Nuclear Energy: Clean Air Or Polluting Power?

Nuclear energy is a topic of debate among policymakers and researchers, who are divided on whether to retire aging reactors or reinforce them to continue producing energy. Nuclear power plants do not burn fossil fuels and therefore do not directly emit carbon dioxide during their operation, making them a low-carbon alternative to coal, oil, and natural gas. However, nuclear energy also has potential negative impacts, such as the production of radioactive waste and the risk of catastrophic accidents. The question of whether nuclear energy pollutes the air is complex and multifaceted, with various factors to consider, including the environmental and health costs, the time required to build nuclear power plants, and the potential for renewable energy sources to fill the energy gap.

Nuclear energy is a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels

Nuclear energy is widely considered a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels. Unlike coal, oil, and gas, nuclear power does not release any greenhouse gases during its operation. Nuclear power plants do not burn fossil fuels and so do not directly emit carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide emitted during the mining, enrichment, fabrication, and transport of fuel is small when compared with the carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuels of similar energy yield.

A 2019 study from the International Energy Agency found that over 60 gigatons of CO2-equivalent net GHG emissions were avoided globally over the last 50 years, thanks to nuclear power. This prevented the death of approximately 2 million people, who could have otherwise died due to air pollution. Nuclear energy produces about 10 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour, compared to about 500 for fossil gas and 1000 for coal.

However, nuclear power plants do produce radioactive waste, which must be carefully managed and stored. The risk of radioactive contamination of air and water is small, but it exists, and the potential consequences are severe. Uranium mining, an integral part of the nuclear fuel chain, can also be hazardous, with many accidents and fatalities.

Overall, nuclear energy has the potential to play a significant role in reducing air pollutants and GHG emissions while meeting global energy needs. It is a relatively clean source of energy in terms of the air pollution it generates and can help to reduce the number of deaths caused by air pollution from fossil fuels.

Nuclear energy reduces air pollution

Nuclear energy has the potential to play a significant role in reducing air pollution and limiting future air pollutants. Nuclear power plants do not burn fossil fuels, so they do not directly emit carbon dioxide during their operation. This is in contrast to coal power plants, which emit about 500 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour, and natural gas, which emits about 1000 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear energy produces only about 10 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour, making it a low-carbon energy source.

A study by MIT researchers found that shutting down nuclear power plants could lead to an increase in air pollution as coal, gas, and oil sources would need to ramp up production to compensate for the loss of nuclear energy. This increase in fossil fuel use would result in more carbon dioxide emissions and could lead to thousands of pollution-related deaths. The study estimated that there would be 5,200 additional pollution-related deaths in a single year, and the climate-related effects of the increased carbon dioxide emissions could lead to 160,000 additional deaths over the next century.

Nuclear energy also helps to reduce air pollution by providing a clean and reliable source of electricity. It has a low land use footprint compared to other clean energy sources such as solar, hydropower, and wind. Additionally, nuclear techniques can be used to monitor and predict the distribution of greenhouse gases and particles in the atmosphere, further contributing to the fight against air pollution.

However, it is important to note that nuclear energy does have some environmental impacts, such as the production of radioactive waste and the risk of nuclear accidents. The disposal of nuclear waste can be challenging and may require special containment and isolation from the environment for extended periods. Additionally, uranium mining, which is necessary for nuclear energy production, can be hazardous and carry health risks for miners.

Overall, nuclear energy has the potential to reduce air pollution by providing a low-carbon source of electricity and helping to displace more polluting energy sources such as coal, oil, and natural gas. However, it is essential to carefully consider the potential risks and impacts of nuclear energy and to ensure that safety measures are in place to protect the environment and human health.

Nuclear energy is not a solution to climate change

Secondly, nuclear energy is not a quick solution. The time lag between planning and operating a nuclear reactor is significant, often taking over a decade, with some taking almost two decades to become operational. This delay means that, in the short term, other energy sources would need to be relied upon, potentially increasing carbon emissions during this period.

Thirdly, nuclear energy comes with a risk of catastrophic failure. While the risk of a nuclear accident is small, the consequences could be extreme, including widespread contamination of air and water. This risk is ever-present and requires constant maintenance, safety checks, and security to mitigate.

Fourthly, nuclear energy produces radioactive waste that must be carefully managed and stored for long periods, sometimes indefinitely. This waste includes highly radioactive spent reactor fuel and long-lived transuranic elements. The management and storage of this waste add to the environmental and economic costs of nuclear energy.

Finally, nuclear energy has historically increased the ability of nations to obtain materials and technology for nuclear weapons development. This proliferation of nuclear weapons capabilities undermines global security and stability, potentially exacerbating the impacts of climate change rather than solving them.

