Nuke Goop—Carbon-14
/Why archeologists hate atomic power.
By Maggie Gundersen
Today is our twelfth installment of our Nuclear Spring Series here at Fairewinds, and there will be more coming, including an entire journalism series, that we are lucky to be republishing. Thank you for your enthusiastic responses to this work and your questions as well! So, today, we respond to several technical inquiries that we believe make a perfect addition to our ongoing Nuclear Spring Series.
As most of our readers and supporters know, Fairewinds is very concerned about the Climate Emergency all of us face. Here in Charleston, SC, where we now live, we see and hear about the impact of changing weather patterns and rising sea levels several times each week. Scientists all over the world are monitoring the world’s increase in carbon dioxide and how that impacts the global climate crisis; many people contact us about nuclear power [or atomic reactors, whichever term you prefer] and ask us two questions:
How does the CO2 created by nukes during their entire life cycle compare to the CO2 emitted by coal, oil, and natural gas? Comparing fossil fuels vs. nukes regarding carbon output is a huge question about the atomic fuel chain. Oh, by the way, the industry likes to call it a fuel cycle as if the ongoing operation of nukes is a good thing – it is not.
How much carbon does each reactor create from the fission of atoms inside the reactor to generate electricity each day, each month, and during each reactor’s operational life?
Why now? Several people have contacted us recently to ask about the production of Carbon-14 as it pertains to atomic reactor operations, nuclear power plant meltdowns, and the impact of Carbon-14 on our worldwide climate emergency.
On Earth, there is non-radioactive Carbon-12 (C-12) and radioactive Carbon-14 (C-14). Coal, oil, and natural gas consist of C-12. In addition, when constructing with concrete, it must cure, which means it gives off Carbon-12 (C-12), and the nuclear industry uses massive amounts of concrete to build its plants. Therefore, the global climate crisis is caused by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas and creating CO2 from the non-radioactive C-12. Many excellent climate sites discuss Carbon 12 issues; if you are trying to understand why we should replace CONG (Coal, Oil, Nuclear, and Gas) with renewable and sustainable energy, and want to know the real scientific answers, look at 100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything written by Mark Z. Jacobson.
Today we will try to answer the second question regarding C-14.
C-14 production in nukes
Carbon-14 (C-14) is the radioactive type of carbon with a 5,730-year half-life, which means it stays active on planet earth for more than 50,000 years. It is always created in the Earth’s upper atmosphere whenever cosmic rays collide with air, meaning that it replaces itself. After radioactive carbon collides with cosmic rays, it produces radioactive carbon dioxide that all living organisms absorb. When an organism dies, carbon absorption ends. Still, the C-14 continues to decay away in the environment [remember radioactive decay rates enable us to measure how long radioactivity has been on a planet or will stay on it. For example, when archeologists measure how much C-14 remains in an organism, archeologists can tell how long ago that organism lived on Earth.
However, there is a significant difference in amounts of Carbon-14 (C-14) before the world’s nuclear age. The change in quantities of C-14 began with the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945, and the bombs detonated worldwide in above-ground atomic testing. The amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has increased because nuclear fission also creates C-14. And, it is nuclear fission that generates the electricity emanating from nuclear power plants. So, from 1945 on, archeologists can no longer use C-14 to measure how long something was alive if it was born or originated after 1945 due to the extra Carbon-14 in the atmosphere.
The Fission process created in atomic power reactors also makes Carbon-14, further exacerbating future Carbon dating.
Environmental scientists and colleagues have asked our nuclear science colleagues and us if this atomic power and atomic waste created CO2 from C-14 will add to the climate crisis by adding more CO2 to that already made by burning fossil fuels. The short answer is no. The weight of C-14 production by the nuclear power industry is minimal compared to the carbon emanating by burning fossil fuels in all the gas operating cars and coal, oil, and gas-fired energy production.
For the math and science geeks who want to know more, here is the calculation. According to the report “Carbon-14 Production in Nuclear Reactors”, every nuclear reactor creates about 60 curies of radioactive C-14 every year (60 Ci/GW(e)-yr.). Sixty curies is a lot of radiation by measurement. A curie is 37,000,000,000 disintegrations every second, and that’s enough to screw up archeologist’s calculations. Even so, it is a small measure of CO2 by weight.
Fairewinds explored uranium disintegration before in a post entitled Uranium Waltz (see video below for a neat demonstration, as well).
When we converted 60 curies into pounds of CO2, we determined that each operating reactor creates less than one-tenth of a pound of Carbon-14 every year, and therefore less than half a pound of carbon dioxide every year. With about 400 nukes worldwide, that is about 200 pounds of Carbon Dioxide yearly around the world. So, burning fossil fuels throws 40 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
So, C-14 does falsify carbon dating, yet, it has little impact as a greenhouse gas contributor. The nuclear power fuel chain emits other forms of Carbon, which is a discussion for another time. There are many things to worry about concerning operating a nuclear plant, but creating too much C-14 from atomic fission is not one of them.
Mining to Reactor Construction to Meltdowns
Contrary to the nuclear industry's marketing ploys and talking points and its proponents, nuclear power production is not carbon-free. However, when you consider the financial costs and the human costs, we get a much different picture.
The first step is usually the mining of the uranium. Do you know what happens in the uranium process? It’s pretty gruesome. It practically destroys the Earth and is done on lands predominantly belonging to various indigenous people. It is worth noting that in the process of mining the uranium needed to power the atomic reactors scattered around the United States, there is something that remains: uranium tailings. To fully understand just how dangerous and harmful these tailings are, I must bring up the Church Rock disaster on July 16, 1979, in New Mexico. Dams built to hold the uranium tailings failed, and more than 1,100 tons poured into the Puerco River that just so happens to be the primary water source for the Navajo Nation. The communities have since experienced untold horrors with cancer rates and premature deaths. For perspective, Church Rock happened just months after the Three Mile Island (TMI) meltdown near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The difference in the response of the U.S. government to the disasters at Church Rock on native American land and TMI is an environmental justice issue! The human costs incurred do not stop at the mining, either.
It should come as no surprise that the construction of nuclear reactor sites in the United States is in the gutter. Plant Vogtle, currently under construction in Georgia, is the only new nuke under construction in the U.S., and its construction has been underway for quite some time now. Yet, at the same time, the financial costs have only skyrocketed, with those costs being passed onto Georgia ratepayers every step of the way. See Fairewinds updates about Vogtle here.
There happens to be one major flaw in the nuclear industry’s playbook: the ever-growing risk of a meltdown event at any of the aging atomic reactors here in the U.S. and abroad. From the reactor design flaws to the mismanagement of individual facilities, we must now add in the threat of weather changes due to the worldwide climate emergency.
For Nuclear Shakedowns
Look at our Demystifying Nuclear Power posts that discuss regulatory capture, and soon we will share one about regulatory collusion. [More to come soon].
For the unexpected financial costs of atomic power, look at Fairewinds’ 2-minute Smokescreen animation. And, please look at our entire Nuclear Spring Series for the human perspective of the destruction of whole cities and the loss of so many lives.
Conclusion
So, for the nuclear industry to claim the carbon-free moniker, you would have to thoroughly look past everything from the mining to the cost-overruns and the decades-long construction that just about every nuke has experienced. That doesn’t even consider the consequences of an atomic meltdown and the storage of all the nuclear waste that has built up significantly and is still building up with no storage solutions in sight.
Remember Radiation Knows No Borders!
It does not stop at the energy corporation’s site boundary.
It does not stop at city limits or the boundaries of states, prefectures, or provinces.
No country can contain the radiation it releases in its atomic disasters.
