One Plant to One City? The Promise of Nuclear Power
Nuclear’s Depreciated Role
The destructive impacts of fossil fuels on the planet have forced the world to reconsider its sources of energy. Countries around the world have begun to transition, however slowly, towards alternative sustainable energy sources to achieve carbon neutrality and thereby eradicate the devastation of fossil fuels, some of which includes rising global temperatures and air pollution. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, the most common alternative energy options in the U.S. include hydropower, solar, wind, and biomass. Despite being a highly efficient renewable energy source, nuclear power is missing from the list. Why is that?
Nuclear energy has a complicated history of disastrous accidents that have turned governments away from investing in it. Serious nuclear power plant disasters around the world such as the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, the Chernobyl disaster, and the Three-Mile Island accident have resulted in worst case scenarios in which radioactive elements are released into the atmosphere exposing nearby land, bodies of water, and natural life. The aftermath of such disasters have resulted in large economic costs and permanent contamination problems. These catastrophic episodes have also put a large stain on the prospects of nuclear power.
Fukushima Soil Contamination
Radioactive contamination is a major concern for the implementation of nuclear power. The Fukushima Daiichi disaster in 2011 resulted in an extreme radioactive contamination to the point that, to this day, some areas are still unsafe to visit. Not only are the strategies of removing the contaminated topsoil expensive, but while the 20 million cubic acres of topsoil awaits transport and disposal, there is nowhere to store the bags of contaminated soil which takes up a lot of land that cannot be used by humans.
With the risk of such disastrous nuclear meltdowns, it is clear why there is such a negative reception of nuclear proposals in places like Japan despite its performance in most categories when compared to other sustainable energy sources. However, these days the risk of nuclear disaster is low and declining due to new innovations in nuclear technology. Instead, critics have focused on the problem of regular waste storage of normally functioning plants.
The Question of Nuclear Waste Storage
Nuclear waste storage is a concern that has increased over the years. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission states that nuclear waste can be safely stored in spent fuel pools - special pools in which the radioactive waste is stored 20 feet below - or dry casks - steel cylinders that are welded or bolted closed.
Nuclear waste can be stored almost anywhere in a safe manner whereas energy waste from sources like coal, natural gas, and solar goes to the environment. Coal and natural gas emit greenhouse gasses and, currently, there is no method of recycling solar panels so the used solar panels would enter our landfills with its toxic metals like chromium, cadmium, and lead, according to the journalist Michael Shellenberger.
Nuclear Is Safe and Can Benefit Our Energy Portfolio
Certainly, concerns over nuclear meltdowns that result in lasting contamination may never go away. However, since the era of nuclear disasters, technology has progressed to a point where nuclear is both safe and efficient. Studies by scientists like Professor Anil Markandya have compared the dangers of multiple energy sources; nuclear power is among the safest. Another scientist, James Hansen, concluded that nuclear power has saved 1.8 million lives due to nuclear power replacing some contributions fossil fuels would have made to the energy sector.
According to environmental author and scholar Richard Rhodes, typical operation of nuclear power generates less radioactive materials than other popular energy sources. Coal combustion actually releases the most radiation as coal is made of radioactive elements, and the byproduct of burning coal, fly ash, contains concentrated amounts of radiation.
Performance in Context
Nuclear power plants have the highest efficiency among other popular sustainable energy sources with a capacity factor of about 90%. The capacity factor is a value that shows the net amount of energy generated in proportion to the maximum amount of energy that could potentially be generated from any given source. Other, more popular forms of alternative energy rank much lower in capacity factor. Some of the approximate capacity factors of prominent sustainable energy plants are:
Danish offshore wind farm, Horns Rev 2: 48%
Three Gorges Dam, China: 45%
Agua Caliente Solar Project solar farm, Arizona: 29%
Nuclear power is a powerful source of energy. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), one small pellet of uranium about the size of a gummy bear creates an amount of energy comparable to a ton of coal, 149 gallons of oil, or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. The NEI also states that one nuclear reactor is strong enough to power 755,000 homes or a big city like Philadelphia.
Carbon-free Energy Source
Like other sustainable energy sources, nuclear power is mostly carbon free as it generates power through nuclear fission reactions. Its carbon impact occurs through the use of fossil fuels to conduct activities supporting the nuclear power plant such as construction of the plant, mining for radioactive sources, processing used nuclear fuel, and maintenance. Still, these activities only generate 4 to 5% of the greenhouse gasses that average natural gas plants generate. And as technology continues to evolve, that number may soon be zero.
Consistency and Reliability
Unlike other alternative energy sources and even some fossil fuel sources, nuclear power is more reliable as a constant energy source, which is important for the increasing energy demands of the US. Nuclear power is able to function virtually at all times because it doesn’t rely on weather patterns. As for fossil fuels, according to Rhodes, “Even plants powered with coal or natural gas only generate electricity about half the time for reasons such as fuel costs and seasonal nocturnal variations in demand.” From many different angles, nuclear looks like the better alternative, but it will need some good marketing to bring the expansion of nuclear back to the table, and there is someone already on the job.
Support from Leaders
Bill Gates has championed the potential of nuclear power going as far as claiming that we will not solve climate change without nuclear energy in his 60 minutes interview with Anderson Cooper. He has also said that “Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source that’s available 24 hours a day” in a 2018 GatesNotes blog post. Gates has also founded his own company, TerraPower LLC, to develop an advanced nuclear reactor. The Department of Energy awarded TerraPower LLC $3.9 billion under the Advanced Reactor Demonstrator Program.
The need for nuclear power is very pressing. The recent outage in Texas exposed our outdated energy grid. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which represents 90 percent of the state’s electricity load, said that the majority of the power outages could be attributed to coal and gas. As we continue to develop our energy grid, nuclear power should be given much greater consideration. Nuclear is safe, efficient, and will help us transition into the era of clean energy. That is, if we don’t let fossil fuels destroy our planet first.
Thanks for reading the Footprint blog! Keep in the loop on our latest blogs by signing up for our mailing list - and as a bonus, every sign-up will get free discounts on sustainable goods and services from our network. Or, if you want to start taking action immediately, download the Footprint App!
Interested in being part of our collaborative sustainability network? Check out ways we can work together on our website, and contact us today!
