際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

Nuclear Power vs Fracking

Download as DOC, PDF
Jordan Sedlock
Jordan Sedlock

The document discusses and compares nuclear fission power and shale gas production through hydraulic fracturing. It notes that both can provide energy but have costs and risks that must be considered. Nuclear power has high upfront costs but provides clean, sustainable energy with strict safety regulations. However, it also has waste disposal issues. Shale gas has lower costs but also environmental and health impacts that require further study. The document performs a comparative analysis of the costs and benefits of both options, considering factors like emissions, energy security, and external costs. It ultimately argues that nuclear power is a more environmentally safe and economically superior alternative to shale gas.

1 of 14
Download to read offline
Jordan Sedlock Comparative and Economic Analyses of Nuclear Fission Power and Shale Gas by Hydraulic Fracturing for Maryland Energy security and energy sources are of great concern with the growing global demand for energy, as well as the need for a cleaner energy alternative other than current fossil fuel based sources. Nuclear energy is an alternative worth considering because it can provide clean, safe, sustainable energy. It could aid in climate change mitigation despite the high initial investment costs and medium operation and maintenance costs, while providing a statistically low probability of reactor meltdown and techniques for disposing of waste. Shale gas production by hydraulic fracturing is another process worth considering. It offers a cheap energy alternative that is a cleaner source of energy than coal or oil and promises energy security and economic development. However, its high financial costs and risks, environmental and human health degradation, and energy alternative displacement must be seriously studied and weighed. Costs and benefits of each type of energy source are considered and compared. Nuclear power is an environmentally safer and economically superior energy alternative to shale gas production by hydraulic fracturing; both globally and locally. This will be explained using prior assessments, factual-based studies, and comparative cost-benefit economic analyses. Nuclear Nuclear fission power has existed since December 2, 1942, when Italian physicist Enrico Fermi demonstrated the first human-controlled, self-sustaining, nuclear fission reaction, at the University of Chicago, using a small-scale reactor (Brook et al., 2014). From this small reactor, an entire industry has been built up to 435 operating nuclear
Jordan Sedlock power reactors, 72 in construction, and 134 more expected in the future, all providing clean energy and services for a number of human activities (Brook et al., 2014). Nuclear power generation is a process involving the following: mining and milling, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, electricity generation, interim spent fuel storage, reprocessing of spent fuel, and high-level waste disposal (Kessides, 2010). Mining and milling involve mining uranium, milling it into a fine powder and through chemical processes, converting it into uranium oxide (Kessides 2010). Further conversion transforms uranium oxide into uranium hexafluoride, which is then involved in the enrichment process of concentrating the fissionable U-235 isotope from approximately 0.7% to 4% (Kessides, 2010). Following enrichment, uranium hexafluoride is converted to uranium dioxide and inserted into zirconium or steel tubes to create fuel rods (Kessides, 2010). With fuel rods, fission (splitting of neutrons in a chain reaction) is made to occur and electricity is then generated (Kessides, 2010). Because of the radioactivity of this process, the handling of spent fuel storage is very important. Spent fuel rods are placed in large pools on site of the reactors, to cool and decrease in radioactivity (Kessides, 2010). Spent fuel may be reprocessed in which case uranium and plutonium are removed and reused in further nuclear power generation (Kessides, 2010). The final and most imperative step in this process is high-level waste disposal, wherein, spent fuel is encapsulated and completely sealed in corrosion-resistant metal canisters and then buried deep underground within rock formations (Kessides, 2010). All sources of energy production come with costs that must be considered prior to decision-making about the future. Nuclear power production has implications, which include high financial costs and risks as well as moderate environmental consequences.
