Posted: 02/07/07

Dangerous and efficient
Is nuclear power the answer to our energy questions?

Emma Long | copy editor
elong@smcvt.edu

Efficiency is a loaded term that has been thrown around worldwide during the past few decades. In light of today’s growing concern for energy efficiency due to the underlying threat of global warming, nuclear power is heavily scrutinized for its potential instability, yet remains a very convenient option for energy-thirsty consumers. Vermont itself receives two-thirds of its power from Vermont Yankee (V.Y.), a 34-year-old nuclear power plant located in Vernon, Vt.

What exactly is nuclear power?

In any power plant, the end goal is to drive a turbine which, by means of rotation, will produce the energy needed to generate and distribute mass quantities of electricity. However this rotation is achieved is up to each individual plant, depending on which process it specializes in.

Dr. William Karstens, physics department chair at St. Michael's College, says a popular option is to drive the turbine by the use of rising steam. This method requires boiling water. One way to boil this water is what Karstens dubs “the old fashioned way,” which is to put fire underneath it, like in a coal plant. What it comes down to is how a plant will choose to boil the water which will in turn drive the electricity-generating turbine.

"What the nuclear power plant does is simply make use of nuclear reactions that generate heat," says Dr. William Karstens, St. Michael's physics department chair. (Colin Vallance, photo)

“What the nuclear power plant does is simply make use of nuclear reactions that generate heat,” Karstens says. The produced heat boils the water, which drives the turbine, which creates the electricity - therefore it’s no different in that fundamental sense than any other power plant, he says.

“I think that’s probably the biggest clarification for people, because I think there’s always a sense that somehow there’s something different coming out from [nuclear power plants], but there isn’t; it’s really just another way to heat the water,” Karstens says.

The use of nuclear reactions is a much cleaner way of generating electricity from a power plant, he says.

Balancing the pros and cons

While nuclear power plants do not release harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - and therefore do not contribute directly to global warming - environmentalists, scientists, activists, and average citizens alike are struggling with justifying the risk that accompanies the operation of such plants.

Even with all necessary precautions taken into account, “there is always the human element to screw things up,” Joerg Mayer writes in an e-mail. Mayer is a retired mathematics professor residing in Brattleboro, Vermont – just miles away from the town of Vernon which hosts the V.Y. nuclear power plant. Mayer is an active citizen, volunteering when he can, and offering his opinions on energy resources through a fact-riddled column published in the local newspaper, the Brattleboro Reformer.

In a column on Jan. 23, Mayer discussed the seemingly unsafe method which V.Y. uses to cool its still-radiating rods, which were once used to produce heat.

“The spent-fuel area made quite an impression on me. The rods were standing in a big pool of water, a very big pool,” Mayer wrote. “The water cools them and prevents them from escaping. Lose the water and you are in trouble. When I looked at the walls of the building and of the pool, it occurred to me that it would not be too difficult to penetrate both.”

Similarly, Karstens describes the use of radioactive substances as relatively dangerous, as the materials are high up on the periodic chart and their tendency is to be very unstable.

The overriding danger of running a nuclear power plant, Karstens says, is “what these radioactive emissions do; they can cause biological damages.”

On the other hand, nuclear power plants “don’t release the carbon emissions into the atmosphere; they tend to be very clean in that regard,” Karstens says. In light of the world’s increasing anxiety over global warming, Karsten believes nuclear energy is still an option we should keep available.

Neil Vaughn, senior environmental, health, and safety engineer at Raytheon, a defense and aerospace systems supplier based out of Waltham, Mass., agrees.

"Positive gains have been made in wind and solar energy, but these have not yet been proven at the economies of scale needed to make a dent in the problem," Vaughn writes in an e-mail.

"A renewed engineering effort would have the potential to resolve shortcomings of previous generations of nuclear installations and to develop solutions to the looming problem of spent fuel," Vaughn wrote.

What’s going on today?

In mid-January, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, partnered with 10 other senators, announced a plan to establish The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, a bill which, if implemented, will decrease harmful greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

Other politicians are also taking a stand to combat global warming, and to move away from less efficient means of generating power. Vermont Congressman Peter Welch is among those concerned.

“Congressman Welch is focused on aggressively moving away from nuclear power and fossil fuel by promoting renewable energy development as a replacement,” Andrew Savage, Welch’s communications director, says. “He is concerned about the safety, the long-term storage, and the environmental impacts of nuclear power, as well as strongly opposes tax breaks for this mature industry.

“As just a first step, he supported H.R. 6, legislation that ends $14 billion in subsidies for oil companies to fund new renewable energy development,” Savage says.

An electricity-generating windmill behind Dynapower Corporation in South Burlington, Vermont. (Colin Vallance, photo)

Despite opposition, V.Y. is in the process of seeking a license extension from its scheduled closing date of 2012 until 2032.

Mayer doesn’t support V.Y.’s attempt to extend its license.

“[V.Y.] is old and probably decrepit. The added power increases the temperature of the cooling water which might affect the health of the [nearby] Connecticut River,” Mayer wrote. “To add years to its operation seems to me a bit risky.”

Controversy erupted in Vermont on Jan. 30, when a co-founder of Greenpeace, an international environmental organization established in 1971, spoke out in support of nuclear power and V.Y. specifically.

In an article written by Bob Audette, published in the Jan. 31 online issue of the Brattleboro Reformer, Jason Moore, Greenpeace co-founder, shocked many when he cited nuclear power as environmentally sound.

“Two-thirds of your power is essentially carbon dioxide emission free. That’s something to be very proud of,” Moore says in Audette’s article. Moore also reminded skeptical Vermonters that no major nuclear accident has occurred in the world in 20 years, and referred to nuclear waste as a "national treasure" because of its ability to be re-used.

What are some other options?

“I think it’s advantageous for anybody to make sure they’re looking at all the options,” Karstens says, some of which include wind power (generated by windmills) and geothermic power (generated by heat from the earth’s core). None so far have been dubbed a cost-effective replacement for nuclear energy, he says.

A windmill perched on the horizon in South Burlington, Vermont. (Colin Vallance, photo)

According to Mayer in his Jan. 23 column, it would take up to 300 windmills to replace the power generated by V.Y. While some find windmills attractive, others shun the idea of installing the so-called eyesores into Vermont’s pristine green mountains.

“You’ve got people who are going to complain about everything,” Karstens says. “They don’t see the carbon going into the atmosphere, so that doesn’t seem to be a problem, but they don’t like to have that windmill up blocking their view.

“I think people need to take a very hard look at their privilegeness in society, and I think that’s what’s standing in the way of a tremendous amount of moving forward here.”