by Jordan Wilkerson
figures by Shannon McArdel
The United States emits an immense amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it is extremely likely that the rising global temperature trends since the mid-20th century is dominantly due to human activity. No scientific organization of national or international standing disputes this. Furthermore, the US Department of Defense has officially stated that climate change poses a serious national security threat. In light of all of this, the United States recently ratified the Paris Climate Agreement, which means we are committed to significantly reducing our carbon emissions. How do we do that?
Given that, in 2015, we released 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from electricity generation alone, and fossil fuels accounted for over 99% of these emissions, a great place to start would be to begin replacing fossil fuel power plants with alternative energy sources. The main alternatives are solar, wind, and nuclear. The first two are certainly alluring, attracting the investment of a lot of government money worldwide. However, they are also variable. The wind isn’t always blowing; days aren’t always clear and sunny. This isn’t to say relying solely on renewables is impossible or even unrealistic with some clever storage and transportation strategies. However, it is a challenge to replace the constantly running fossil fuel power plants with sources that are intermittent.
Ideally, we’d have a source that doesn’t emit CO2 and is consistently reliable; this is known as a baseload energy source. In this context, nuclear energy is the main alternative energy source that works. Yet, unlike its fickle counterparts, nuclear energy is subjected to hostile attitudes adopted by a number of governments in the world which restrict the building or continual operation of power plants. Fear for Chernobyl and Fukushima-type catastrophes exacerbate the unpopularity of going nuclear. The US, currently the world’s largest producer, relies on nuclear energy for 20% of its overall electricity generation. Yet there has historically been a strong anti-nuclear movement in the US, and the sentiment is still somewhat present today, as demonstrated by closures of nuclear power plants and stances held by prominent political figures such as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. In order to assess whether such notoriety is deserved, we need to learn about the physics of nuclear power and compare the statistics of its supposed dangers with that of existing energy sources.
What is Nuclear Energy?
Nuclear energy and fossil fuel energy have similarities in the way they are extracted. The basis behind running a fossil fuel power plant can be illustrated by examining a typical fire. In this instance, organic matter such as wood or natural gas is burned and converted into CO2 (see Figure 1). In this case, we change which atoms bond to each other and harvest the energy that is released when they reach a more stable configuration (as CO2). In a nuclear power plant, we are doing the same thing: extracting energy from atoms that ultimately gets converted to electricity. However, in a nuclear reaction, we don’t just rearrange which atoms bond to which. We change the atoms themselves, and the energy released is enormous.
How do the atoms change? In a nuclear reaction, the nucleus of the atom breaks into several pieces and releases an immense amount of energy. This process is known as nuclear fission. The nucleus we break apart for energy in most nuclear power plants is that of the uranium atom, specifically uranium-235 (that number indicates the total number of neutrons and protons in the nucleus).
To start a fire, which is an ongoing chemical reaction, we merely need some friction. Ongoing nuclear reactions do not begin so easily. To initiate the chain of reactions that supply us with energy in a nuclear power plant, we must bombard the uranium rod with high-energy neutrons. After we do this, the uranium breaks into two smaller nuclei (e.g. krypton and barium) and ejects several high-energy neutrons that cause more uranium to undergo fission.
This chain reaction provides a lot of energy, and the best part is that it does so without emitting any CO2. In fact, the only CO2 emitted due to nuclear power plants is what’s released indirectly from developing the construction materials! How does this compare to other energy sources? Coal power emits the equivalent of 820 g CO2 worth of greenhouse gases for every kilowatt-hour (g CO2eq/kWh) of electricity produced. (A kWh is a standard unit of energy used in billing by electrical utilities). Natural gas has a lower output at 490 g CO2eq/kWh. Nuclear power, though? A mere 16 g CO2/kWh. This is the lowest of all commercial baseload energy sources (see Figure 2).
The Problems with Nuclear Energy
Nuclear energy isn’t all good news, though. The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster is the latest testament to that. This disaster was a consequence of the combination of a tsunami and a powerful earthquake in March 2011. Although the chain fissile reactions were shut down automatically in response to the earthquake, the tsunami damaged generators responsible for cooling the reactors of the plant. Without cooling, the components of the core of the reactors can literally melt from all the energy released from these reactions. In this case, they did. Radioactive material was subsequently released along with several chemical explosions, which were initiated by the immense heat released by the nuclear reactions.
