactors, due to the risk of mortality. This statement was the first to oppose nuclear energy, progressing from the previous stance that was explicitly in opposition to nuclear weapons only (Buff 2015).

Illustration of  the Tower of Babel - Humanity breaching the God-given natural laws. Image (Mallett 2008).

The Christian stewardship ethic develops from Genesis, where humans were given dominion over all life that shares the Earth with humanity (Christianto 2013). This stewardship ethic is not only a  product of maintaining the role provided by God, but also an ethic based on the “New Creation”, the Earth that will be produced in harmony and equity following the return of God (Butler 1979). Therefore not only does the ethic suggest we must be stewards to all life now, but also in the future to ensure the Earth is ready for the New Creation. This has obvious ties to nuclear energy – for example the inter-generational concerns of nuclear waste providing future risks of freshwater contamination, biodiversity pollution or human death, to name a few. However, it could be argued that climate change provides similar threats. Therefore nuclear energy may potentially be required to become a steward of life, as the loss of life from climate change may exceed anything imaginable via nuclear energy.

Nuclear has the potential to destroy life (Butler 1979); therefore in this sense it would be opposed by the Christian Stewardship ethic. Taken to a basic level, the commandant “You shall not kill” may conflict with the widespread implementation of nuclear energy (PCA 1987). If nuclear is implemented with the knowledge that there is the potential to kill, with past evidence displaying the threat to life, then it may be argued that nuclear is treading a fine line with this vastly important commandment. When taking into account the potential proliferation of nuclear material and waste for use in weapons and terrorism then this more explicitly highlights the conflict and Christian opposition (PCA 1987).

The stewardship ethic can expand into the economic side of nuclear energy, with many developing nations often taking out exponential loans to fund nuclear projects (Christianto 2013). The social detriment that vast debts can provide are obvious, they include reduced education, health care and other public services in order to repay the loans. This once again would conflict with the Christian ethic of stewardship, not only does nuclear construction place the people at greater risk, but it also can boost global inequality and human suffering.

Pope Francis is not very happy about the potential detriment of nuclear...
Image (Sdcharg Blog Account 2015).

Therefore it is suggested that Christians should push for other renewable options (Christianto 2013), such as wind, solar and hydro. This is perhaps ignorant to the risks and damages that these often “romanticised” options can provide. I acknowledge the risks at hand, yet I have to go against the Church by continuing to support the nuclear potential. If the view point is driven by stewardship to all life and inter-generational equality – then climate change must surely be acknowledged as a greater threat to this ethical stance. If nuclear can be influential in the fight against climate change and the biodiversity damage it causes, then it should be promoted as a suitable energy option!

Poll Results and Generation IV Reactors

The purpose of my poll was to attempt to gauge the common feeling about nuclear energy and its potential. Responses to the poll have occurred over time and therefore whether they are a priori deductions or based on the evidence from my posts is relatively unknown.

The vast majority see nuclear energy as playing a large role in the future energy sector - with many agreeing with me in that nuclear has to be used if climate change mitigation is going to become a reality. Those that viewed nuclear as a risk may experience some of the points made in past posts about public perception - the over exaggerated fear within a risk society (Beck 1992) or the enhanced opposition based on images of nuclear war and power plant disasters.

I initially believed many more would oppose nuclear energy. I was personally unsure on my stance to begin with also, however as the blog has developed over the weeks I have definitely shifted towards a pro-nuclear position - it simply can not be disregarded!

A greater shift towards positivity may emerge in the coming years with the transition from Generation III to Generation IV nuclear reactors (Horvath 2016). This is the product of The Generation IV International Forum, deciding upon 6 new nuclear technologies that will progress in the 21st Century - one being the Molten Salt Reactor mentioned in a past post (WNA 2015a). Three of the technologies will be "fast reactors" (WNA 2015a), meaning they use the fast neutrons from Uranium-238 as well as the U-235 isotope (WNA 2015b). It is hoped that wide-scale application of these technologies will emerge 2020-2030. The intent is to close the cycles of nuclear reactors, providing greater levels of recycling and consequently greater energy production efficiency and reduced waste creation (Horvath 2016).

It is believed that these new technologies will enable the life-time of nuclear waste to be reduced to hundreds of years, rather than the hundreds of thousands of years associated with conventional reactors (Horvath 2016). The fast reactors are capable of burning the actinides, which are the components of the high level waste that have exponential life-times (WNA 2015b).The waste produced following the reprocessing of spent fuel has a lower heat capacity than the spent fuel itself - therefore this means that when the waste is stored, for example in a deep, geological store, it can be done so at a greater density. This therefore means less space is required - which can prolong the global, burial potential - as well as limiting the level of proximate exposure to human settlements.

