In green culture today there is much talk of ‘sustainability.' Essentially, if a product requires few resources, is efficiently made, is biodegradable and has a picture of the world on it with a cute slogan like "let's work together," then it's probably sustainable. The opposite of sustainability is wastefulness.
My question is why nuclear energy is being marketed to the public as the magic pill of our unsustainable habits and ways. Come one, come all! Look at the glowing green goop that is going to save us from that shiny black goop ... except don't get too close or you'll never be able to have kids and your skin might fall off. Something is very wrong with this marketing scheme, as there is nothing more wasteful and unsustainable than a large−scale nuclear energy program.
So let's get the facts straight. Ninety−nine percent of the raw mass from mining uranium consists of highly toxic, indestructible bits of radioactive sand called "tailings." Radium, radon and polonium dissipate from these heaps of tailings into the water supply and disperse into the air. For flora or fauna in the general area that require water or oxygen to survive, this is a bit of a problem. The uranium extracted from the tailings is less toxic than the filings themselves — the filings are often left to sit in uncovered piles vulnerable to wind and rain.
The Navajo Nation knows full well of the horrors of uranium mining. A tailings dam burst in 1979, and 1,100 tons of radioactive mill wastes and 90 million gallons of contaminated liquid poured toward Arizona into the Rio Puerco River. Because this is a high desert region, the contaminated water infiltrated the water supply of the southwest United States. It is the worst radioactive accident in U.S. history. And you thought high school taught you the world's worst nuclear disasters.
The next step is manufacturing. Once the Uranium ore is extracted from its less desirable tailings, it is then shipped to an enrichment center. Uranium ore is 99.27 percent uranium−238, which is useless to the nuclear energy process. Only 0.72 percent of ore is the precious uranium−235 isotope. To obtain this elusive creature from the ore there are three main choices: spin it really fast in a cylinder, shoot it really fast in a circle, or use toxic gas to separate it (each of which has a more scientific name). The only difference between weapons grade and energy grade essentially comes down to more loads of laundry with the same material, but that is a different problem to tackle altogether. The enriched uranium is then bonded to fluoride and makes a gas that reacts violently with water — once again, great for sentient life. It is cleverly called ‘hex' by the industry. At the end of the manufacturing process, humankind is left with those little glowing rods that "The Simpsons" introduced us to.
Then to the power production part, which I have no problem with. Extremely high energy density and incidental water desalination are both great. But the occasional breakdown of a facility creates a few problems. There's a little town in Russia that would love to explain what happens when the reactor safety mechanisms fail. Not to mention the fact that these plants have a shelf life of at most 60 years. After that point the entire plant — concrete, steel and everything you can think of — becomes waste: unusable, radioactive, deadly waste. How is that sustainable? We already have 104 nuclear power plants. Any plan for what happens when those run out within our lifetime would be great, but the best that the government has is giant graveyards.
But it's the part that comes after that worries me yet again — for there is no way to dispose of the volatile and radioactive nuclear waste. The final problem has no solution. The best idea humanity has come up with is to put it back in the ground around Yucca Mountain in Nevada, where, now highly concentrated, it threatens to enter the water supply.
So how, exactly, is nuclear energy sustainable? The simple answer is that nuclear energy is the wrong "green" for the green revolution. Or do you disagree? Come to the EPIIC symposium Feb. 23−27 to hear the experts discuss unanswered questions.
--