Why is radioactive material dangerous? To start with, to be radioactive refers to the fact that this material is actively emitting radiation. This is not the same kind of radiation we’re familiar with such as visible electromagnetic radiation from a light bulb. Electromagnetic radiation emitted as a result of nuclear fission, known as gamma rays, has 100,000 times more energy than visible light. Radioactive material can also emit highly energetic electrons (beta particles) and small clusters of protons and neutrons (alpha particles). This concentrated energy causes the molecules in our body to react in ways that can be extremely damaging, sometimes giving rise to cancer.
Radioactivity isn’t just a characteristic of the material being used in the nuclear reactor. Even in the absence of a nuclear accident, nuclear power inevitably produces dangerous materials: radioactive waste. This waste, composed of mostly unconverted uranium along with intermediate products plutonium and curium, stays radioactive for extremely long periods, too, presenting a major problem in regards to storage.
Putting Nuclear Power in Perspective
There is no doubt that nuclear power has problems that can cost human lives, but such risks are borne by all major modes of energy production. Therefore, the question shouldn’t be, ‘is nuclear energy deadly?’ Instead, we should ask ‘is nuclear energy more dangerous than other energy sources?’
Fossil fuels have a host of problems themselves. The byproducts from burning fossil fuels are toxic pollutants that produce ozone, toxic organic aerosols, particulate matter, and heavy metals. The World Health Organization has stated the urban air pollution, which is a mixture of all of the chemicals just described, causes 7 million deaths annually or about 1 in 8 of total deaths. Furthermore, coal power plants release more radioactive material per kWh into the environment in the form of coal ash than does waste from a nuclear power plant under standard shielding protocols. This means that, under normal operations, the radioactive waste problem associated with one of the most mainstream energy sources in use actually exceeds that from nuclear energy.
In fact, on a per kWh of energy produced basis, both the European Union and the Paul Scherrer Institute, the largest Swiss national research institute, found an interesting trend regarding the fatalities attributable to each energy source. Remarkably, nuclear power is the benchmark to beat, outranking coal, oil, gas, and even wind by a slight margin as the least deadly major energy resource in application (see Figure 3).
The nuclear industry is constantly developing innovative technologies and protocols towards making the energy production process failsafe. Newer generations of nuclear reactors, particularly what is called a pebble-bed reactor, are designed so that the nuclear chain reaction cannot run away and cause a meltdown – even in the event of complete failure of the reactor’s machinery. Geological stability considerations will also likely play a bigger role in approving new sites of construction. And although long-lived nuclear waste may remain dangerous for considerable periods of time, that timescale is not prohibitive. In fact, even without recycling the fuel, which would further shorten the lifetime of radioactive waste, the radioactivity of the waste is reduced to around 0.1% of the initial value after about 40-50 years.
The primary proposal for long-term storage of nuclear waste is burial in very carefully selected deep geological repositories. Yucca Mountain in Nevada was once a promising candidate, though this option was shut down in 2011 due to strictly political reasons. There is now only one deep waste repository in the US: the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. However, this plant itself has faced some problems that highlight the need to research better alternatives for the Yucca Mountain repository. Unfortunately, the same sentiments that inspired closure of the Yucca Mountain repository have also inspired reducing research funding and preventing investigations of other potential geological locations. Finding a replacement for the Yucca Mountain repository is possible, but this requires greater cooperation between researchers and policy makers than is currently taking place.
Dangers associated with nuclear power are, in many ways, different from the dangers we face from other methods of getting energy. This might explain why fear of nuclear power persists and why the above fatality rates may surprise you. However, we know that nuclear energy does not produce the greenhouse gases that fossil fuels have been producing for over a century. Research also concludes that the more familiar dangers from using fossil fuels claim far more lives. Furthermore, with the advent of modern reactors such as the pebble-bed reactor and careful selection of plant sites, nuclear accidents like the one in Fukushima are actually not possible. When balanced with these notable benefits, the problems associated with nuclear power do not justify its immediate dismissal as a potential energy source for the world.
