Nuclear Inspection, This Time, America

Introduction.

            Climate change has reached critical levels.  Increasing temperatures along with the melting of polar ice caps indicate global temperatures are on the rise.  Every year an average of 2 parts per million of carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.¹ In 2008, some 7.9 billion tons of carbon were emitted from the burning of fossil fuels and 1.5 billion tons were emitted as a result of deforestation, for a total of 9.4 billion tons of carbon that have been added into the atmosphere three years ago.² Carbon is an element classified as a greenhouse gas, that when present in the atmosphere, trap in heat, disrupts the hydrologic cycle, thus creating climatic change.

American political science and environmentalism seem to be at the crossroads for the moment, as we enter into 2012.  Germany is moving further away from nuclear fission, as Japan is moving closer to stabilizing their nuclear crisis.  America seems to be right in the middle, unsure of what action to take in this political and environmental, energy game.  Activist groups oppose the use of nuclear technology; meanwhile, politicians are promoting it.  Both sides are heated in this resource issue: how will we fuel the American energy consumption without the use of coal? Nuclear energy and renewable energy are being scrutinized and push to the theological limit with every new book published on environmental politics.  Time for picking and choosing is now over as we move beyond the threshold for carbon-dioxide emissions.  In this paper we will be discussing potential energy plans with and without nuclear energy.

             To understand this topic we must visit the reactor to see what really goes on behind closed doors.  A nuclear reactor is a highly complex and costly stem designed to perform a relatively simple ask: to boil water to produce steam that spins a turbine and generates electricity.⁴ Currently the United States operate the most common type of nuclear reactors, light-water reactors (LWR).  LWR produce 85% of the worlds’ nuclear-generated electricity (100% in the U.S.). ⁵ Environmental scientists G. Tyler Miller, Jr. and Scott E. Spoolman explain the inefficiency of light-water reactors.

LWRs are highly inefficient, losing about 75% of the energy available in their nuclear fuel as waste heat to the environment, just in generating electricity.  Before that point, 9% of the energy content of the fuel is lost when the fuel is mined, upgraded, and transported to the plant.  At least another 8% is lost in dealing with the radioactive wastes produced by a plant, brining the net energy loss to about 92%. ⁶

Miller continues explaining the light-water reactor’s costly externalities:

If we add the enormous amount of energy need to dismantle a plant at the end of its life and store its highly radioactive materials for thousands of years, some scientists estimate that using nuclear power will eventually require more energy than it will ever produce.⁷

With such negative costs, it is a surprise that 19% of the United States energy is derived from these nuclear sources.⁸  

Notes

1.     James Hansen, Target Caron Dioxide: Where Should Humanity Aim? (Poli 10: Instructor Handout), 161.

2.    Lester Brown, Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (New York: New York, 2009), 57.

3.    G. Tyler Miller, Jr., Scott E. Spoolman.  Environmental Science.  (California:Brooks/Colle, 2010).  p. 310 (Figure 13).

4.    Ibid. p. 309 

5.    Ibid. 

6.    Ibid., p. 309-310.

7. Ibid., p. 310.

    8. Schreurs, Environmental Politics in Japan, Germany, and the United States

(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p