Jordan Sedlock Financial costs include capital and construction costs (planning, preparation, and construction), operations and maintenance (management, support and upkeep, insurance licensing and regulatory fees), fuel costs, and back-end costs (decommissioning and dismantling facilities at the end of operating life, also, waste management) (Kessides, 2010). Currently, initial investments account for 60% of total costs, with maintenance and operations accounting for 20% each respectively (Kessides, 2010). Risks include possibilities of reactor meltdown or other uncontrollable disasters, exposure to radiation, and some argue, links to proliferation of nuclear weapons (Brook et al., 2014). Issues of reactor meltdown are addressed by better engineering techniques and very tightly maintained and regulated safety guidelines to which nuclear power plants must adhere (Brook et al., 2014). Concerns about exposure are addressed with proper scientifically supported data that indicate radiation exposure from the sun or other natural sources is higher than radiation in and around nuclear power plants (Brook et al., 2014). The issue of proliferation of nuclear weapons is addressed with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, signed by most countries, committing them to cease producing weapons grade materials and types of nuclear weapons (Brook et al., 2014). Environmental implications include pollution from mining of uranium, proper handling of toxic waste, and effects on surrounding aquatic ecosystems. Mining uranium will drastically decrease when implementing fast reactor technology in power plants and with new methods for recycling used fuel (Brook et al., 2014). Extreme care is taken when handling and storing toxic waste; it is disposed of in an environmentally inert container, ensured to withstand leaching for hundreds of years (Brook et al., 2014). Effects on surrounding aquatic ecosystems and the environment are minimal in
Jordan Sedlock comparison to other processes performed, such as hydraulic fracturing. Marylands own Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, which experiences impingement losses of aquatic life, was evaluated in a study (Ringger, 2000). That study concluded that the impingement losses are not significant on local fish populations and are smaller compared to other causes of fish mortality such as commercial fishing (Ringger, 2000). Power plants near coastlines which utilize water to cool core reactors, only contribute to temporary temperature increases in water and posit no effects on chemical composition or radioactivity (Brook et al., 2014). The benefits associated with nuclear power include clean, safe, sustainable energy with minimal environmental and atmospheric impact. There are established and known government regulations to provide safety, along with better accounting for external costs of processes compared to techniques such as hydraulic fracturing. Nuclear power is produced with minimal air pollution (steam) and the overall process releases minimal amounts of CO2 (Brook et al., 2014). Utilizing the 435 currently active power plants, unlike coal-operated plants, prevents emissions of nearly 2 billion tons of CO2 each year (Brook et al., 2014). With assurance of a clean energy source, implementing and utilizing nuclear energy therefore serves as insurance against high climate-mitigation costs paid from the use of other less clean forms of energy (Lehtveer et al., 2015). Safety is accounted for during initial construction of the power plants and contributes to high initial start-up costs. (Verbruggen et al., 2014). Sustainability is achieved through reusing uranium from used-fuel elements and depleted uranium in combination, thereby providing enough energy to power the world for several hundred years (Brook et al., 2014).
Jordan Sedlock Energy security, having enough energy that is both available and affordable for the public, is possible with the use of nuclear power generation. (Verbruggen et al., 2014). Nuclear power also stimulates research and the use of other types of energy sources unlike industries such as shale gas, which displace more efficient forms of energy due to such low prices. Nuclear power can be generated with recycled fuel and depleted uranium for hundreds of years to follow, whereas with shale gas, which is abundant and cheap now, is expected to be depleted within 60 years due to rapid increase of use (Brook et al., 2014). The higher prices associated with nuclear power stem from high construction expenses to insure safety as well as account for many externalities associated with the process. Other techniques for energy production, such as hydraulic fracturing, do not factor in many of the serious externalities associated with its use. For comparisons, the following addresses hydraulic fracturing in detail. Hydraulic Fracturing Although hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a relatively new technique, the extraction of shale gas has been occurring since the early 1800s (Sovacool, 2014). Long before the first oil well was drilled, shale gas extraction occurred in Fredonia, New York in 1821 (Sovacool, 2014). This begs the question as to what exactly fracking is and what it entails. Fracking is a technique used to obtain natural gas, which has built up in shale deposits within sedimentary rock (gas shale deposits) deep within the earth. This technique involves a seven-step process that includes: seismic exploration, pad construction, vertical drilling, horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing, sustained production, and waste disposal (Sovacool, 2014).
Jordan Sedlock Seismic exploration involves using sound waves and three-dimensional reconstruction to map underground rock formations to determine depth and thickness of prospective shale formations (Sovacool, 2014). Pad construction is the process of positioning and leveling a platform for a drilling rig over a prospective play (field where drilling will occur) (Sovacool, 2014). Vertical drilling is the process that involves drilling up to twelve holes (for one well), below the surface to depths of anywhere from 4,000 12,000 feet (Sovacool, 2014). Once desired depth has been reached with vertical drilling, horizontal drilling follows, which entails the use of a large drilling derrick (lifting device) and slant-drills that drill horizontally into the shale formations in many different directions for thousands of feet (Sovacool, 2014). Then the hydraulic fracturing process is initiated. This involves shooting fracking fluid, consisting of water mixed with chemicals, sand, and other proppants (particulates used to keep micro-fractures in shale open) into the shale deposits at a force of 5,000 psi in order to cause fracturing as much as 1,000 feet from the drilled well (Sovacool, 2014). This process can take anywhere from 3 10 days for completion and is known as a frack job (Sovacool, 2014). Once the shale has been fractured, the trapped natural gas can be released. The sustained production process of fracking involves placing a Christmas tree valve assembly over the drilled wells, placing collection tanks nearby, and allowing the natural gas to flow up through the drilled wells and into the collection tanks (Sovacool, 2014). The final step in this rigorous process includes waste disposal, which entails collecting the flowback of fracking fluid (also known as produced water) that was injected underground. This fracking fluid is recycled and used in future fracking jobs, if possible, or it is desalinated and disposed of via sewage and waste water systems (Sovacool, 2014).
