Energy Management: Good, good it is that most of the world has come to the realization that sustainable energy is the only way to go. However, we as a people continue to face an “energy identity crisis”. The truth is, if one looks deep enough, almost all energy sources have merits and demerits. But just as is done in medical and other practices, the world needs to work with risk-benefit analysis in mind.
Photo credit: https://www.ans.org/news/article-1579/spent-fuel-pool-fire-risk-goes-to-zero-a-few-months-after-reactor-shutdown/
Within such a context, the substantive issue shifts away from being centrally focused on only merits/demerits. The most efficient energy source with the most checks on sustainability in all respects will then be prioritized.
Let’s Narrow Focus to Nuclear Energy Now.
What Is Nuclear Energy? Nuclear energy is a form of energy released from the nucleus, the core of atoms, made up of protons and neutrons. This source of energy can be produced in two ways: fission – when nuclei of atoms split into several parts – or fusion – when nuclei fuse together. The nuclear energy harnessed around the world today to produce electricity is through nuclear fission, while technology to generate electricity from fusion is at the R&D phase – according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-is-nuclear-energy-the-science-of-nuclear-power
The United States (US) recently announced a major breakthrough in regards of nuclear fusion energy, however, lots of work remains to be done. The said technology is several years away from commercialization. As things stand, the world remains at the mercy of nuclear fission energy.
Some Pros and Cons for Risk-Benefit Analysis?
“1. Long Time Lag Between Planning and Operation
The time lag between planning and operation of a nuclear reactor includes the times to identify a site, obtain a site permit, purchase or lease the land, obtain a construction permit, obtain financing and insurance for construction, install transmission, negotiate a power purchase agreement, obtain permits, build the plant, connect it to transmission, and obtain a final operating license.
The planning-to-operation (PTO) times of all nuclear plants ever built have been 10-19 years or more. For example, the Olkiluoto 3 reactor in Finland was proposed to the Finnish cabinet in December 2000 to be added to an existing nuclear power plant. Its latest estimated completion date is 2020, giving it a PTO time of 20 years.
The Hinkley Point nuclear plant was planned to start in 2008. It has an estimated completion year of 2025 to 2027, giving it a PTO time of 17 to 19 years. The Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors in Georgia were first proposed in August 2006 to be added to an existing site. The anticipated completion dates are November 2021 and November 2022, respectively, given them PTO times of 15 and 16 years, respectively.
The Haiyang 1 and 2 reactors in China were planned to start in 2005. Haiyang 1 began commercial operation on October 22, 2018. Haiyang 2 began operation on January 9, 2019, giving them PTO times of 13 and 14 years, respectively. The Taishan 1 and 2 reactors in China were bid in 2006. Taishan 1 began commercial operation on December 13, 2018. Taishan 2 was not expected to be connected until 2019, giving them PTO times of 12 and 13 years, respectively. Planning and procurement for four reactors in Ringhals, Sweden started in 1965. One took 10 years, the second took 11 years, the third took 16 years, and the fourth took 18 years to complete.
Many claim that France’s 1974 Messmer plan resulted in the building of its 58 reactors in 15 years. This is not true. The planning for several of these nuclear reactors began long before. For example, the Fessenheim reactor obtained its construction permit in 1967 and was planned starting years before. In addition, 10 of the reactors were completed between 1991-2000. As such, the whole planning-to-operation time for these reactors was at least 32 years, not 15. That of any individual reactor was 10 to 19 years.
The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for a new nuclear plant in 2018, based on Lazard, is $151 (112 to 189)/MWh. This compares with $43 (29 to 56)/MWh for onshore wind and $41 (36 to 46)/MWh for utility-scale solar PV from the same source.
This nuclear LCOE is an underestimate for several reasons. First, Lazard assumes a construction time for nuclear of 5.75 years. However, the Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors, though will take at least 8.5 to 9 years to finish construction. This additional delay alone results in an estimated LCOE for nuclear of about $172 (128 to 215)/MWh, or a cost 2.3 to 7.4 times that of an onshore wind farm (or utility PV farm).
