• IN THIS SECTION

October 7, 2008

Exclusive: Nuclear Solutions to Global Challenges

Tom Ordeman, Jr.

In previous articles, we've discussed the basics of nuclear reactions, the anatomy of a nuclear reactor, and the inner workings of a nuclear weapon. This concluding piece will discuss what role nuclear energy, and nuclear weapons, could play in the near future.

The world faces a profound energy crisis. In the future, whether emissions are curtailed or not, the world will continue to require more and more energy. Nuclear energy can provide a clean, efficient, stable source of electricity. So, how does nuclear energy square up to other options?

During the course of the energy crisis of the last several years, much has been said about the use of green/alternative/renewable energy sources, most notably wind and solar energy. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that these technologies are in their infancy. Wind turbines are expensive to build, difficult to maintain, and require numerous turbines to produce an appreciable amount of energy. Solar panels have advanced a great deal in recent decades, but are still most efficient when used to heat water. Combined, these renewable energy sources receive more federal subsidies than other forms of energy, but account for less than 10% of total energy produced in the United States. They also rely on sun and wind, two commodities that are unreliable in most areas of the country. As a result of technological limitations and the unreliability of sunshine and wind, solar and wind energy are currently insufficient to meet the needs of America and the world at large with respect to energy generation. In addition, studies indicate that wind turbines have a negative effect on birds, a development which somewhat tarnishes their status as a "green" energy source. These technologies are worth pursuing, but Americans can not yet rely on them to solve the energy shortage. Further, if these methods have so much potential, they should not need government subsidies when tax breaks to encourage research and development would clearly suffice.

Other types of energy are either increasingly expensive, or difficult with respect to waste management. During the summer of 2008, petroleum prices had essentially tripled compared to the price in late 2003 before dropping substantially from that high in recent weeks. In recent years, biofuels were hailed as the solution to our energy needs, and legislators in most states (as well as the Federal Government) passed mandates for minimum ethanol content for vehicle fuel. Unfortunately, the world has subsequently learned that biofuels have essentially no benefit with respect to emissions when compared to traditional petroleum. In June, when catastrophic flooding destroyed corn crops in the Midwest, the resulting scarcity of the crops needed to produce biofuels led to massive increases in the price of fuel. Perhaps most alarmingly, the biofuel revolution has caused the global price of food to increase dramatically due to the increased demand for crops that can be used for both food and fuel. Is there really any benefit to biofuels if they anger the world by taking food out of the mouths of the hungry for the sake of fueling Western energy needs?

The source of a great deal of energy in the United States, coal has an environmental impact. Even new clean coal technology, which is being developed and implemented, has some impact on our planet. Hydroelectric power has profound environmental impacts, and its use is restricted to certain rivers in areas that are geographically predisposed to the use of dams. These conventional forms of energy, while far more reliable and realistic than many alternatives, continue to have their drawbacks.

These are just a few of the problems with various sources of energy. So, how does nuclear energy solve these problems? Uranium, while expensive to produce and refine, can fuel a reactor for years, before being reprocessed and recycled. New reactor designs and reprocessing technologies are safer than many ever thought possible, and result in a negligible amount of nuclear waste. Aside from this negligible waste, nuclear reactors produce only steam, which cools and dissipates harmlessly in the atmosphere. This steam comes from water that is completely separate from the reactor vessel itself, meaning that it has no possibility of radioactive contamination. The efficiency of nuclear energy is astonishing, particularly compared to undeveloped technologies such as solar and wind energy. The result is a safe, efficient energy production process with a negligible impact on the environment.