Jordan Sedlock Generally, multi-stage fracking is required at drilling sites in order to obtain as much shale gas as possible. Some drilling sites are drilled as many as twenty times to ensure the maximum amount of shale gas has been retrieved from the deposits (Sovacool, 2104). The fracking process is relative to each site and utilizes millions of gallons of water and upwards of thousands of gallons of fracking fluid and associated proppants (Sovacool, 2014). Fracking, though useful for obtaining large quantities of shale gas, has many implications including high risks and financial costs, displacement, and harmful environmental and health effects. Fracking is an elaborate and expensive process requiring advanced equipment and other materials to perform frack jobs. Upwards of 50% of total costs for drilling are consumed by drilling the final 10% of each well (Sovacool, 2014). A single horizontal well costs $3-$5 million, excluding costs of operations, land leasing, and waste management (Sovacool, 2014). This process is risky because of poor operating procedures and lax regulations, making it prone to methane leakages and accidents, respectively (Sovacool, 2014). Fracking has displaced the growth and research of renewable sources of electricity including wind, solar and nuclear power sources (Sovacool, 2014). Environmental implications include acceleration of global climate change, as methane is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) with a warming potential nearly 28-34 times greater than that of CO2 (Finkel et al., 2013; Vinciguerra et al., 2015). Studies conducted have shown that approximately 3.67.9% of methane obtained from shale gas production escapes over the lifetime of one well. This rate is expected to increase with fracking growth (Finkel et al, 2013). Further environmental implications to consider include direct
Jordan Sedlock contamination of the environment (air, sub, and surface waters) and human health as 30- 70% of fracking fluid used for one frack job will resurface contaminated with heavy metals, a number of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs) (Finkel et al., 2013). Fracking fluid also contains BTEX compounds: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic. These compounds are known for causing respiratory, neurological, reproductive, and gastrointestinal issues as well as a number of cancers (determined by length and extent of exposure) in humans and animals, though thorough epidemiological studies on this issue are scarce (Finkel et al., 2013). Despite what is known about the contents of fracking fluid, much is still a secret as gas companies are not required to divulge proprietary information, such as the contents of fracking fluid, and are exempt from government regulations such as the Safe Drinking Water Act due to the Halliburton Loophole (Sovacool, 2014). Waste management practices for fracking are mediocre at best and require attention. Produced water is collected and stored temporarily in reserve pits but must be treated at some point before release into the environment. However, sewage treatment plants are not equipped to treat contaminants from produced water, which oftentimes is released into rivers and streams only partially treated, causing contamination to local drinking water and degradation of surrounding ecosystems (Finkel et al., 2013). Groundwater can become contaminated through seepage of methane and fracking fluids into local aquifers, which are also at high risk for rapid depletion due to the massive volume of water required to complete one frack job (Finkel et al., 2013).
Jordan Sedlock Fracking activities threaten the air quality directly involved with fracking and surrounding areas, particularly locations downwind of fracking sites (Vinciguerra et al., 2015). Although spatial analysis suggests that effects of fracking experienced in a particular area decrease as a function of distance from a fracking site (Meng et al., 2015), scientists have concluded increasing trends of ethane, methane, and other fracking pollutants have been found in Maryland and D.C. areas and are directly related to fracking activity within the Marcellus Shale, occurring upwind in areas of Pennsylvania (Vinciguerra et al., 2015). Despite the many costs and externalities associated with hydraulic fracturing, there are several benefits obtained from it. Fracking makes shale gas easily obtainable and therefore abundant. This leads to lower natural gas prices, offers a cleaner environmental footprint by utilizing methane, and provides a catalyst for economic development. The Marcellus Shale, the prospective shale deposit spanning New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Maryland, is estimated to contain enough shale gas equivalent to 45 years of national energy consumption (Sovacool, 2014). Taking advantage of the shale gas available, the United States could become a net exporter of natural gas and be guaranteed vast energy self-sufficiency and energy security. However, this would only last as long as shale gas can be extracted (45-60 years) (Finkel et al., 2013). Upwards of 32 trillion cubic feet of shale gas could potentially be extracted, which is approximately 65 times the current national, annual consumption (Sovacool, 2014). With such an abundance of natural gas, prices were driven down as low as $1-$2 per million BTUs in 2012: a substantial drop from $13 per million BTUs, previously (Sovacool, 2014). This cheap natural gas will translate to cheap electricity, thereby
Jordan Sedlock making it such an appealing energy alternative to fossil fuels. While the use of shale gas involves burning methane rather than coal or oil, which lowers CO2 emissions and aids in lowering atmospheric CO2 concentrations, its use increases CH4 concentrations. The economic development that is promised with shale gas production also makes it such an appealing option for energy. With fracking comes employment, infrastructure, taxes, and revenues (Sovacool, 2014). Examples of such promising growth following the shale gas boom include the creation of 29,000 jobs for Pennsylvania in 2008 alone, and creating $2.3 billion in revenue and $238 million in tax revenues for governments (Sovacool, 2014). In 2009, Pennsylvania and West Virginia shale gas production created over 57,000 new jobs and brought in $1.7 billion in local, state and federal tax collections (Sovacool, 2014). With the option of exporting to countries with moratoriums placed on fracking or lack of their own shale gas deposits, revenues and taxes would further increase and stimulate the U.S. economy. After consideration of the previously discussed information, nuclear power appears to be the better choice in energy alternatives because it is clean and sustainable, highly regulated, and it can promise energy security with minimal damage to the environment or public health. Economically, this energy source requires more initial investments, however, this is the superior choice of energy alternatives compared to coal or shale gas because of moderate maintenance costs, low environmental costs, and minimal externalities. Risks associated with nuclear power production are very low in comparison to shale gas production via hydraulic fracturing. Environmental degradation and deleterious health effects are also minimized with nuclear power production in comparison to hydraulic fracturing methods.
