Introduction
The research paper considers the benefits of nuclear power compared with generating energy from fossil fuel sources and discusses the reasons why nuclear power may be the better option, taking into account costs, safety, and – importantly – environmental pollution. Climate change and global warming are of major concern, and pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are significant considerations in the choice of safe energy sources for the future, along with costs and of course the safety aspects. The paper seeks to confirm that in contrast to the fossil-fuel plants used today to generate electricity, nuclear plants cost less to operate, are as safe as other forms of power generation, and don’t release any pollutants into the air, showing that nuclear power’s benefits outweigh any negative impacts.
The Research
Nuclear Safety
Nuclear power is an essential ingredient of our future energy technology portfolio. Our planet’s future is dependent on all the methods we use to tackle climate change, and should not be entirely based on either/or choices (Myhrvold Nov. 2013). He also states that if we are serious about stopping global warming, then we need to act urgently to move to low emission technologies. Those will clearly include solar and wind technology where possible, but should also mean taking a fresh look at nuclear power, which offers ready-made carbon-free method of generating electricity that is available now, while research and development into new technologies is accelerated. Myhrvold avers that modern nuclear power plants are safer than coal or gas-fired plants, incorporating better safety mechanisms and producing minimal waste. He also comments that whilst people tend to shy away from the idea of nuclear power as a result of “anti-nuclear fear mongering” suggesting dire but improbable disaster scenarios, they seem prepared to ignore the “virtual certainty of climate issues.” In his view the true irony is that people arguing against nuclear power on the basis of environmental issues are actually contributing to a much worse environmental disaster.
Worryingly, Myhrvold explains that because only half of the temperature increase caused by carbon dioxide emissions takes ten years to take effect, and a further quarter of the increase takes a hundred years, then the remaining quarter even longer, by the time the increases in temperature have become so obvious that immediate action must be taken, whatever cutbacks are made then will not prevent another century of more temperature rises. For that reason states Myhrvold, we must consider all energy sources now – including nuclear – and make progress towards a low-emission future.
Safety of nuclear power plants is rightly a real concern, especially as the topic was thrust into the world’s headlines by the recent disaster at the Fukushima plant in Japan.
“How safe is nuclear power?” published by The Scientific Alliance (n.d.) reiterates the value of nuclear power, stating that “No other energy source can provide base load power with such low carbon emissions” but notes that in the wake of the Fukushima disaster (preceded by other nuclear accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island) safety became a prime cause for concern, causing the German government to suspend a nuclear project and perhaps other nuclear projects to be postponed or cancelled. However just as Myhrvold stated in his article, this article also makes the valid point that the policies in this arena should be based hard facts rather than media hype and scaremongering. For instance, the article quotes Professor Allison, who in his BBC article Viewpoint: We should stop running away from radiation mentioned a highly significant fact about the Fukushima accident: “More than 10,000 people have died in the Japanese tsunami and the survivors are cold and hungry. But the media concentrate on nuclear radiation from which no-one has died - and is unlikely to.” (Allison Mar. 2011). He also refers to the fact that whilst high levels of nuclear radiation undoubtedly are dangerous, the radiation doses experienced as hospital radiotherapy treatments are in principle no different to similar doses received as a consequence of a nuclear accident. Allison also reminds us that there were no deaths resulting from the Three Mile Island accident and that after Chernobyl 28 emergency workers died and 15 children contracted thyroid cancer, although they would not have if iodine tablets had been dispensed. Compare those statistics with the 3,800 who died following the 1984 chemicals leak from the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal. Comparing the radiation levels released in those nuclear accidents, Allison reports that the fallout at Fukushima was less than one percent of that at Chernobyl. However, because the authorities tend to provide guidance that is over-cautious, public concern is naturally escalated. Allison also points out that the recommended safe levels for radiation are set way too low, noting that the official suggested upper safe limit is 1mSv per annum, whereas a person undergoing radiotherapy for a tumor receives a typical total dose (over a period of many days) of something like 20,000 mSv. Returning to the topic of reactor safety, Allison notes that modern reactors are much safer than the Fukushima examples (which were over 40 years old), and that new ones yet to be built will be even safer.
