Andrew Keys |
Nuclear power has been subject to decades of divided controversy. This peaked in the 1970s and 1980s when more nuclear power plants than ever were being constructed all over the world. This debate is rising in intensity again, as the risk of climate change is climbing political agendas, and the need for reliable, low-carbon electricity is more necessary than ever. Some look no further than the horrific nuclear accidents, such as Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011 to form their opinion on such matters. Others see nuclear power as a step closer towards the threat of a nuclear weapon attack. But is it fair for these factors to scaremonger us or is nuclear power a precious piece of the puzzle in order to overcome climate change?
To answer this question, it is useful to ‘myth-bust’ some of the common statements that arise during this debate in order to make a more well-rounded opinion for yourself.
“Nuclear energy is not renewable, focus should be on renewable energies such as wind and solar”
Indeed, nuclear energy is not renewable, there is a finite quantity of uranium on earth that will not be replenished within our lifetime. In the context of preventing climate change, it is fair to say that the priority is to reduce carbon emissions as fast as possible to a safe level. A 2014 report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that electricity from solar farms produce overall four times more carbon emissions than a nuclear power plant per kilowatt-hour. So nuclear definitely ticks the box of being a low-carbon emitting technology.
Source: IPCC 2014
The 2016 Energy Outlook conducted by BP reported that in 2016 France produced 93% of its electricity from low-carbon sources, compared to 46% from neighbouring Germany. On top of this, Germany is gradually phasing out their nuclear and coal-fired power plants with the goal to base their energy mix entirely on renewable technologies, namely solar and wind. Solar energy will grow from a 6% share of the country’s electricity in 2016 to 9% in 2030. This could have the potential to provide great emission reductions, however, judging by the past, the closure of nuclear power plants has meant that emissions in Germany have only been rising since the economic recession.
“Nuclear power is too dangerous, we have learnt our lesson from Chernobyl and Fukushima”
Firstly, let’s consider the greatest nuclear accident to date, in terms of size and consequences: Chernobyl. The two most significant human fatality statistics reported by the United Nations (UN) were: 28 deaths from acute radiation syndrome (ARS) and 15 deaths from typhoid cancer over 25 years. Alongside this, the UN also reported: no effect on fertility, malformations or infant mortality, no proven increase in any other cancer, and no heritable effects. These facts are to put context to the event and in no way are suggesting the consequences were not horrifying. To get a feel for the scale of nuclear radiation left by this disaster, the Chernobyl Tissue Bank reported that less than 0.1% of ionising radiation (the potentially harmful part of radiation that could come from a nuclear accident) that we are exposed to comes from all of the historic nuclear accidents. The majority comes from natural sources such as radon gas in the ground, which is considered to be just as harmful as coming from unnatural sources such as in a hospital, airport or from a nuclear disaster. BMC Public Health reported in 2007 that the risk of mortality from being exposed to extreme radiation conditions such as in Chernobyl is several times less than living in a large city such as Paris or London like a huge proportion of the world now do, with air pollution responsible for 7 million deaths per year.
“Nuclear power will always produce nuclear waste, which is hazardous to all forms of life”
A true, and highly important statement. However, this is the only waste from electricity generation that is safely contained somewhere. All other waste from electricity production is left freely to be dealt with by however companies and countries decide. In terms of sustainable electricity production, solar is the biggest culprit to this waste flow, with the EU being one of the only places to consider the destiny of such material. Solar panels produce around 300 times more waste than nuclear reactors per TWh, all of which contains highly toxic heavy metals. So to paint nuclear waste with a different colour of brush than other forms of low-carbon electricity source waste may not be so black and white.
Sources: US Government Accountability Office
The above statements are just a few examples of aspects to consider when forming an opinion of nuclear energy in the context of overcoming climate change. The discussion may have appeared biased, and that is because in fact it is in some way biased. The objective of this article is not to persuade you to support nuclear energy, or even have any opinion about it. The real objective is that when you are forming an opinion about something, maybe the first point of contact should not be a news channel, a documentary or even a book. Consider firstly seeking the data for yourself from a reliable source such as the UN or World Bank, and then analysing this data to form your own factful opinion. It is very easy to read something based on true facts and form your ideology around it, however, it is not always this simple. It is relatively easy to use legitimate facts to persuade a reader to form a desired opinion regardless of the topic. How can one really form a solid opinion about a subject without considering all aspects of and comparing it to every other possible option?
Try reading information from a range of sources, investigate how information is derived, and try not to consider freestanding numbers - the importance of ratios, comparative references and growth rates are often overlooked. If you are interested in reading further into techniques to correctly read data to form clearer opinions about the world then I highly recommend reading Factfulness by Hans Rosling.
About the author
Andrew Keys
Researcher at PBL Netherlands
"Andrew likes to challenge the status quo and try and question everything in order to gain a better perspective. He thinks it is important to have a fluid, ever-evolving opinion by learning from diverse groups of people. As a researcher at Environmental Assessment Agency Netherlands, his main interest is in the interface between science and policy to make large-scale change".