Jordan Sedlock Globally, nuclear power is already established, well studied, and understood. Although a more costly option, it would be easier to update and construct nuclear power plants utilizing the newest technologies to ensure maximum efficiency and safety. When considering fracking globally, some countries have already created moratoriums or permanent bans on the process. These actions have resulted from the lack of regulatory oversight and the scientific studies citing the deleterious environmental and public health effects with which it is associated. Locally, nuclear power is already utilized at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, in Maryland, where it has been operating since 1975 (Exelon, 2014). Safety is of the utmost importance and this plant, with its two reactors, has been providing more than 1 million homes with clean, sustainable electricity without issue. Plans are already in effect to increase electricity production even more over the next eight years, with minimal need to mine new uranium (Exelon, 2014). This production process is not met with strong social opposition and has been a gift to the community providing affordable energy with minimal costs to the surroundings. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant also stimulates the local economy and donates to the surrounding community through charity events and fundraisers. In contrast to nuclear power generation, shale gas production via hydraulic fracturing is a relatively new process requiring technologically sophisticated and expensive materials for each well site. It is not very well understood and even without considerable epidemiological studies to reference, is known for being extremely environmentally unfriendly as well as hazardous to public health. Fracking has already been banned in certain countries, such as France who functions predominantly on nuclear power with some of the lowest rates of GHG emissions (Brook et al., 2014).
Jordan Sedlock Although Fracking is not banned in the United States, several states, including Maryland, have issued moratoriums until more is known about the process and its environmental effects. It is true that fracking does offer benefits worth considering, as methane would help reduce CO2, however it will only further increase CH4 and more quickly add to increasing GHG emissions. It is also true that energy security and cheap prices are appealing in this growing demand for energy. However, shale gas is much more easily affected by changes in fuel prices and is expected to last approximately 60 years at most; this only being an estimate as it is very difficult to evaluate each shale gas play with accuracy and consistency. In attempts to help preserve Marylands environment, the moratorium protects land over the Marcellus Shale from being drilled but it cannot protect the air we breathe. Air quality in Maryland is now beginning to suffer due to fracking allowed in Pennsylvania. Concerns about direct contamination to the environment and drinking water were already apparent and growing; now added to the list is concerns about air quality and how it will affect societys most vulnerable, the very young and the very old. From the choices discussed herein, nuclear power is our best energy alternative as compared to shale gas production by fracking. As an environmentally friendly choice, nuclear power provides regulated energy, which is cleaner and safer. Though the initial start-up and maintenance is more expensive, it is an economically superior choice when you weigh the potential costs associated with the mitigation of lawsuits, environmental clean-up caused from toxic carcinogens, or the repairs required from methane leakage or explosions, which is the case for many gas companies who participate in hydraulic fracturing.
Jordan Sedlock With so many countries already participating in widely known nuclear power production, this energy source continues to be the better global choice. On a local level, the protection of our environment and human health, far outweigh the additional costs associated with the generation of nuclear power. Nuclear power provides the balance needed to preserve our planet while generating much needed energy for future generations to come.
Jordan Sedlock Works Cited Brook, B., Alonso, A., Meneley, D., Misak, J., Blees, T., & Erp, J. (2014). Why nuclear energy is sustainable and has to be part of the energy mix. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 1-2, 8-16. Calvert Cliffs. (2014). Retrieved April 15, 2015, from http://www.exeloncorp.com/PowerPlants/calvert/Pages/profile.aspx. Finkel, M., & Hays, J. (2013). The implications of unconventional drilling for natural gas: A global public health concern. Public Health, 127(10), 889893. Kessides, I. (2010). Nuclear power: Understanding the economic risks and uncertainties. Energy Policy, 38(8), 3849-3864. Lehtveer, M., & Hedenus, F. (2015). How much can nuclear power reduce climate mitigation cost? Critical parameters and sensitivity. Energy Strategy Reviews, 6(Janurary), 12-19. Meng, Q., & Ashby, S. (2014). Distance: A critical aspect for environmental impact assessment of hydraulic fracking. The Extractive Industries and Society, 1(2), 124-126. Ringger, T. (2000). Investigations of impingement of aquatic organisms at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, 19751995. Environmental Science & Policy, 3(Supplement 1), 261-273. Sovacool, B. (2014). Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 37, 249-264. Verbruggen, A., Laes, E., & Lemmens, S. (2014). Assessment of the actual sustainability of nuclear fission power. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 32, 16-28. Vinciguerra, T., Yao, S., Dadzie, J., Chittams, A., Deskins, T., Ehrman, S., & Dickerson, R. (2015). Regional air quality impacts of hydraulic fracturing and shale natural gas activity: Evidence from ambient VOC observations. Atmospheric Environment, 110, 144-150.

