Arguments on the Renewability of Nuclear Energy

1. Nuclear Energy: RENEWABLE OR NON-RENEWABLE?
We can classify nuclear energy as nonrenewable because uranium and similar fuel sources are
finite. On the other hand, some people consider nuclear energy renewable because the element
thorium and other new technologies may provide infinite fuel needed to power nuclear reactors.
Energy Locked In Atoms
A nuclear reactor generates electricity by splitting atoms in a process called fission. When an
atom splits, energy is released along with neutrons that strike other atoms, causing them to
release more neutrons and energy. The reactor uses the energy's heat to warm water that
produces steam. That steam drives generators that produce the electricity the power plant
distributes to customers. Most reactors use uranium as the fuel source. Nuclear power plants also
produce nuclear waste that they must dispose of safely. This waste consists of extremely
radioactive materials that remain after used nuclear fuel is no longer capable of producing
electricity efficiently.
Renewable literally means 'to make new again'. Any resource that naturally replenishes with
time, like the creation of wind or the growth of biological organisms for biomass or biofuels, is
certainly renewable. Renewable energy means that the energy humans extract from nature will
generally replace itself.
On the other hand, a sustainable energy source can be maintained for a definable period of time,
one whose total amount will last for the period of human history that needs it, at the rate it is
being used or expected to be used. It may or may not be renewed at some rate.
“Not everything renewable is sustainable, and in turn not everything which is sustainable is
necessarily renewable.”
Energy sources are considered non-renewable if they take a very long time to be created,
like fossil fuels, or if their creation happened long ago and is not likely to happen again,
like uranium.
The most common fuel used in conventional nuclear fission power stations, uranium-235 is
"non-renewable" according to the Energy Information Administration,
Nuclear power is presently a sustainable energy source, but could become completely renewable
if the source of uranium changed from mined ore to seawater. Since U extracted is continuously
replenished through geologic processes, nuclear would become as endless as solar.
Just using existing uranium from U-mine sites, as well as burning existing spent fuel in fast
reactors in the near-future, provides sufficient uranium fuel to produce 10 trillion kWhs/year for
thousands of years, making it presently sustainable by any measure.
But using U extracted from seawater, instead of mining uranium ore, makes nuclear truly
renewable as well as sustainable. The amount of U in seawater is only 3.3 micrograms/liter (parts
per billion), but that totals 4.5 billion tons of U in the billion cubic kilometers of seawater in the
ocean.
But these numbers are not static. The uranium mined from normal uranium rock formations and
burned in reactors is gone forever. But uranium extracted from seawater is replenished
continuously. As with any commercial commodity, the process of seawater extraction must

2. become sufficiently economic to replace mining as the source of U. And new technologies of
extracting U from seawater are fast becoming economic.
The Great Nuclear Energy Debate
Experts still question whether the world should call nuclear power "renewable." Those who want
to classify nuclear energy as renewable cite the fact that it has low carbon emission -- just the
way renewable sources such as wind and solar do. Non-renewable fuels, such as natural gas and
oil, produce byproducts that harm the environment through global warming emissions. Those
opposed to calling nuclear power renewable note that nuclear power plants create harmful waste.
Arguments on the Renewability of Nuclear Energy
Inclusion of nuclear energy in the renewable energy list is a subject of major debate.
But one of the most interesting arguments for including nuclear energy in the renewable energy
portfolio came from Bernard L Cohen, former professor at University of Pittsburg. Professor
Cohen defined the term 'indefinite'(time span required for an energy source to be sustainable
enough to be called renewable energy) in numbers by using the expected relationship between
the sun (source of solar energy) and the earth. According to Professor Cohen, if the Uranium
deposit could be proved to last as long as the relationship between the Earth and Sun is supposed
to last (5 billion years) then nuclear energy should be included in the renewable energy portfolio.
In his paper Professor Cohen claims that using breeder reactors (nuclear reactor able to generate
more fissile material than it consumes) it is possible to fuel the earth with nuclear energy
indefinitely. Although the amount of uranium deposit available could only supply nuclear energy
for about 1000 years, Professor Cohen believes actual amount of uranium deposit available is
way more than what is considered extractable right now. In his arguments he includes uranium
that could be extracted at a higher cost, uranium from the sea water and also uranium from
eroding earth crust by river water. All of those possible uranium resources if used in a breeder
reactor would be enough to fuel the earth for another 5 billion years and hence renders nuclear
energy as renewable energy.
One of the biggest arguments against including nuclear energy in the list of renewable is the fact
that uranium deposit on earth is finite, unlike solar and wind. To be counted as renewable, the
energy source (fuel) should be sustainable for an indefinite period of time, according to the
definition of renewable energy.
Another major argument proposed by the opponents of including nuclear energy as renewable
energy is the harmful nuclear waste from nuclear power reactors. The nuclear waste is
considered as a radioactive pollutant that goes against the notion of a renewable energy source.
Yucca Mountain is one of the examples used quite often to prove this point.
1982 – Congress passes the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, requiring the establishment of a deep
geologic repository for nuclear waste storage and isolation. The legislation stipulates the
significance of geologic and hydrologic conditions in selecting a repository site and mandates the
consideration of at least five sites in two or more types of geologic media. Two repositories are
to be developed, one on each side of the country, to ensure regional equity. A detailed selection

3. and evaluation process is to be carried out by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The
Nuclear Waste Fund is established to finance this process.
In 1983, the U.S. Department of Energy selected nine locations in six states for consideration as
potential repository sites. This was based on data collected for nearly 10 years. Yucca Mountain,
Nevada, was one of them. Yucca Mountain was chosen based on several factors: distance from a
major population center, desert location, in a closed hydrologic basin, surrounded by federal land
and protected by natural geological barriers. Yucca Mountain becomes the selected site. Tunnel
boring machines encounters loose ground at various points. Thermal testing begins at Yucca
Mountain.
It seems like at the heart of debate lies the confusion over the exact definition of renewable
energy and the requirements that needs to be met in order to be one. A statement by Helene
Pelosi, the interim director General of IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency), says
IRENA will not support nuclear energy programs because it’s a long, complicated process, it
produces waste and is relatively risky, proves that their decision has nothing to do with having a
sustainable supply of fuel. And if that's the case then nuclear proponents would have to figure
out a way to deal with the nuclear waste management issue and other political implications of
nuclear power before they can ask IRENA to reconsider including nuclear energy in the
renewable energy list.