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. Maryland’s 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 3.6–7.9% 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 Maryland’s 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 society’s 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), 889–893.

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, 1975–1995. 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.