More Related Content

Nuclear Power vs Fracking

  • 1. Jordan Sedlock Comparative and Economic Analyses of Nuclear Fission Power and Shale Gas by Hydraulic Fracturing for Maryland Energy security and energy sources are of great concern with the growing global demand for energy, as well as the need for a cleaner energy alternative other than current fossil fuel based sources. Nuclear energy is an alternative worth considering because it can provide clean, safe, sustainable energy. It could aid in climate change mitigation despite the high initial investment costs and medium operation and maintenance costs, while providing a statistically low probability of reactor meltdown and techniques for disposing of waste. Shale gas production by hydraulic fracturing is another process worth considering. It offers a cheap energy alternative that is a cleaner source of energy than coal or oil and promises energy security and economic development. However, its high financial costs and risks, environmental and human health degradation, and energy alternative displacement must be seriously studied and weighed. Costs and benefits of each type of energy source are considered and compared. Nuclear power is an environmentally safer and economically superior energy alternative to shale gas production by hydraulic fracturing; both globally and locally. This will be explained using prior assessments, factual-based studies, and comparative cost-benefit economic analyses. Nuclear Nuclear fission power has existed since December 2, 1942, when Italian physicist Enrico Fermi demonstrated the first human-controlled, self-sustaining, nuclear fission reaction, at the University of Chicago, using a small-scale reactor (Brook et al., 2014). From this small reactor, an entire industry has been built up to 435 operating nuclear
  • 2. Jordan Sedlock power reactors, 72 in construction, and 134 more expected in the future, all providing clean energy and services for a number of human activities (Brook et al., 2014). Nuclear power generation is a process involving the following: mining and milling, conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, electricity generation, interim spent fuel storage, reprocessing of spent fuel, and high-level waste disposal (Kessides, 2010). Mining and milling involve mining uranium, milling it into a fine powder and through chemical processes, converting it into uranium oxide (Kessides 2010). Further conversion transforms uranium oxide into uranium hexafluoride, which is then involved in the enrichment process of concentrating the fissionable U-235 isotope from approximately 0.7% to 4% (Kessides, 2010). Following enrichment, uranium hexafluoride is converted to uranium dioxide and inserted into zirconium or steel tubes to create fuel rods (Kessides, 2010). With fuel rods, fission (splitting of neutrons in a chain reaction) is made to occur and electricity is then generated (Kessides, 2010). Because of the radioactivity of this process, the handling of spent fuel storage is very important. Spent fuel rods are placed in large pools on site of the reactors, to cool and decrease in radioactivity (Kessides, 2010). Spent fuel may be reprocessed in which case uranium and plutonium are removed and reused in further nuclear power generation (Kessides, 2010). The final and most imperative step in this process is high-level waste disposal, wherein, spent fuel is encapsulated and completely sealed in corrosion-resistant metal canisters and then buried deep underground within rock formations (Kessides, 2010). All sources of energy production come with costs that must be considered prior to decision-making about the future. Nuclear power production has implications, which include high financial costs and risks as well as moderate environmental consequences.
  • 3. Jordan Sedlock Financial costs include capital and construction costs (planning, preparation, and construction), operations and maintenance (management, support and upkeep, insurance licensing and regulatory fees), fuel costs, and back-end costs (decommissioning and dismantling facilities at the end of operating life, also, waste management) (Kessides, 2010). Currently, initial investments account for 60% of total costs, with maintenance and operations accounting for 20% each respectively (Kessides, 2010). Risks include possibilities of reactor meltdown or other uncontrollable disasters, exposure to radiation, and some argue, links to proliferation of nuclear weapons (Brook et al., 2014). Issues of reactor meltdown are addressed by better engineering techniques and very tightly maintained and regulated safety guidelines to which nuclear power plants must adhere (Brook et al., 2014). Concerns about exposure are addressed with proper scientifically supported data that indicate radiation exposure from the sun or other natural sources is higher than radiation in and around nuclear power plants (Brook et al., 2014). The issue of proliferation of nuclear weapons is addressed with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, signed by most countries, committing them to cease producing weapons grade materials and types of nuclear weapons (Brook et al., 2014). Environmental implications include pollution from mining of uranium, proper handling of toxic waste, and effects on surrounding aquatic ecosystems. Mining uranium will drastically decrease when implementing fast reactor technology in power plants and with new methods for recycling used fuel (Brook et al., 2014). Extreme care is taken when handling and storing toxic waste; it is disposed of in an environmentally inert container, ensured to withstand leaching for hundreds of years (Brook et al., 2014). Effects on surrounding aquatic ecosystems and the environment are minimal in
  • 4. Jordan Sedlock comparison to other processes performed, such as hydraulic fracturing. Marylands own Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, which experiences impingement losses of aquatic life, was evaluated in a study (Ringger, 2000). That study concluded that the impingement losses are not significant on local fish populations and are smaller compared to other causes of fish mortality such as commercial fishing (Ringger, 2000). Power plants near coastlines which utilize water to cool core reactors, only contribute to temporary temperature increases in water and posit no effects on chemical composition or radioactivity (Brook et al., 2014). The benefits associated with nuclear power include clean, safe, sustainable energy with minimal environmental and atmospheric impact. There are established and known government regulations to provide safety, along with better accounting for external costs of processes compared to techniques such as hydraulic fracturing. Nuclear power is produced with minimal air pollution (steam) and the overall process releases minimal amounts of CO2 (Brook et al., 2014). Utilizing the 435 currently active power plants, unlike coal-operated plants, prevents emissions of nearly 2 billion tons of CO2 each year (Brook et al., 2014). With assurance of a clean energy source, implementing and utilizing nuclear energy therefore serves as insurance against high climate-mitigation costs paid from the use of other less clean forms of energy (Lehtveer et al., 2015). Safety is accounted for during initial construction of the power plants and contributes to high initial start-up costs. (Verbruggen et al., 2014). Sustainability is achieved through reusing uranium from used-fuel elements and depleted uranium in combination, thereby providing enough energy to power the world for several hundred years (Brook et al., 2014).
