Rethinking Nuclear
A few days ago, after brewing my Moka for a nice strong espresso, I was thinking about nuclear energy. The night before I had watched a video about it and I started tripping thinking about what kind of resource that is!
However, my brain traveled immediately back in time to produce the shrill annoying voices of my primary school teachers:
“Nuclear energy is dangerous! It is hazardous for the environment! It's Expensive and I still remember the days of Chernobyl and then Fukushima bla bla bla…”
Well... I won't continue. But, as a matter of fact, for a long time, nuclear energy has suffered a terrible reputation, being depicted as the apex of the expression of carelessness that humans can have for nature and public safety.
Yet, in these last few years, people are embracing more alternative solutions and thinking out of the box. And even Nuclear energy is being re-evaluated.
That is why I thought... Let’s use some critical thinking here…..shall we be scared of nuclear energy?
This comes with good timing as between the 11th and 14th of March in Barbados there will be the SEforAll, the UN conference about Sustainable energy.
Before debating let’s just start by making clear what nuclear energy is:
“Nuclear energy is the energy produced from the fission of the atom of Uranium-235”
That’s it, a nuclear plant is a place in which the atoms are amassed and waiting to be split.
When an atom is split it generates a chain reaction in which every atom after splitting crashes against another atom causing this to split in turn. This reaction generates an insane amount of heat. The heat is then used to warm up water to generate high-temperature vapor used to spin a turbine and, ultimately, create electricity.
Sounds easy right?.... And you know what is the best in this whole process?...No CO2 emitted! On top of this, and contrary to many other natural energy sources, nuclear plants can ensure a stable supply of energy.
But with all the talk about CO2 emission, how come people still hate Nuclear energy!?!
As hinted, this is no easy topic… as in every highly debated aspect, there are both good and bad sides.
The most debated aspects of nuclear energy concern its impact on the environment, the high initial costs, the safety issues, and the link to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Let’s break it down!
A nuclear plant does not create CO2 emissions. However, there are of course other aspects to take into account, like the mining of uranium, and the treatment of nuclear waste.
Firstly, uranium is abundant, the current reserves would be enough to cover an important part of the energy requirements of many countries and even mining new uranium would not be particularly expensive. This is the case because the volume of uranium needed in a power plant is much smaller than that of coal (see more: World Nuclear Association, 2024). Uranium can also be recycled, and several researchers are already working toward a better and more efficient recycling of uranium.
Secondly, building nuclear plant infrastructure is no easy task, and it is undeniably expensive. Yet, we have seen countries that managed to do so and the benefits of this are projected to continue. The country that won the podium for nuclear energy superproducer is France, which has 57 operable reactors scattered over its territory. France is an excellent example that shows how, despite high initial costs, the long-term benefits make it entirely worth it.
Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island are names that are familiar to most of us, and not for good reasons.
Whenever a nuclear accident happens, it always brings heavy, long-term consequences.
Such events are indeed terrible, but it is also true that in 83 years of Nuclear history, it only happened 3 times, after each of these times new safety protocols and measures have always been implemented, to the point that some scientific articles call nuclear energy the safest way to produce energy. Among the three accidents, only the Chernobyl one, created victims.
On the other hand, the death rates of fossil fuel energy plants are much higher if we consider all the accidents that happen every year and all the health-related problems created by their emissions.
Despite how terrible the above-mentioned disasters were, the safety measures and new technologies make Nuclear energy much safer than other common sources.
For more interesting details about this health aspect, I refer you to the article of (Brook et al., 2014) in which additional insights regarding the cancer rate, and potential health issues of nuclear energy are discussed.
Last but not least, nuclear energy is often connected to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Most countries in the world have signed a Non-Proliferation Treaty, aiming to refrain from the production of nuclear bombs and nuclear energy in general. The IAEA is the agency that so far has taken care of the task of preventing the spread of nuclear energy. So far, the only nuclear reactor that was actively involved in the production of nuclear bomb material was the RBMK-type in the Soviet Union. Apart from this, it is worth mentioning that the waste material produced by nuclear power plants is often not suitable for the production of nuclear weapons. (Brook et al., 2014).
Overall, we can conclude that nuclear energy has its positive and negative sides. Even though heavy criticism remains, technological advancements are allowing this technology to be more accepted and economically viable.
Countries that are planning to open new plants shortly include China, Russia, and India. However, following the website of the World Nuclear Association, many other countries have plans for building new nuclear energy reactors.
Few technologies have been as controversial as nuclear energy in the last century. From its characteristics, their expensive construction costs as well as their safety concerns. While there have been events in the past that made us lose faith in nuclear energy we do not have to let them bias us, but on the contrary, we must remember the importance of safety when dealing with nuclear energy and make sure something like that will not repeat.
Nuclear energy does have the power to allow us to take a big leap forward in the sustainability challenge. Implementing nuclear energy would be one more nail into the coffin of CO2, as its advantages become more evident. As this happens, opening up to it will become easier and easier.
written by Riccardo Antoniolli, Green Office volunteer
References
Brook, B. W., Alonso, A., Meneley, D. A., Misak, J., Blees, T., & van Erp, J. B. (2014, 11 20). Why nuclear energy is sustainable and has to be part of the energy mix. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 8 - 16.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium#:~:text=Reactor%20fuel%20requirements,mines%20or%20elsewhere%20each%20year.