Jordan Wilkerson is a PhD candidate in the Department of Chemistry at Harvard University.
This article is part of our Special Edition: Dear Madam/Mister President.
For More Information:
1) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (learn how we know man-made climate change is happening)
2) Discussion of Nuclear Waste Disposal by American Physical Society
3) Six Air Pollutants Regulated under Clean Air Act (virtually all derived from fossil fuel combustion)
4) Comparing Radioactivity of Waste from Coal and Nuclear
There are plenty of scientific organizations that refute the “global warming” theory, and they do it with science. I’m not as certain that the supporters support their cause via science, but my actual point here is the very obvious lie at the beginning of the article. It does not take much effort to uncover that there is a disagreement over whether global warming is real. That point stops me from bothering to take the author seriously, or even continue reading beyond the opening sentences.
Why don’t we avoid bias, ignorance, and prejudice? This matter should rely on science. Then, the politicians would have to decide on whether to pursue with the nuclear option, bearing in mind that time is of essence. A somewhat similar process was recently taken in regards to Covid, in spite of naysayers.
Nuclear energy is a double-edged sword. It is important to limit and control it.
Key word here being “control”… something that will most likely never be done properly given our track record on “controlling” other industries.
People seem to forget that Oil Pipelines were also touted as being “extremely safe” and “so safe, there will rarely ever be any accidents”! We all know that wasn’t true since pipelines have begun bursting at a rate of more than once per day across the entire US and have led to some of our worst disasters… because the people running the pipelines cared more about profits and it was cheaper to run the pipeline until it bursts and spills thousands of gallons of oil than it is to run regular inspections and maintenance.
This is our legacy of “controlling” things… allowing corporations to do whatever they want in the pursuit of profits… imagine those accidents… but with nuclear waste disposal… yeah. The factors they don’t tell you about and don’t consider in the risk assessments: human error and greed!
This statistc puts terrawatt per year in relation to a deathtoll? Well how much terrawatt is each energysource able to produce in a year? Wont this influence the count? And did they also count the people who died or later got sick because of the incidents? Of course fossil energy is terrible for the environment, thats no question.
Oops !
“Several non-renewable systems are already highly productive …. ” should be
“Several renewable systems are already highly productive …. “
” The wind isn’t always blowing; days aren’t always clear and sunny. ”
Sigh ! Do serious people still think like this ?
The main problem is not about making enough energy from wind and sun, and others such as tidal energy and hydro energy, it is storage of that energy. The author pays only lip service to this : ” This isn’t to say relying solely on renewables is impossible or even unrealistic with some clever storage and transportation strategies. ”
A twin approach would consider firstly to reduce consumption rather than continuously and blindly try to address “consumer demand”, and secondly concentrating a large amount of research effort on energy storage. My carbon footprint in Japan is tiny compared to my brother in north America; people in high energy-consuming countries need to become far more efficient. Indeed, the lack of even simple wall and roof insulation in many houses in north America belies belief. Don’t forget that for the third quarter last year the UK managed to reach over 50% contribution to the energy network by renewable systems. So it is possible.
Other considerations regarding different approaches to energy should include the amount of fossil fuel energy required to establish non-fossil fuel systems. Nuclear power stations require enormous amounts of fossil fuel energy to build and a certain amount to maintain; hydropower systems also have a huge initial fossil fuel energy requirement; wind power systems too, but to a lesser extent. How efficient are these systems if the initial non-renewable energy requirement is factored into the lifetime of the system? For solar power, particularly individual house systems, it might be possible ultimately to build solar power units using just solar power as the energy source, especially if structural metals become redundant, but highly doubtful if that can be done for other systems.
The world already has highly imaginative engineers; the problem is that they are not supported enough for their research by governments. Several non-renewable systems are already highly productive, but storing that energy is the bottleneck. This is where we need far more research.
Perhaps I am sensitive to problems with nuclear power, considering I have been close to three nuclear disasters in my life, proximity to Windscale in the UK in 1957 (age 6), downwind of Chernobyl in 1986, and also not far west of the Fukushima disaster in 2011, all the same it seems to me that persistence in pursuing nuclear power as the answer to our energy requirement problems and also arguing that it is therefore a means to reduce CO2 input from human activity is immensely naiive, and ignores some pretty major negatives.