  • 5. Jordan Sedlock Energy security, having enough energy that is both available and affordable for the public, is possible with the use of nuclear power generation. (Verbruggen et al., 2014). Nuclear power also stimulates research and the use of other types of energy sources unlike industries such as shale gas, which displace more efficient forms of energy due to such low prices. Nuclear power can be generated with recycled fuel and depleted uranium for hundreds of years to follow, whereas with shale gas, which is abundant and cheap now, is expected to be depleted within 60 years due to rapid increase of use (Brook et al., 2014). The higher prices associated with nuclear power stem from high construction expenses to insure safety as well as account for many externalities associated with the process. Other techniques for energy production, such as hydraulic fracturing, do not factor in many of the serious externalities associated with its use. For comparisons, the following addresses hydraulic fracturing in detail. Hydraulic Fracturing Although hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a relatively new technique, the extraction of shale gas has been occurring since the early 1800s (Sovacool, 2014). Long before the first oil well was drilled, shale gas extraction occurred in Fredonia, New York in 1821 (Sovacool, 2014). This begs the question as to what exactly fracking is and what it entails. Fracking is a technique used to obtain natural gas, which has built up in shale deposits within sedimentary rock (gas shale deposits) deep within the earth. This technique involves a seven-step process that includes: seismic exploration, pad construction, vertical drilling, horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing, sustained production, and waste disposal (Sovacool, 2014).
  • 6. Jordan Sedlock Seismic exploration involves using sound waves and three-dimensional reconstruction to map underground rock formations to determine depth and thickness of prospective shale formations (Sovacool, 2014). Pad construction is the process of positioning and leveling a platform for a drilling rig over a prospective play (field where drilling will occur) (Sovacool, 2014). Vertical drilling is the process that involves drilling up to twelve holes (for one well), below the surface to depths of anywhere from 4,000 12,000 feet (Sovacool, 2014). Once desired depth has been reached with vertical drilling, horizontal drilling follows, which entails the use of a large drilling derrick (lifting device) and slant-drills that drill horizontally into the shale formations in many different directions for thousands of feet (Sovacool, 2014). Then the hydraulic fracturing process is initiated. This involves shooting fracking fluid, consisting of water mixed with chemicals, sand, and other proppants (particulates used to keep micro-fractures in shale open) into the shale deposits at a force of 5,000 psi in order to cause fracturing as much as 1,000 feet from the drilled well (Sovacool, 2014). This process can take anywhere from 3 10 days for completion and is known as a frack job (Sovacool, 2014). Once the shale has been fractured, the trapped natural gas can be released. The sustained production process of fracking involves placing a Christmas tree valve assembly over the drilled wells, placing collection tanks nearby, and allowing the natural gas to flow up through the drilled wells and into the collection tanks (Sovacool, 2014). The final step in this rigorous process includes waste disposal, which entails collecting the flowback of fracking fluid (also known as produced water) that was injected underground. This fracking fluid is recycled and used in future fracking jobs, if possible, or it is desalinated and disposed of via sewage and waste water systems (Sovacool, 2014).