In addition to these considerations, one must also note the impact that an American nuclear renaissance would have on national security. Although the world will continue to need oil well into the future for both modern and legacy vehicle fuel, industrial lubricants, and a variety of other purposes, producing a surplus of nuclear energy would allow for the development of a variety of new technologies, many of which could reduce America's need for imported petroleum. Uranium, while relatively rare, can be produced and refined in the United States, or by allies such as Australia, France, and the United Kingdom. Much of the world's Uranium comes from Africa, and while some of the Uranium-producing nations are administered by questionable governments, the amount of money America would pay for Uranium from these nations is miniscule with respect to the amount of money that the West currently pays to countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, and others. In addition to saving Americans money in the long run, reduced dependence on foreign petroleum imports could prove to be valuable with respect to diplomatic relations with petroleum-producing states.

Consider, for a moment, what the world might be like today if petroleum-exporting nations had been forced to compete with Uranium-exporting nations during the course of the last 40 years. Would the West have been required to rush to the aid of Kuwait during the Tanker War of 1984-1988? Would the Tanker War have happened at all? Would Iraq have invaded Kuwait in 1990 if oil were a trivial commodity? If Kuwait had not been such a tempting target for Iraq in 1990, would the United States have been called upon to liberate Kuwait and defend Saudi Arabia from 1990 to the present? If American military assets had not been stationed in Saudi Arabia, would Osama bin Laden have had the motivation, or the religious/political capital necessary to form al Qaeda, whose stated goal was the removal of so-called infidel troops from the Saudi kingdom?

This is to say nothing of the course of events in Iran over the course of the last century, or any number of other nations and regions that are strategic for the sole purpose of the world's reliance on petroleum-based energy. Imagine a world in which events like the Iranian Revolution, the Persian Gulf War, Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, and a litany of others had never happened due to the impact of nuclear energy on the global energy infrastructure. This is not to say that the construction of one hundred nuclear energy stations in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s would have made the world a sort of Utopia; but the impact on international relations could have been profound, and the United States could have been in a much stronger position then and now if this had occurred.

In addition to the energy benefits of a nuclear renaissance, another potential benefit is often overlooked: water. Some experts believe that a leading cause of war in the new century will be water scarcity. (London Times, International Herald Tribune) Nuclear energy stations have an added benefit of being able to convert sea water into fresh water. In the many countries (including the United States) in which water scarcity is a slowly increasing issue, the impact of a nuclear station that could produce both clean energy and plentiful fresh water would be dramatic. Imagine a country like Oman, which sits adjacent to a literal ocean of unusable water. If a country such as this was able to use nuclear technology to produce not only energy, but fresh water, the lives of its people would be drastically altered for the better. As sources of natural fresh water are consumed by growing populations, artificial desalinization could prevent wars, famines, and any number of other disastrous consequences.

Indeed, several agreements have been made in recent years between Western nations and nations in the Middle East. The United States (AFP) and France (BBC) have both agreed to assist Algeria with their civil nuclear program. The United States has signed an agreement to work with Bahrain on the development of a nuclear program. And, in a development that would have been thought impossible 20 years ago, Colonel Qaddhafi of Libya successfully lobbied to receive cooperation from the French and the Americans (LJBC, BBC) on the development of an open and transparent civil nuclear energy program. In addition to being an excellent source of energy and fresh water for these desert nations, such cooperation on sensitive programs has the potential to provide valuable diplomatic capital in dealing with rogue nuclear aspirants such as Iran and North Korea. In the particular case of Libya, a Western-backed nuclear program would send the signal that cooperation, internationally acceptable conduct, and total transparency can and will pay off.

With respect to countries such as North Korea, Iran, and others, the proliferation concern still exists. In recent weeks, Iran has signed a nuclear deal with Nigeria, without the consent or oversight of any international nuclear body. In addition, there are indications that Iran may be acting as a clandestine supplier of biological or chemical weapons. The world's other major rogue nuclear state, North Korea, allegedly exported ballistic missile expertise to Pakistan in exchange for assistance on its nuclear program. These developments, along with North Korea's development of nuclear weapons (and Iran's likely efforts to develop the same) are the serious drawback of a possible expansion of civil nuclear energy programs. In order to prevent nuclear proliferation, the international community must take several steps.