A similar argument is made by Atherton (2013) in his Popular Science article: “Nuclear Reactors Kill Fewer People Than Fossil Fuels” in which he cites researchers at NASA’s Goddard Institute, who claim that even taking into account the nuclear accidents that have occurred, fossil fuels are the cause of more deaths than nuclear power. Further, they claim the use of nuclear instead of fossil fuels “has prevented some 1.8 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatons of carbon emissions globally over the past four decades.” They base those fatalities statistics on deaths caused by lung disease, mining accidents, etc and for nuclear power deaths due to industrial accidents and/or radiation poisoning.
Another safety issue raised by those opposing nuclear energy is the storage of the waste, the spent fuel. Because it remains radioactive for many years, even many centuries, its storage has to be extremely secure, leading many nuclear opponents to call for stopping the use of nuclear power altogether. However, those concerns are unfounded according to Hopf (Jun. 2013), who is a senior nuclear engineer of some 20 years standing. He maintains that the risks associated with the dry storage of spent fuel are “utterly negligible” – particularly in comparison with the hazards and risks associated with fossil fuel power generation. Some point to the risks associated with spent fuel in wet storage (i.e. if the pool were to accidentally be drained). Hopf points out that spent fuel is only “hot” for around five years, and that even so there is real doubt that a fire would occur if the pool were drained. He points to that very occurrence at Fukushima where there was neither a resulting fire nor release of radioactivity from the spent fuel. He also reminds us that compared to the waste from fossil plants the amounts involved are “miniscule”, and that it “has always been safely and fully contained, has never been released into the environment, and has never caused any harm.” Further, although it may be seen as stating the obvious, Hopf points out that if the nuclear plants were to be shut down, more fossil fuel-powered plants would be needed to replace them (as is happening in Japan). Renewable energy generation would not fill the gap, because according to Hopf it is currently too expensive and depends upon government subsidies.
Whilst Allison paints a picture that nuclear plants are relatively safe and that media hype distorts the true situation, others take a different view. Godoy (2012) quotes from a report released in Brussels that states most EU reactors fail to meet minimum standards of security and lack safety features deemed essential following previous much-publicised accidents. Further, the reports states that to upgrade those reactors would be hugely expensive and that those billions of Euros would be better spent instead on renewable energy resources. However, in the view of this researcher those arguments are flawed. Firstly, the reactors discussed are old designs and new ones planned would incorporate all those features needed for much improved safety. Secondly, if the upgrading funds are used to extend the lives of those existing reactors, the countries involved will continue to benefit from that supply of electricity that would otherwise be lost for the time it would take to replace that generating capacity with renewable technologies.
Environmental Considerations
Having discussed the safety issues associated with nuclear power generation, we move on to look into environmental aspects. A 1997 International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) booklet entitled Sustainable Development and Nuclear Power contains a chapter detailing the advantages of nuclear power with a sub-heading “Limited Environmental Impacts.” Essentially, after listing no less than nine negative impacts from fossil fuels including several involving pollution and contamination of the environment, there are somewhat shorter lists for both hydroelectric and renewable energy sources (six and five listed items respectively), then just two items listed for nuclear power – the issue of waste disposal and the consequences of a severe nuclear accident. However, the booklet goes on to point out that because the quantity of waste is relatively small compared with fossil fuel plants, it is not such a major issue. It is also noted that in normal circumstances nuclear power is “benign to the atmosphere and to the earth and its inhabitants locally, regionally and globally.” Further, that any adverse environmental impact is likely to arise only from the rare incidence of a nuclear accident. As regards the comparative amounts of fuels used, the booklet states that 1kg of coal can produce 3 kWh of electricity; 1 kg of oil 4 kWh and 1 kg of uranium 50,000 kWh. And that last figure can be extended to 3.5 million kWh if the fuel is subjected to reprocessing, which reduces the volume of waste by over 60 percent (Cravens, 2008). Also, according to the booklet, future designs can produce the same power from less fuel. As regards environmental pollution, the booklet reports that although modern fossil fuel plants can mitigate the amounts of noxious gases generated, that involves creating hazardous waste solids (as much as 500,000 tonnes a year from a coal-fired plant) that have to be disposed of – often in landfill sites. As far as gas-fired plants are concerned, they emit fewer amounts of greenhouse gases than coal or oil, but typical leakage amounts of the gas itself offset some of that advantage, especially as the escaping gas is very effective as a greenhouse gas. And just one coal-fired plant can emit circa 6 million tonnes of CO2 in a year (compared with none at all from a nuclear plant). Notably, countries that use nuclear power to generate a greater proportion of their electricity needs have much lower CO2 emissions per unit of generated electricity. France for example has reduced its CO2 emissions over the last three decades by over 80 percent, mainly by dramatically expanding its nuclear power generation capability (Sustainable Development and Nuclear Power).