Next, the LCOE does not include the cost of the major nuclear meltdowns in history. For example, the estimated cost to clean up the damage from three Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear reactor core meltdowns was $460 to $640 billion. This is $1.2 billion, or 10 to 18.5 percent of the capital cost, of every nuclear reactor worldwide.
In addition, the LCOE does not include the cost of storing nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years. In the U.S. alone, about $500 million is spent yearly to safeguard nuclear waste from about 100 civilian nuclear energy plants. This amount will only increase as waste continues to accumulate. After the plants retire, the spending must continue for hundreds of thousands of years with no revenue stream from electricity sales to pay for the storage.
3. Weapons Proliferation Risk
The growth of nuclear energy has historically increased the ability of nations to obtain or harvest plutonium or enrich uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognizes this fact. They concluded in the Executive Summary of their 2014 report on energy, with “robust evidence and high agreement” that nuclear weapons proliferation concern is a barrier and risk to the increasing development of nuclear energy:
Barriers to and risks associated with an increasing use of nuclear energy include operational risks and the associated safety concerns, uranium mining risks, financial and regulatory risks, unresolved waste management issues, nuclear weapons proliferation concerns, and adverse public opinion.
The building of a nuclear reactor for energy in a country that does not currently have a reactor allows the country to import uranium for use in the nuclear energy facility. If the country so chooses, it can secretly enrich the uranium to create weapons grade uranium and harvest plutonium from uranium fuel rods for use in nuclear weapons. This does not mean any or every country will do this, but historically some have and the risk is high, as noted by IPCC. The building and spreading of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) may increase this risk further.
4. Meltdown Risk
To date, 1.5% of all nuclear power plants ever built have melted down to some degree. Meltdowns have been either catastrophic (Chernobyl, Russia in 1986; three reactors at Fukushima Dai-ichi, Japan in 2011) or damaging (Three-Mile Island, Pennsylvania in 1979; Saint-Laurent France in 1980). The nuclear industry has proposed new reactor designs that they suggest are safer. However, these designs are generally untested, and there is no guarantee that the reactors will be designed, built and operated correctly or that a natural disaster or act of terrorism, such as an airplane flown into a reactor, will not cause the reactor to fail, resulting in a major disaster.
5. Mining Lung Cancer Risk
Uranium mining causes lung cancer in large numbers of miners because uranium mines contain natural radon gas, some of whose decay products are carcinogenic. A study of 4,000 uranium miners between 1950 and 2000 found that 405 (10 percent) died of lung cancer, a rate six times that expected based on smoking rates alone. 61 others died of mining related lung diseases. Clean, renewable energy does not have this risk because (a) it does not require the continuous mining of any material, only one-time mining to produce the energy generators; and (b) the mining does not carry the same lung cancer risk that uranium mining does.
6. Carbon-Equivalent Emissions and Air Pollution
There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. Emissions from new nuclear are 78 to 178 g-CO2/kWh, not close to 0. Of this, 64 to 102 g-CO2/kWh over 100 years are emissions from the background grid while consumers wait 10 to 19 years for nuclear to come online or be refurbished, relative to 2 to 5 years for wind or solar. In addition, all nuclear plants emit 4.4 g-CO2e/kWh from the water vapor and heat they release. This contrasts with solar panels and wind turbines, which reduce heat or water vapor fluxes to the air by about 2.2 g-CO2e/kWh for a net difference from this factor alone of 6.6 g-CO2e/kWh.
In fact, China’s investment in nuclear plants that take so long between planning and operation instead of wind or solar resulted in China’s CO2 emissions increasing 1.3 percent from 2016 to 2017 rather than declining by an estimated average of 3 percent. The resulting difference in air pollution emissions may have caused 69,000 additional air pollution deaths in China in 2016 alone, with additional deaths in years prior and since.