Not only do these new technologies provide sustainable, efficient energy production - but also there is the belief that they will increase the cost-efficiency via closed cycle reprocessing - as well as providing more resistant waste material against the potential proliferation for weapon construction (Horvath 2016).

Nuclear is not the same as it was when Chernobyl threatened global safety and security - progressions have been made and will continue to be made in the future. New technologies are emerging that reduce waste and improve security and awareness, with increased international checks and standards to abide to. I argue that many who oppose nuclear still have, what is now arguably an "archaic" image of nuclear. The majority showed similar viewpoints to me, supporting the potential for nuclear. This is potentially a product of the readership, with it suggested that increased support emerges from a more educated audience (OECD 2010).

Nuclear and Freshwater - Part 2

Despite the comparably high freshwater use in the cooling process of nuclear energy production it must be noted that power plants, according to the US Geological Survey return 98% of the water that they initially withdraw (NEI 2013). Only 1-2% is actually consumed which is relatively efficient when put in comparison to irrigation, which withdrawals more water than the energy sector and only returns around 20% of this to the hydrological cycle (NEI 2013). Further contextualisation shows nuclear “once-through” cooling to consume 13 gallons/day/household, if a power plant is taken to provide for the average 740,000 homes. This contrasts to the average 94 gallons/day/household consumed by an average 3 person household in the US (NEI 2013). Therefore in the face of a water security issue, it is arguably household consumption that needs to be prioritised over the energy sector!

Irrigation is by far the largest freshwater-consuming sector (NEI 2013). Image Source (National Geographic 2015).

The cooling water requirements are currently higher in nuclear than fossil fuels, as mentioned in the previous post, due to the variable operating temperatures of the procedures (Brook 2014). However, this disparity may not be a long-term issue with new nuclear power plants, using the “liquid-metal-cooled-fast reactor, operating at a similar temperature to fossil fuel energy generation and therefore the difference is going to be gradually diminished (Brook 2014). The power plants only consume negligible amounts of water; much of it is heated and then returned to the origin as clean water. Within cooling towers the water is evaporated and returned to the natural cycle as clean water vapour (Brook 2014). Therefore in terms of the process as a whole, nuclear can be viewed as a relatively efficient water sector. This only contains the consumption within the actual generator, therefore perhaps underestimating the full use within the nuclear sector – for example water requirements will be required during mining and transportation also. Therefore it is important to broaden the view, to ensure that the full process chain is accounted for in regards to nuclear energy efficiency.

Nuclear does not necessarily remove freshwater; there is the potential for freshwater improvements. For example in some power plants the cooling towers use urban waste water that is first cleaned, then evaporated back into the environment (Brook 2014). Therefore the energy generation is not using any water that could have been put to any other use, increasing freshwater availability.

Furthermore, nuclear has a large role in desalination with recent nuclear generators constricted in Argentina, China and South Korea that have dual benefits of electricity production and freshwater generation (NEI 2015). Many of the desalination technologies currently use fossil fuels which therefore can increase global warming and place freshwater security at a greater threat. Many countries are already highly dependent on desalination, for example around 40% of Israel’s freshwater comes via desalination processes (WNA 2015). In many areas the need for water resources for consumption and agricultural is high, yet supply is low. Oman for example opened a nuclear desalination plant in 2011, with the eventual capacity desired to be 220,000m³/day freshwater production (WNA 2015). The quality produced will therefore enable agricultural and domestic use, whilst also allowing aquifers to be recharged with potable water to facilitate the regeneration of long-term freshwater stores.

The Al Ansab submerged membrane bioreactor desalination plant, Oman (ACWA 2012).

Types of desalination process (OECD N/A):

• Multi-stage Flash distillation Plant – water vapour is generated by heating the seawater close to boiling point. Then it is passed through gradually reducing pressures to provide flash evaporation. The vapour is then condensed as a freshwater.
• Multi-effect distillation Plant – Vapour generated by external heat appliance. Again lower pressures promote further evaporation. The vapour produced from one heating is used to provide the heat for the next evaporation process. Forming a chain reaction.
• Reverse Osmosis – seawater is passed through a high pressure system with semi-permeable surfaces. This rejects brine and produces pure water.

The latter requires less energy, costs and water input, suggesting it may be the more efficient process to use.

Costs per m3 production of desalinated freshwater. Lowest costs seen within nuclear reverse osmosis (OECD N/A).

The UK Environmental Agency suggests that all future nuclear plants should be built on the coast to enable the greatest supply for reactor cooling as well as enabling large scale desalination projects (NEI 2013). This is perfect in the UK, however as seen in Fukushima coastal positioning generates large risk within active seismic areas – meaning the UK policy is unlikely to be replicated on a global scale.