First, international assistance in civil nuclear programs for developing countries must be made contingent upon acceptable diplomatic and military policies. During the development of such programs, and continuing thereafter, the operation of such programs must be contingent upon absolute transparency. Further, international nuclear regulatory bodies (most notably the International Atomic Energy Agency) must be given the proverbial teeth to take punitive action against those regimes that defy international norms and oversight. Under these and more specific conditions, developing countries could initiate compliant, peaceful, transparent nuclear programs, while rogue states such as North Korea and Iran could be prevented from developing clandestine nuclear weapons programs.

And what of nations that already have nuclear weapons? These countries, of which there are few, maintain nuclear arsenals for the near-singular purpose of deterrence. Although many are rightfully apprehensive about Pakistan's nuclear inventory, these assets should be rightfully understood as a direct counter to the Indian nuclear capability. In the case of Israel, a nation widely believed to have a credible nuclear deterrent, the Israeli inventory is maintained entirely for the purpose of preventing a catastrophic attack by one or more of Israel's neighboring enemies. Unfortunately, the technological development that ended World War II went on to create an international nuclear standoff that will almost certainly continue into the foreseeable future. However, as convoluted as nuclear diplomacy can be, the threat of sustaining a nuclear attack has a certain ability to make any given nuclear state act according to certain international conventions. In effect, the onset of the nuclear age has both complicated and stabilized certain aspects of international relations.

The most prominent argument against the use of nuclear energy is the question of safety. The example that most anti-nuclear advocates use is the 1986 explosion at the V.I. Lenin Memorial Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station outside Prypiat, Ukraine. However, as severe as this disaster was, it is frequently mischaracterized. The long-term impact of the incident itself is essentially negligible, and the local ecosystem has thrived since 1986. Further, the Soviet RBMK reactor type had several design flaws that were subsequently corrected; and the Chernobyl station was being staffed by poorly trained technicians. As much as the anti-nuke crowd tries to compare Western nuclear programs to the Chernobyl disaster, the Soviet Union was always less concerned with safety than Western nations. One needs to look no further than the unsafe history of the Soviet space program to see this shocking disparity. Compare this with the American naval nuclear propulsion program, which has operated for over half a century without a major incident. The contrast is astonishing, and further safe operation of nuclear programs in the United States, France, and Japan should serve as sufficient evidence that nuclear energy programs can be run safely, with minimal environmental impact.

There are currently two major limiting factors that prevent the expansion of civil nuclear programs in the United States. The first of these consists of a litany of Carter-era environmental regulations that have prevented the construction and operation of new nuclear power stations since the late 1970s. In order to build new nuclear facilities, these regulations will have to be both repealed and revisited, in order to make them more realistic. In addition, nuclear expansion is currently prevented by the lack of a storage facility for the minimal amount of nuclear waste that can not be reprocessed. The designated facility for this is the Yucca Mountain Repository in Nye County, Nevada. The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), has been one of the moust outspoken advocates against the completion of the Yucca Mountain facility. If opposing the Yucca Mountain Repository were no longer politically convenient for Reid, and if Congress could act in a bi-partisan manner to adjust the nuclear regulations to make them more realistic, America's energy prices would drop essentially overnight.

America and other Western nations had the luxury of putting off the construction of civil nuclear reactors during the 1980s and 1990s, when energy prices were low. Until now, America had the luxury of living by excessive, feel-good environmental legislation. The situation, with respect to both energy and its tangential connotations, has changed. The West can no longer afford the economic and security costs of such luxuries. If America and her allies are truly committed to reducing industrial emissions, changing international energy politics, reducing the strategic value of the Middle East, countering Russia's economic might, and a laundry list of other economic, political, diplomatic, social, and security goals, expanding nuclear energy production is crucial. To put it quite simply, America can not afford to wait any longer.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Tom Ordeman, Jr. is a technical writer for a major defense contractor in Hampton Roads, Virginia. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org

Print This E-mail This

Share It: