Executive Summary Nuclear energy, like renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, produces considerably less greenhouse gas emissions than conventional sources of energy but this does not make nuclear energy renewable or clean in any consistent manner. Nuclear power plants create large amounts of radioactive waste that remains radioactive for thousands of years. Currently there is no permanent way to safely store this waste nor is recycling to reduce the amount of waste permitted in the United States. Additionally, nuclear power plants require the use of large amounts of water to operate and therefore generate large amounts of wastewater, which can harm aquatic ecosystems. Financial costs also must be considered. Nuclear power plants are so expensive the industry is unable to pay for the plants themselves. Instead costs are paid for with government subsidies, taxpayer money, and by increasing customer utility rates. Nuclear energy is neither truly renewable nor clean. The costs and risks associated with nuclear waste generation and use of resources outweigh any benefits of this energy source. Therefore, nuclear energy should not be considered a sustainable energy source. Benefits and Costs of Nuclear Energy A 2012 life­cycle analysis of energy sources shows that solar, wind and nuclear release significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions than natural gas and coal combustion.​[1] Greenhouse gas emissions are similar amount nuclear, wind, and solar as well. ​[2]​ However, greenhouse gas emission benefits must be weighed against waste, health risks, water pollution, and the cost of facilities. Nuclear power produces large amounts of highly radioactive waste that lasts hundreds of thousands of years. ​[3]​ After the fission process slows the nuclear fuel no longer efficiently produces electricity and the leftover fuel is referred to as spent nuclear fuel.​[4]​ This spent fuel remains highly radioactive and only becomes safe after decay, which takes hundreds of thousands of years. ​[5]​ However, they remain dangerous because during the decaying process the radioactive materials release radiation. ​[6]​ Ten years after removal from the nuclear reactor, the surface dose rate for spent fuel assembly is 10,000 rem/hour​[7]​ compared to a fatal does for humans at 500 rem/hour if received at one time. ​[8]​ Additionally, if any leak or accident occurs and these radioactive materials got into the groundwater or rivers exposure would be widespread through food chains and drinking water. ​[9]​ Despite all of the risks nuclear waste presents there is still no permanent disposal site. ​[10]​ Currently waste is stored either in wet pools or dry cask storage at the nuclear reactor site. ​[11]​ The majority of spent fuel is stored in wet pools. At the end of 2009 there was 62,683 metric tons of nuclear waste in the United States with seventy­eight percent stored in wet pools.​[12]​ Spent fuel can be recycled to reduce waste however currently in the United States there is no commercial reprocessing of spent fuel and all existing commercial high­level waste is in un­reprocessed spent fuel. ​[13]​ Use of other natural resources is also a hidden cost of nuclear energy. Producing nuclear energy requires large quantities of water for steam production, and for the cooling and storage of spent nuclear fuel.​[14]​ Nuclear plants also produce wastewater contains heavy metals and high temperatures, which if discharged into surrounding water can have negative impacts on water quality and aquatic life.​[15]​ In the past it has been found that wastewater discharge has adverse environmental impacts despite pollution discharge permits that are suppose to protect water quality. ​[16]​ Compare to photovoltaic systems, which neither use water nor discharge wastewater to create electricity. ​[17]​ Solar thermal systems may use water to create steam but this can be recycled and re­used after it is condensed from steam back to water.​[18]​ Similarly, electricity produced by wind farms requires little to no use of water resources and discharges no wastewater.​[19]​ In addition to environmental and health risks associated with nuclear waste and use of water the financial costs must also be considered. Nuclear energy is not cheap. In fact it is so expensive to build and operate nuclear power plants that the industry must rely on government subsidies, and taxpayer money to finance nuclear power. ​[20]​ In Florida, financing these facilities is especially concerning for citizens. Advanced Nuclear Cost Recovery, which allows utility companies to increase customer rates to pay for nuclear power plants that are yet to be built.​[21]​ This law has allowed Duke Energy to collect hundreds of millions of dollars through consumer bills and will continue to collect millions more over the next twenty years for a plant that is not being built and may never be built.​[22] Additionally, South Carolina and Georgia have similar laws.​[23]​ Government money could and should be used to encourage and promote safe, clean, renewable technologies. Encouraging nuclear power is detracting money and resources away from a renewable future. Nuclear power is not a renewable energy source. Uranium is finite.​[24]​ The advantages of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are outweigh by health risks, waste, water pollution and high cost of nuclear power facilities. Resources should be spent encouraging truly 100 percent renewable and safe energy sources. [1] NREL: Energy Analysis – Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization Results and Findings. http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html. [2] 1 [3] http://www.nrc.gov/waste/high­level­waste.html [4] 3 [5] 3 [6] U.S. NRC: Backgrounder on Radioactive Waste. http://www.nrc.gov/reading­rm/doc­collections/fact­sheets/radwaste.html. [7] REM is an abbreviation for Roentgen Equivalent Man. This measurement correlates the dose of radiation to the biological effect of that does. In other words it is the measurement of the affect absorbed radiation has on a human. http://www.imagesco.com/geiger/radiation­safety.html. [8] 6 [9] 6 [10] 3 [11] 3 [12] [12] http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent­fuel­storage/faqs.html [13] 6 [14] U.S. EPA: Nuclear Energy Clean Energy, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy­and­you/affect/nuclear.html. Oct. 22, 2013. [15] 14 [16] http://www.riverkeeper.org/campaigns/stop­polluters/power­plants/hudson­river­power­plants/ [17] U.S. EPA: Clean Energy, Non­Hydroelectric Renewable Energy, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy­and­you/affect/non­hydro.html. Sept. 25, 2013. [18] 17 [19] 17 [20] http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear­power­and­our­energy­choices/nuclear­power­co
sts/ [21]​ §366.93 Fla. Stat. [22] http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013­08­05/duke­kills­florida­nuclear­project­keeps­custo
mers­money [23]​ 22 [24]​ http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/02/nuclear­energy­pros­and­cons/