  • 7. Jordan Sedlock Generally, multi-stage fracking is required at drilling sites in order to obtain as much shale gas as possible. Some drilling sites are drilled as many as twenty times to ensure the maximum amount of shale gas has been retrieved from the deposits (Sovacool, 2104). The fracking process is relative to each site and utilizes millions of gallons of water and upwards of thousands of gallons of fracking fluid and associated proppants (Sovacool, 2014). Fracking, though useful for obtaining large quantities of shale gas, has many implications including high risks and financial costs, displacement, and harmful environmental and health effects. Fracking is an elaborate and expensive process requiring advanced equipment and other materials to perform frack jobs. Upwards of 50% of total costs for drilling are consumed by drilling the final 10% of each well (Sovacool, 2014). A single horizontal well costs $3-$5 million, excluding costs of operations, land leasing, and waste management (Sovacool, 2014). This process is risky because of poor operating procedures and lax regulations, making it prone to methane leakages and accidents, respectively (Sovacool, 2014). Fracking has displaced the growth and research of renewable sources of electricity including wind, solar and nuclear power sources (Sovacool, 2014). Environmental implications include acceleration of global climate change, as methane is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) with a warming potential nearly 28-34 times greater than that of CO2 (Finkel et al., 2013; Vinciguerra et al., 2015). Studies conducted have shown that approximately 3.67.9% of methane obtained from shale gas production escapes over the lifetime of one well. This rate is expected to increase with fracking growth (Finkel et al, 2013). Further environmental implications to consider include direct
  • 8. Jordan Sedlock contamination of the environment (air, sub, and surface waters) and human health as 30- 70% of fracking fluid used for one frack job will resurface contaminated with heavy metals, a number of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs) (Finkel et al., 2013). Fracking fluid also contains BTEX compounds: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic. These compounds are known for causing respiratory, neurological, reproductive, and gastrointestinal issues as well as a number of cancers (determined by length and extent of exposure) in humans and animals, though thorough epidemiological studies on this issue are scarce (Finkel et al., 2013). Despite what is known about the contents of fracking fluid, much is still a secret as gas companies are not required to divulge proprietary information, such as the contents of fracking fluid, and are exempt from government regulations such as the Safe Drinking Water Act due to the Halliburton Loophole (Sovacool, 2014). Waste management practices for fracking are mediocre at best and require attention. Produced water is collected and stored temporarily in reserve pits but must be treated at some point before release into the environment. However, sewage treatment plants are not equipped to treat contaminants from produced water, which oftentimes is released into rivers and streams only partially treated, causing contamination to local drinking water and degradation of surrounding ecosystems (Finkel et al., 2013). Groundwater can become contaminated through seepage of methane and fracking fluids into local aquifers, which are also at high risk for rapid depletion due to the massive volume of water required to complete one frack job (Finkel et al., 2013).
  • 9. Jordan Sedlock Fracking activities threaten the air quality directly involved with fracking and surrounding areas, particularly locations downwind of fracking sites (Vinciguerra et al., 2015). Although spatial analysis suggests that effects of fracking experienced in a particular area decrease as a function of distance from a fracking site (Meng et al., 2015), scientists have concluded increasing trends of ethane, methane, and other fracking pollutants have been found in Maryland and D.C. areas and are directly related to fracking activity within the Marcellus Shale, occurring upwind in areas of Pennsylvania (Vinciguerra et al., 2015). Despite the many costs and externalities associated with hydraulic fracturing, there are several benefits obtained from it. Fracking makes shale gas easily obtainable and therefore abundant. This leads to lower natural gas prices, offers a cleaner environmental footprint by utilizing methane, and provides a catalyst for economic development. The Marcellus Shale, the prospective shale deposit spanning New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Maryland, is estimated to contain enough shale gas equivalent to 45 years of national energy consumption (Sovacool, 2014). Taking advantage of the shale gas available, the United States could become a net exporter of natural gas and be guaranteed vast energy self-sufficiency and energy security. However, this would only last as long as shale gas can be extracted (45-60 years) (Finkel et al., 2013). Upwards of 32 trillion cubic feet of shale gas could potentially be extracted, which is approximately 65 times the current national, annual consumption (Sovacool, 2014). With such an abundance of natural gas, prices were driven down as low as $1-$2 per million BTUs in 2012: a substantial drop from $13 per million BTUs, previously (Sovacool, 2014). This cheap natural gas will translate to cheap electricity, thereby
  • 10. Jordan Sedlock making it such an appealing energy alternative to fossil fuels. While the use of shale gas involves burning methane rather than coal or oil, which lowers CO2 emissions and aids in lowering atmospheric CO2 concentrations, its use increases CH4 concentrations. The economic development that is promised with shale gas production also makes it such an appealing option for energy. With fracking comes employment, infrastructure, taxes, and revenues (Sovacool, 2014). Examples of such promising growth following the shale gas boom include the creation of 29,000 jobs for Pennsylvania in 2008 alone, and creating $2.3 billion in revenue and $238 million in tax revenues for governments (Sovacool, 2014). In 2009, Pennsylvania and West Virginia shale gas production created over 57,000 new jobs and brought in $1.7 billion in local, state and federal tax collections (Sovacool, 2014). With the option of exporting to countries with moratoriums placed on fracking or lack of their own shale gas deposits, revenues and taxes would further increase and stimulate the U.S. economy. After consideration of the previously discussed information, nuclear power appears to be the better choice in energy alternatives because it is clean and sustainable, highly regulated, and it can promise energy security with minimal damage to the environment or public health. Economically, this energy source requires more initial investments, however, this is the superior choice of energy alternatives compared to coal or shale gas because of moderate maintenance costs, low environmental costs, and minimal externalities. Risks associated with nuclear power production are very low in comparison to shale gas production via hydraulic fracturing. Environmental degradation and deleterious health effects are also minimized with nuclear power production in comparison to hydraulic fracturing methods.