While nuclear energy may have a role to play in reducing carbon emissions, it is not a silver bullet solution to climate change. A more effective approach would be to rapidly transition to renewable energy sources, such as wind, water, and solar power, which have lower environmental and health costs over their lifecycles.

Nuclear energy produces radioactive waste

Nuclear energy does not directly pollute the air. Nuclear power plants do not burn fossil fuels and so do not directly emit carbon dioxide. However, nuclear energy does produce radioactive waste.

Radioactive wastes are classified as low-level waste, intermediate-level waste, or high-level waste. The vast majority of the waste (90% of the total volume) is composed of only lightly-contaminated items, such as tools and work clothing, and contains only 1% of the total radioactivity. By contrast, high-level waste – mostly comprising used nuclear (sometimes referred to as spent) fuel that has been designated as waste from nuclear reactions – accounts for just 3% of the total volume of waste, but contains 95% of the total radioactivity.

High-level radioactive waste consists of irradiated, or spent, nuclear reactor fuel (fuel that is no longer useful for producing electricity). The spent reactor fuel is in a solid form, consisting of small fuel pellets in long metal tubes called rods. Spent reactor fuel assemblies are highly radioactive and, initially, must be stored in specially designed pools of water. The water cools the fuel and acts as a radiation shield. Spent reactor fuel assemblies can also be stored in specially designed dry storage containers. An increasing number of reactor operators now store their older spent fuel in dry storage facilities using special outdoor concrete or steel containers with air cooling. The United States does not currently have a permanent disposal facility for high-level nuclear waste. When a nuclear reactor stops operating, it must be decommissioned.

Low-level radioactive waste includes uranium mill tailings, which contain the radioactive element radium, which decays to produce the radioactive gas radon. Most uranium mill tailings are placed near the processing facility, or mill, where they come from. Uranium mill tailings are covered with a sealing barrier of material such as clay to prevent radon from escaping into the atmosphere. The sealing barrier is covered by a layer of soil, rocks, or other materials to prevent erosion of the sealing barrier. The other types of low-level radioactive waste are the tools, protective clothing, wiping cloths, and other disposable items that become contaminated with small amounts of radioactive dust or particles at nuclear fuel processing facilities and nuclear power plants. These materials are subject to special regulations for their handling, storage, and disposal so they will not come in contact with the outside environment.

The generation of electricity from a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station, which would supply the needs of more than a million people, produces only three cubic meters of vitrified high-level waste per year, if the used fuel is recycled. In comparison, a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power station produces approximately 300,000 tonnes of ash and more than 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, every year. Since the dawn of the civil nuclear power industry, nuclear waste has never caused harm to people. The popular misconception is that because certain parts of nuclear waste remain radioactive for billions of years, then the threat must be sustained for that period. However, this is not the case. While remaining weakly radioactive for a few hundred thousand years, the radioactivity from the main component of the waste that could cause health problems will have decayed to safe levels within a few hundred years. The radioactivity of nuclear waste decreases over time through a process called radioactive decay. The amount of time it takes for the radioactivity of radioactive material to decrease to half its original level is called the radioactive half-life. Radioactive waste with a short half-life is often stored temporarily before disposal to reduce potential radiation doses to workers who handle and transport the waste. This storage system also reduces the radiation levels at disposal sites.

Nuclear energy has safety risks

The construction and operation of nuclear power plants, the nuclear fuel cycle, and the potential effects of nuclear accidents, all present risks. In the event of containment failure, overheated fuels can melt and release large quantities of fission products into the environment, leading to catastrophic consequences. The spent nuclear fuel contains carcinogenic radionuclide isotopes, such as strontium-90, iodine-131, and caesium-137, which must be isolated from the environment for extended periods. The United States, for example, does not currently have a permanent disposal facility for high-level nuclear waste, and the waste is initially stored in pools of water or dry storage containers.

The risk of uncontrolled nuclear reactions in reactors is small due to safety measures, but it can lead to widespread air and water contamination if it occurs. The potential for catastrophic accidents, such as the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, underscores the safety risks associated with nuclear energy.

The time required to build nuclear power plants is also a concern. On average, it takes about 14.5 years to construct and bring a nuclear power plant online. During this waiting period, the grid may rely on fossil fuels, leading to increased emissions and potential health risks.

Despite these safety risks and concerns, nuclear energy is considered a low-carbon alternative to coal, oil, and natural gas. It plays a significant role in reducing air pollutants and GHG emissions while meeting global energy demands.

Frequently asked questions