Nuclear energy therefore is not a sector that should be targeted in regards to freshwater security issues. Withdrawal and consumption are comparably low to other sectors. However it must be examined as a potential source of improvement. Desalination through fossil fuels is simply adding to the problem, nuclear desalination can provide additional freshwater in the short-term and reduce global warming and the consequent freshwater reduction in the long-term also!

Nuclear and Freshwater - Part 1

Energy and freshwater security are interdependent and therefore pressures on one will tend to transfer to the other also (Holland 2015).

Nuclear energy can be viewed as detrimental to freshwater security, for example in 2008 it was realised that nuclear power plants used more water per unit electricity than other forms of power plant (UCSUSA 2015). The water use varies depending on the cooling method used, the “once-through” technique uses 400 gallons/MWh, whereas if cooling towers are implemented then the consumption increases to 720 gallons/MWh. In comparison to other forms of energy generation, this is rather high:

•  Coal ranging from 300-714 gallons/MWh.
• Natural gas ranging from 100-370 gallons/MWh (NEI 2013).

However it is far more efficient than other renewable energy options:

• Hydropower consumption 4,500 gallons/MWh.
• Geothermal and solar consume 2 to 4x more water than nuclear power plants (NEI 2013).

Cooling towers in Nottinghamshire, UK (Carroll 2012).

The interdependence is highlighted by the 15% loss of French nuclear energy generation in 2003 as a result of a severe drought (Hightower 2008). Similar difficulties were found in Eastern Australia following the large drought of 2007. With the increased threat of freshwater security the energy sector will have to compete with other sectors – predominantly agriculture – for the dwindling resources (Hightower 2008). Therefore whether there is sufficient water available to provide for the nuclear future is a question that needs to be answered.

As seen from previous posts, nuclear disasters or waste leakage can detriment the quality of the freshwater resources. For example in SE Washington State there were wide reports of groundwater (GW) contamination (Hanson 2000). Liquid wastes were discharged directly into the ground in the mid-20^th century, as well as waste leakage from the underground pipe system (Hanson 2000). The risk of GW contamination reduces the amount of resource available for use. This will be of particular concern within semi-arid and arid environments where GW resources are gaining increasing importance as surface stores reduce with increasingly prolonged droughts.

Evidence of contamination was found in northern and western areas of the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan (Mizuno 2013). Freshwater organisms such as the Ayu fish were contaminated. High caesium content was detected in areas up to 40km away from the plant. This spread is produced by the high density Japanese freshwater system with multiple irrigation canals, paddy fields and urban waterways. Therefore enabling the contamination of the water to spread large areas, bringing ecological and human health issues and impacting agricultural efficiency (Mizuno 2013).

However, these negatives do not tell the whole story! Absolute consumption may not be as great as quoted here in reality, with many benefits coming from the nuclear sector also. These will be detailed in the following post! 

Waste Cartoon

Source (Hancock 2013).

The above refers to the longevity of the nuclear waste problem. Perhaps the cartoon underestimates the prolonged threat it can provide, the issue is going to continue past one generational shift! However, it does stimulate thought in regards to the ethics behind nuclear waste - can we dispose of it in deep geological structures, placing it out of sight and out of mind - if future generations will be impacted by the potential escape of radioactive material over time. Contrasting viewpoints point to different radioactive lifespans - much opposition, including Greenpeace, use the half life (millions of years) of radionuclides to emphasise their anti-nuclear stance. However other evidence would suggest that after 1,000 years the waste would have decayed to a similar level as natural uranium (WNA 2015).

There is no doubt the waste concern will bypass the lives of multiple generations - whether this is moral or not is a big question. It may be argued that leaving the waste for future generations is positive, as if the current technological advancement trends continue then a future society may be in a better position to overcome this challenge than the position we are currently in. Advancements have already begun, for example the vitrification process (UOS 2013) and fuel reprocessing.

Please view my posts on nuclear waste (Parts 1 and 2), for more information and references to other material.

Costs Cartoon

Source: (Energy Collective 2012).

I have decided to source some images/cartoons that I feel reflect some of the points that I have made in previous blogs. This particular image highlights, what I feel to be the inevitable, resurrection of nuclear energy in the coming years. My "nuclear costs" post displayed the relative cheapness of electricity production via nuclear, especially in the face of dwindling accessible fossil fuel sources. Stable uranium costs will limit economically damaging price fluctuations, whilst lower transportation costs will benefit net importers of fuel.

With greater economic stress applied by rising fossil fuel costs, the ever increasing stigma attached to carbon combustion and the restrictions agreed upon at COP 21 - previous reservations of nuclear energy may be reversed. This cartoon may symbolise the future of German energy - realising that the closure of multiple plants may limit long-term economic and environmental viability!