7. Waste Risk
Last but not least, consumed fuel rods from nuclear plants are radioactive waste. Most fuel rods are stored at the same site as the reactor that consumed them. This has given rise to hundreds of radioactive waste sites in many countries that must be maintained and funded for at least 200,000 years, far beyond the lifetimes of any nuclear power plant. The more nuclear waste that accumulates, the greater the risk of radioactive leaks, which can damage water supply, crops, animals, and humans.
Nuclear advocates claim nuclear is still needed because renewables are intermittent and need natural gas for backup. However, nuclear itself never matches power demand so it needs backup. Even in France with one of the most advanced nuclear energy programs, the maximum ramp rate is 1 to 5 % per minute, which means they need natural gas, hydropower, or batteries, which ramp up 5 to 100 times faster, to meet peaks in demand. Today, in fact, batteries are beating natural gas for wind and solar backup needs throughout the world. A dozen independent scientific groups have further found that it is possible to match intermittent power demand with clean, renewable energy supply and storage, without nuclear, at low cost.” – according to https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change
“1) It Is Inexpensive
Nuclear power is generally considered to be the safest and most efficient energy source for generating electricity. This source of power is used to power almost 20% of the world.
It’s one of the most inexpensive and environmentally-friendly sources of energy. In 2018, the cost of nuclear power was just $35/MWh. This is less than half the cost of coal- and gas-fired power plants. The price of nuclear power will be even more competitive in the future.
2) It Is Environmentally Friendly
Nuclear power is an efficient and environmentally safe energy source. It doesn’t produce greenhouse gases and can be used in a wide range of applications.
Nuclear power plants do not produce any significant amount of greenhouse gases or pollutants. This energy source is safer and more cost-effective than fossil fuels such as coal and gas. It’s one of the cleanest and most inexpensive energy sources on earth.
It is an effective way to reduce carbon emissions. It doesn’t generate any greenhouse gases. In fact, the generation of one MW of nuclear power is equivalent to the renewable energy that is produced by 400 acres of trees. Nuclear power will be the most effective resource for curtailing global warming and climate change.
3) It Doesn’t Require Too Much Fuel
Compared to other sources of power, nuclear energy is superior in many ways. This energy source is affordable and accessible. It doesn’t require too much fuel to produce energy.
This means that it doesn’t produce a lot of harmful emissions during the process. Compared to other sources of energy, nuclear energy is a clean and safe alternative.
The amount of fuel needed to generate one MWh of power is quite small. The fuel generally used is uranium which is only 0.7 mm in diameter. It takes only a few seconds to load a fuel rod.
4) It Is Stable
Nuclear energy is inherently stable. It has far less risk than other energy sources. This energy source is also inexpensive, reliable, and efficient.
Nuclear power doesn’t require a lot of fuel. That’s one of the main reasons why it is stable. The amount of fuel needed to generate one MWh of power is quite small.
Uranium is a naturally-occurring element that is found in the earth’s crust. It’s a non-renewable but inexhaustible source of energy.
5) It Is Completely Safe
Nuclear power is a safe, cost-effective, clean, and efficient energy source. There’s no risk of radiation or pollution. It’s safe for both people and the environment.
There are high standards of safety in the nuclear industry. All nuclear power plants are subject to rigorous safety checks and regulations. All nuclear power plants are equipped with safety features that prevent the release of radioactivity.
Nuclear energy is a safe, reliable, and cost-effective source of energy. It’s one of the most promising energy sources of the future. It will be one of the most effective solutions to fight climate change and global warming.” – according to https://encoreuranium.com/benefits-of-nuclear/benefits-of-nuclear-energy-for-the-environment/
Based on the pros and cons as written above, one would have already noticed some contradictions by now. For the risk-benefit analysis, and as to if a sustainable future deserves nuclear energy as it is now, CER leaves a well discerning public and world to judge.
What is your take?