It’s amazing that nuclear power has the lowest CO2 of all commercial energy sources because I had no idea it was so much cleaner. They’re thinking of building a nuclear plant near our city. I’m doing more research so I know the pros and cons.
Ah I see your a person of reason! These are rare! Hope the research goes well!
This was a very enlightening article, and the main takeaway is that short-term safety issues no longer put nuclear energy at a disadvantage relative to other sources of energy.
If you are anti-nuclear energy because you feel civilization as we know it could end, thus leaving the survivors exposed to radiation from unmanned sites, then realize two things: 1) We already have the problem of nuclear waste, so this issue is not going away. 2) If you believe climate change is the most serious threat to civilization, then consider the fact that embracing nuclear energy will help prevent the very “end of civilization” event you so fear.
If on the other hand you don’t feel climate change is a major threat to civilization then just be upfront about it and admit that you have another agenda which causes you to oppose nuclear energy but push only for solar and wind.
My “agenda”, as you put it, is that I don’t trust corporations to follow the safety guidelines that make the industry “safe”. The risk assessments… which only seem to be coming from the Nuclear Power industry…. would have us believe that something like a nuclear meltdown is an event that would happen only once in every 20,000 reactor years. Worldwide, our nuclear reactors have ran for a collective 17,000 reactor years. If the risk assessment was correct…. we should have had one or no meltdowns. We have at least 11.
This means that the “safety” of the industry is being blown out of proportion by the nuclear industry… aka the people who have monetary interest in the industry succeeding. Their models are so wrong because they are either purposefully or ignorantly leaving out the one factor that causes meltdowns in the first place: Human error! If they are already lying about this… how are we supposed to trust them to do the right thing when it comes to disposing of nuclear waste? I certainly don’t… and my lack of trust in companies has historical precedence.
For instance, there have already been many nuclear accidents that have occurred because of violations of safety guidelines. Some of these were because operators trying to cut costs… and this is them at their most careful cause the industry is desperately trying to prove they are safe! Let’s look at how pipeline operators manage pipelines when society accepted them as normal. They would run the pipeline until it burst because it was cheaper to pay a fine and lose thousands of gallons of oil than it was to regularly inspect and maintain the pipeline… that’s how companies operate! Only caring about maximizing profits and never caring about how much havoc they wreak on the environment and how many people die due to their actions.
So… if the mentality that is applied by oil pipeline operators is applied by Nuclear Power Plant operators… what are we most likely to get? Accidents! So many preventable accidents! Accidents determined by corporate executives to be cheaper than prevention.
Now… the same type of people who made these calls for gas and oil are going to be the same type of people making the calls for Nuclear Power. However, there are much higher stakes with Nuclear Power as an accident could potentially cause thousands of kilometers of land to be uninhabitable for decades… possibly even centuries.
As of right now… I am more open to the possibility of fusion reactors than I am to the possibility of fission… fission seems too dangerous… and so far has proven to be too dangerous… and it produces a waste that is too dangerous to risk trusting corporations to do the right thing… something that they have never done. One may argue that we can help make sure that nothing happens with proper regulations… but since when has the US ever allowed proper regulations to be in place for long? Never… not once in our history! That’s a problem of money in politics, but if we can’t ensure that proper regulations will stay in place… even when people begin to become more comfortable with Nuclear Power… we can’t ensure that the industry will always be safe.
lol. for people who can’t read Serbian it says ” This info will be great for the motherland” the writer’s name is “Stalin”.
XD, welp i disagree
I enjoyed reading your article and found it informative on the intended topics. However, I think that the lifespan of nuclear waste was not amplified to the proper extent. Although it is a viable energy source… nuclear waste will last for 100,000 years which is likely much longer than human civilization. What are the ramifications of leaving these nuclear waste facilities unmanned years down the road? Does that even matter? Interesting dilemma we face as it is not a CO2 emitting form of energy nor immediately dangerous but the nuclear waste presents a clear dilemma both on an environmental and national security level.