Sandy Molnar
Nuclear energy is no longer the domain of science fiction. Global development of nuclear power plants began in the 1960s and experienced massive growth in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, though has largely stalled since. Many countries took power plants offline after the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011. Disasters such as Fukushima have shaped our way of thinking about nuclear energy - but is it as dangerous as we think? Today, nuclear energy accounts for about 10% of global energy, but some advocates argue for this to be a greater percentage given nuclear power's potential to combat climate change.
One of the primary drivers of increasing support for nuclear power is its capability to support a cleaner, more sustainable future. Nuclear and other renewables can mitigate air pollution, accidents, and greenhouse gas emissions, all of which are prominent issues in the fossil fuel industries. Comparatively, yearly death totals per unit of energy produced for nuclear power is 0.1% that of coal when considering fatalities from construction, mining, maintenance, transportation, and air pollution. Furthermore, greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear power are 0.6% that of coal. Other renewables compare similarly.
Nuclear can also provide an answer to some of the challenges that we face when discussing switching to renewable energy. Primarily, many sources that we typically consider, such as solar and wind, are not consistently available. The irregular availability of solar and wind energy necessitates the construction of extensive storage networks and grids capable of producing surplus energy. As a solution, nuclear power can provide a consistent source of energy. When used alone or in combination with other renewables, nuclear power can supplement the deficit in solar, wind, or hydro in insufficient conditions.
Another critical advantage is energy density: how much energy can be produced per unit mass of a fuel source. The reason fossil fuels have dominated the energy sector since the 1700s is because they outcompeted their wood and charcoal predecessors in this regard. This issue is debated with renewables such as solar and wind, as they are considerably less dense than fossil fuel alternatives. Contrarily, uranium and thorium, the radioactive storage materials required for nuclear fission reactions, are many times more dense than fossil fuels. One nuclear plant can therefore provide twice the electricity compared to a fossil fuel plant, and three to four times as much as a renewable plant. This is considering that energy reactors typically only use 0.5% of the energy contained within uranium rocks, leaving room for technological advancements that could potentially increase the robustness of nuclear power plants.
That’s not to say that nuclear energy is without risk. While the yearly death toll is far lower for nuclear energy, nuclear power plants still pose a threat due to the destructive nature of radioactive material. Two major nuclear disasters, Chernobyl and Fukushima, have shaped public perception of nuclear energy. These were the only two nuclear disasters of their size, and the only ones to receive a level 7 (the maximum classification) on the International Nuclear Event Scale. It’s difficult to predict the total deaths from both of these disasters due to the complicated nature of radioactive effects and the events surrounding the disasters. In the Chernobyl nuclear plant in 1986, at the time under USSR control, a series of ignored safety protocols led to a reactor exploding. A confirmed 30 workers at the plant died immediately or soon after the reactor explosion. The following fatalities are less decisive. Nineteen of the other workers had passed by 2006, but the deaths weren’t necessarily related to acute radiation sickness. Recent estimates have put the number of fatalities in the general population between 15 and 384, largely due to thyroid cancer from radioactive milk contamination, though this figure is highly uncertain. Chernobyl represents the worst nuclear energy disaster we have ever seen and still shapes the way we think about the safety of nuclear programs today.
Fukushima, in contrast, was an accident caused by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Only one death has been directly attributed to radiation exposure when a worker died from lung cancer in 2018. Unfortunately, the fatality figure jumps when considering deaths from evacuation. Approximately 160,000 people moved away from the area either from official evacuation orders or personal fear. In September 2020, rigorous assessments of the mortality totaled 2,313, mostly caused by the physical and mental stress of moving and staying in overcrowded public facilities. It’s difficult to determine the number of deaths caused by the nuclear disaster when considering the area was also recovering from the effects of a tsunami and earthquake. The global response to this disaster cannot be overstated. Japan took all of its nuclear power plants offline in the next three years, and many other countries slowed or stopped the growth of their industries.
Such tragedies underscore the need for stringent global nuclear safety standards which have led to the development of power plant designs that are safer for both workers and the public. The first standard is reactor design, which has been developed to better contain radioactive materials in case of meltdowns, as well as improved water cooling systems, which are less likely to interfere with reactor function and cannot cause the type of meltdown we saw at Chernobyl. The second safety standard we’ve seen improved was a quicker and more transparent government response. After Chernobyl, the USSR didn’t publicly acknowledge the disaster or evacuate nearby areas until two days later, which likely led to additional fatalities. The quick and fervent response seen in Japan may have prevented many deaths by radioactive fallout, but it’s difficult to know exactly how many. Unfortunately, some reports even claim government action was overzealous, as some citizens may have received injuries or died from unnecessary evacuations. With these improved safety standards, nuclear disasters are increasingly unlikely, but we can’t rule out that there may be another Chernobyl or Fukushima as the nuclear industry grows.
Another question that concerns the energy sector is whether we will run out of uranium and thorium, the metals responsible for the essential reaction that creates energy. It’s not an easy question to answer: the Earth’s crust contains enough uranium to sustain us until the sun turns into a red giant, but most of it we aren’t able to extract without massive environmental destruction. On the lowest end of estimates, our currently available resources at market value last us 150 years, but this number could grow substantially if we consider harder-to-obtain stores, which would be more expensive. Researchers are also looking for a way to extract uranium from under the ocean, a supply that essentially replenishes itself through its watersheds. These techniques could potentially make the figure jump to over 100,000 years.