  • 11. Jordan Sedlock Globally, nuclear power is already established, well studied, and understood. Although a more costly option, it would be easier to update and construct nuclear power plants utilizing the newest technologies to ensure maximum efficiency and safety. When considering fracking globally, some countries have already created moratoriums or permanent bans on the process. These actions have resulted from the lack of regulatory oversight and the scientific studies citing the deleterious environmental and public health effects with which it is associated. Locally, nuclear power is already utilized at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, in Maryland, where it has been operating since 1975 (Exelon, 2014). Safety is of the utmost importance and this plant, with its two reactors, has been providing more than 1 million homes with clean, sustainable electricity without issue. Plans are already in effect to increase electricity production even more over the next eight years, with minimal need to mine new uranium (Exelon, 2014). This production process is not met with strong social opposition and has been a gift to the community providing affordable energy with minimal costs to the surroundings. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant also stimulates the local economy and donates to the surrounding community through charity events and fundraisers. In contrast to nuclear power generation, shale gas production via hydraulic fracturing is a relatively new process requiring technologically sophisticated and expensive materials for each well site. It is not very well understood and even without considerable epidemiological studies to reference, is known for being extremely environmentally unfriendly as well as hazardous to public health. Fracking has already been banned in certain countries, such as France who functions predominantly on nuclear power with some of the lowest rates of GHG emissions (Brook et al., 2014).
  • 12. Jordan Sedlock Although Fracking is not banned in the United States, several states, including Maryland, have issued moratoriums until more is known about the process and its environmental effects. It is true that fracking does offer benefits worth considering, as methane would help reduce CO2, however it will only further increase CH4 and more quickly add to increasing GHG emissions. It is also true that energy security and cheap prices are appealing in this growing demand for energy. However, shale gas is much more easily affected by changes in fuel prices and is expected to last approximately 60 years at most; this only being an estimate as it is very difficult to evaluate each shale gas play with accuracy and consistency. In attempts to help preserve Marylands environment, the moratorium protects land over the Marcellus Shale from being drilled but it cannot protect the air we breathe. Air quality in Maryland is now beginning to suffer due to fracking allowed in Pennsylvania. Concerns about direct contamination to the environment and drinking water were already apparent and growing; now added to the list is concerns about air quality and how it will affect societys most vulnerable, the very young and the very old. From the choices discussed herein, nuclear power is our best energy alternative as compared to shale gas production by fracking. As an environmentally friendly choice, nuclear power provides regulated energy, which is cleaner and safer. Though the initial start-up and maintenance is more expensive, it is an economically superior choice when you weigh the potential costs associated with the mitigation of lawsuits, environmental clean-up caused from toxic carcinogens, or the repairs required from methane leakage or explosions, which is the case for many gas companies who participate in hydraulic fracturing.
  • 13. Jordan Sedlock With so many countries already participating in widely known nuclear power production, this energy source continues to be the better global choice. On a local level, the protection of our environment and human health, far outweigh the additional costs associated with the generation of nuclear power. Nuclear power provides the balance needed to preserve our planet while generating much needed energy for future generations to come.
  • 14. Jordan Sedlock Works Cited Brook, B., Alonso, A., Meneley, D., Misak, J., Blees, T., & Erp, J. (2014). Why nuclear energy is sustainable and has to be part of the energy mix. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 1-2, 8-16. Calvert Cliffs. (2014). Retrieved April 15, 2015, from http://www.exeloncorp.com/PowerPlants/calvert/Pages/profile.aspx. Finkel, M., & Hays, J. (2013). The implications of unconventional drilling for natural gas: A global public health concern. Public Health, 127(10), 889893. Kessides, I. (2010). Nuclear power: Understanding the economic risks and uncertainties. Energy Policy, 38(8), 3849-3864. Lehtveer, M., & Hedenus, F. (2015). How much can nuclear power reduce climate mitigation cost? Critical parameters and sensitivity. Energy Strategy Reviews, 6(Janurary), 12-19. Meng, Q., & Ashby, S. (2014). Distance: A critical aspect for environmental impact assessment of hydraulic fracking. The Extractive Industries and Society, 1(2), 124-126. Ringger, T. (2000). Investigations of impingement of aquatic organisms at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, 19751995. Environmental Science & Policy, 3(Supplement 1), 261-273. Sovacool, B. (2014). Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 37, 249-264. Verbruggen, A., Laes, E., & Lemmens, S. (2014). Assessment of the actual sustainability of nuclear fission power. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 32, 16-28. Vinciguerra, T., Yao, S., Dadzie, J., Chittams, A., Deskins, T., Ehrman, S., & Dickerson, R. (2015). Regional air quality impacts of hydraulic fracturing and shale natural gas activity: Evidence from ambient VOC observations. Atmospheric Environment, 110, 144-150.