Summary: Nuclear energy is one of the most debated subjects in the environmental policy and legal world. Questions that often arise are: Is it safe? Is it sustainable? Can it serve as a bridge to moving away from fossil fuels? However, what is often overlooked is the impact of nuclear power on our water systems, especially in drought prone areas.
__________________________________________
By Allen Smith
Many leading energy experts often deem nuclear an acceptable form of sustainable energy. Yet the negative side effects of nuclear energy production are severely underestimated, especially when we consider the region where plants are developed, as well as effects on the overall environmental life cycle. It is widely known that there have been problems with nuclear energy and waste, and the energy costs of mining uranium in terms of overall emissions are well documented. Those side effects are amplified when nuclear facilities are developed in drought-prone regions, such as the American Southwest and Texas.
Image credit to psr-la.org
A proposed nuclear facility in Green River, UT would have consumed about 53,000 acre feet of water annually from the Green River (a valuable tributary to the severely depleted Colorado River) to cool its reactors and generate steam to power its turbines. That’s enough water to supply 200,000 people a year, roughly the size of Tacoma, WA. When thinking about the scarcity of available freshwater in the world and the increased drought-like conditions in many parts of the country, those numbers add up to major impacts not just to our economy, but our survival. Just look at the increasing amount of tension and war-like conditions currently developing between local communities and their government over water supply in politically unstable areas such as the Middle East.
The Southwest Nuclear Project Electric Generating Station (SNPEGS) near Bay City, TX is right along the Colorado River and uses water from the river to power each unit and cool the reactors. Two proposed additional units in 2010 were turned down due to financial constraints. The proposed project would have piped tens of thousands acre-feet of water each year from the Colorado River, decreasing the amount of fresh water remaining in the river. Given that a number of other interests had previously gained access to the Colorado River and aggressively used up the water, the ecological effect would have been devastating. Though SNPEGS does not directly discharge wastewater into the Colorado River, wastewater discharge and the effect on water quality remains an issue in many other regions throughout the US, and is especially problematic in fragile, drought-prone areas. The combination of drought-depleted rivers and the negative effect on water quality makes the outlook on future water security extremely bleak.
Image credit to cleantechnica.com
In 2006, the Department of Energy warned that consumption of water for electricity production could more than double by 2030 to 7.3 billion gallons per day in the US if developers continue to build new power plants with evaporative cooling, an amount equal to the entire country’s water consumption for 1995. Thethree stages of nuclear fuel cycleuranium milling and mining, plant operation, and nuclear waste storageall consume, withdraw, and contaminate water supplies. Due to this large need for water resources, most nuclear facilities cannot even operate during drought conditions, and in some cases can actually cause water shortages.
The reality around nuclear energy and water should cause both consumers and producers to take caution around expanding nuclear energy or relying on it as a “clean” form of energy in drought-prone regions like the American Southwest, California, and Texas, especially when rivers are at high risk of being drained of their remaining water. The impact of climate change will only worsen drought and stress on water resources and create more tension throughout the world. Thus, if the other environmental costs of nuclear don’t dissuade people enough from using it as a “clean energy alternative,” the cumulative effect on water security should tip the scales against expanding this form of energy in the U.S.
Allen Smith holds a J.D. from Vermont Law School, with dual Land Use and Climate Law Certificates. Last summer, he helped with the process of getting a bill addressing climate change signed into law in Rhode Island, and was a legal intern with the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. He was a clinician with the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources last fall, where he worked extensively on issues related to addressing water quality in the state, as well as observed negotiations between ANR and the ENRLC staff for the Jay Peak stormwater case. He has also served as a board fellow with the Stowe Land Trust, and was heavily involved with the Food & Agriculture Law Society, where he was a 3L Senator. Smith enjoys running, hiking, and other outdoor sports in his spare time.
The post Nuclear Energy and Drought: A Recipe for Disaster appeared first on Vermont Journal of Environmental Law.