The most pressing challenge, however, is nuclear waste management. Currently, we have no way to remove radioactivity from waste made in power plants, so deep underground storage is our only option. It’s not an easy task - the most potent radioactive waste may need to be stored up to 1 million years; far longer than the time Homo sapiens have existed. Contrarily, nuclear waste facilities are mostly built on arbitrary regulations to last 10,000, a time scale as long as human civilization. As it stands, the US has one waste isolation site in Yucca Mountain in New Mexico, titled the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP).
Unfortunately, funds for the project have been severely mishandled and the site is still yet to be opened. As a result, nuclear waste is being temporarily stored at power plants in 35 states, where it can stay for years but could potentially grow dangerous in decades. Some citizens in New Mexico have vowed to keep nuclear waste out of their backyards. It’s not entirely unfounded. In the past, every large-scale nuclear disposal site has failed regulations on issues such as water intrusion or earthquake vulnerability. WIPP has passed tests on these same regulations, however, opponents have raised concerns with the site’s unsuitability for a variety of reasons, including its proximity to fault lines which have already caused earthquakes in the area, damaging buildings. Water that flows through the rock could also eventually circulate radioactive material into drinking water and soil. Even if the site had been opened on schedule, the amount of nuclear waste in the US would already have filled the storage facility by 2010. Politicians, including former president Barack Obama, have opposed the site, naming it a “failed selection” and calling for a search for new sites. Other countries aren’t doing much better. Dozens of countries have begun using nuclear power for a portion of electricity demands, and many, like France, Germany, and the Czech Republic, are experiencing issues with finding a waste site, getting permission from residents, and securing licensing. This process can potentially take many years, and waiting to begin searching for a more suitable site can put us decades behind schedule with our nuclear waste.
If the US were to eventually secure a suitable permanent waste facility, our primary concern might shift to designing a radioactivity warning that can be understood 10,000 years into the future—the same length of time that human civilization has existed. Many proposals have been made, but it’s difficult to know which ones may be implemented. The proposal at WIPP is to construct a room with information translated into seven languages, from English to Navajo. Historians have suggested translating those signs into future languages as they evolve, which will also give future historians a way to preserve our languages. The room will be surrounded by granite walls and berms, a type of hostile architecture that references danger nearby - other suggestions have included large concrete spikes or mazes that lead nowhere. Creative ideas for communications are endless: pictograms with faces contorted into horror and disgust, atomic priesthoods that could carry messages of danger through scripture, and even “ray cats” that change color in the presence of radioactive material. Long-term communication is daunting, and ensuring these messages endure and are understood remains speculative. Additionally, all of these indicators risk encouraging rather than discouraging future civilizations to further explore the area, especially if they are in search of energy sources.
The need for renewable energy could not be more urgent. As we head into the vital final years to keep climate change below 2°C, it’s undeniable we’ll need to invest billions into renewing the global energy industry. Nuclear energy occupies a complex position in the global energy landscape. Its potential to provide clean, reliable power is undeniable, but the risks and challenges it poses demand careful consideration and robust solutions. As the world seeks sustainable energy alternatives, the role of nuclear power will depend on advancing safety standards, addressing waste management issues, and navigating geopolitical implications. The future of nuclear energy lies not in dismissing its dangers but in leveraging its benefits responsibly and innovatively.
.
Citations
Biello, D. (2009, January 28). Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Trash Heap Deadly for 250,000 Years or a Renewable Energy Source?. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/
Gross, S. (2020, June). Why are fossil fuels so hard to quit?. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-are-fossil-fuels-so-hard-to-quit/
How long will our supplies of uranium and thorium last?. Dare to Think. (2018, January 12). https://www.daretothink.org/numbers-not-adjectives/how-long-will-our-supplies-of-uranium-and-thorium-last/
International Atomic Energy Agency. (2021, December 30). Infographics: Nuclear Energy Compared. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/infographics-nuclear-energy-compared
Macfarlane, A., & Ewing, R. C. (2023, March 6). Nuclear Waste Is Piling Up. Does the U.S. Have a Plan?. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-is-piling-up-does-the-u-s-have-a-plan/
Piesing, M. (2020, August 3). How to build a nuclear warning for 10,000 years’ time. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200731-how-to-build-a-nuclear-warning-for-10000-years-time
Ritchie, H., & Rosado, P. (2020, July). Nuclear Energy. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy
Ro, C. (2019, November 26). The Staggering Timescales of Nuclear Waste Disposal. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-staggering-timescales-of-nuclear-waste-disposal/
Sforza, T. (2019, February 3). Nuclear waste burial fund grows to $43billion, but DOE has not buried an ounce of spent fuel. San Gabriel; San Gabriel Valley Tribune.
United States Government. (2021, March 24). Nuclear Power is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It’s Not Even Close. US Department of Energy. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close
United States Government. (2024, June 11). Advantages and Challenges of Nuclear Energy. US Department of Energy. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/advantages-and-challenges-nuclear-energy