A somewhat contrary view regarding environmental pollution caused by nuclear power is offered within an article entitled “Nuclear Energy” published under “Opposing Viewpoints in Context” by Gale. The article notes that although a modern reactor cannot explode, a nuclear plant accident could release radiation that could cause cancer in people living nearby. However, to put that into perspective, the same article states that averaging out all known nuclear accidents, total deaths could be up to 45 annually, whereas air pollution from the world’s coal-fired plants could be causing as many as 10,000 deaths every year.
Cost Considerations
Cost is clearly an important consideration in choosing energy sources, although the serious air and environmental pollution caused by the use of fossil fuels must predispose any energy policy to move away from them wherever possible. Comby (2006) points out that whilst the cost of nuclear fuel represents just a small fraction of the cost of a nuclear-produced kWh of electricity, the cost of the massive amounts of fuel needed for fossil fuel power plants “is at the mercy of the market.”
Cravens (Apr 2008) refers to the question of costs in her Discover magazine article “Is Nuclear Energy Our Best Hope?” She quotes NRG Energy CEO David Crane as stating “While the up-front costs of building new nuclear generation are not cheap, in the long run it’s one of the most economical ways to make electricity.”
That opinion is echoed by Odell (2011), in his Rensselaer Polytechnic paper, when he states “the cost of generating electricity from nuclear power plants is lower than the cost of generating electricity from coal-fired plants,” noting also that a potential future carbon tax could make the differential even more pronounced.
An opposing view regarding costs is propounded by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), in its article “Top 11 Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Power” claiming that “Nuclear power is the most expensive energy source that has ever been implemented at the industrial scale.” However, that statement seems to be addressing what David Crane referred to as the “up-front costs” which are one-off costs mitigated subsequently by the lower unit costs of electricity generated.
Conclusions
The research from a wide variety of sources has shown that on all three counts (safety, environmental aspects, and cost); the benefits of nuclear power outweigh any negative impacts.
And finally, a 2010 quotation from Bill Gates, the well known business tycoon and nuclear investor, as posted by Halper (March 2013): “Nuclear is about a million times better than coal or natural gas.”
Works Cited:
Allison, Wade. (Mar. 2011). “Viewpoint: We should stop running away from radiation.” BBC News - World. Web. 10 Jan. 2014.
Atherton, Kelsey, D. (2013). “Nuclear Reactors Kill Fewer People Than Fossil Fuels.” Popular Science. Web. 11 Jan. 2014.
Comby, Bruno. (2006). “The Benefits of Nuclear Energy.” Environmentalists For Nuclear (EFN). Web. 1 Jan. 2014.
Cravens, Gwyneth. (Apr 2008). “Is Nuclear Energy Our Best Hope?” Discover magazine. Web. 11 Jan. 2014.
Godoy, Julio. (Oct. 2012). “Most EU Nuclear Power Plants ‘Unsafe’.” Inter Press Service News Agency. Web. 10 Jan. 2014.
Halper, Mark. (Mar. 2013). “Bill Gates’ excellent case for new types of nuclear power.” The Weinberg Foundation. Web. 11 Jan. 2014.
Hopf, Jim. (Jun. 2013). “The Bigger Picture: Nuclear Energy vs. Fossil Fuels.” The Energy Collective. Web. 11 Jan. 2014.
Myhrvold, Nathan. (Nov. 2013). “Nuclear Needs to Be an Option.” The New York Times. Web. 10 Jan. 2014.
“Nuclear Energy.” (2013). Opposing Viewpoints in Context by Gale. Web. 11 Jan. 2014.
Odell, Stephen, Joseph. (Dec. 2011). “Comparative Assessment of Coal-Fired and Nuclear Power Plants.” Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Web. 11 Jan. 2014.
“Sustainable Development and Nuclear Power.” International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA). Vienna, Austria. 1997. Print.
“Top 11 Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Power.” (n.d.). Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). Web. 11 Jan. 2014.
