By Bea Nield
Chernobyl, 1986, is the large-scale accident that seems to loom over the nuclear industry, impacting almost four decades of approach to nuclear power. The Fukushima disaster (2011) was the result of a tsunami flooding nuclear reactors, resulting in large radiation leaks and permanently altering the course of residents’ lives. As shown by these historical incidents, there can be catastrophic consequences to nuclear accidents, and so the divisive field cannot be taken lightly. Some critics argue that we should abandon the field all together, or at least work on transitioning away from it and towards less impactful sustainable practices. However, despite the production of nuclear waste and the fact that it is unrenewable, it is considered a relatively ‘green’ energy source, especially when compared
to environmentally notorious resources such as coal. It produces no CO2 emissions. It is also impressively efficient and is relied upon today to balance out national power grids. The thermal efficiency of nuclear power stations has remained relatively stable over the years, and was at 39.9% in 2021, compared to just 33.4% for coal fired stations in the same year. There are many moral imperatives (like safe storage of waste and care for staff) and practical challenges associated with nuclear power, so it has become a complex modern issue.
Nuclear power is produced in plants though the process of nuclear fission, which occurs when a slow-moving neutron collides with the nucleus of an atom and causes it to split, releasing daughter nuclei, more neutrons and a large amount of energy in the form of heat. This is used to turn water in to steam, which drives turbines powering a generator and ‘producing’ electricity. Around 20% of the UK’s electricity is produced by nuclear power and the government has previously stated it wanted to build eight new reactors before 2030. It has supplied roughly 20% of America’s power each year since 1990 and it has the highest capacity factor of any other energy source, producing maximum power 92.5% of the time during the year. However, nuclear power and its use is far more complex than just operating the plants.
We have an intergenerational responsibility to ensure, as far as we can, that our practices of today do not end up causing catastrophic damage to future populations. While nuclear power offers an attempt to shift away from less sustainable and ecologically damaging energy sources, it comes with its own issues, most obviously: nuclear waste. It is generated throughout nuclear power generation and the processing of it is a complex endeavour, still being actively researched. On the 1st of April 2022, the total volume of radioactive waste stock in the UK, including that estimated to arise in the future from all sources, was 4,450,000m3. The waste is often radioactive, and unsafe for humans to be near for long periods of time, so is stored in secure underground locations using a technique called geological disposal. As per an IAEA report, around 95% of existing radioactive waste has very low level or low-level radioactivity. However, with a rapidly growing global population, it becomes imperative that we consider how we safeguard these areas – we cannot risk exposing future generations to radiation! Scientists and managers must also plan for other possibilities, meaning that they must find ways to clearly mark out the areas so that, even in the case of drastic societal and linguistic shift, people would still be able to recognise the sign ‘Danger: Radioactive Nuclear Waste’.
Nuclear power plants also often have a significant impact on local communities and can dramatically change the lives of people inhabiting nearby areas. New jobs are created in the plants, which can often generate large revenue, as wages are earnt and then spent, often in surrounding towns. This may be used to improve local resources and access to facilities but can sometimes end up benefiting nuclear experts who move to live near the power plant more than pre-existing residents. Further, some people consider the plants a blight to beautiful environments, and the build process can be ecologically taxing. This typically means that opinions on new nuclear projects can be very divided, and concerns around safe waste transport are often raised, as well as potential risk of nuclear meltdown.
Public engagement in decisions to action or regulate nuclear use is imperative. One of the first steps of this should be increased education on the topic, which is often not covered in a way that gives most people a good understanding of what nuclear power is, its risks and benefits. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers commissioned research into public attitudes towards nuclear power and found that 42% of people support its use for producing electricity in Britain. However, only 26% of people aged 18-24 understood that nuclear power is a low-carbon source of energy, compared to 61% of 65–74-year-olds, displaying the need for increased education. Encouraging votes and community engagement are particularly important when companies or governments are looking to set up plants in areas near residences, so that everyone can know about projects which may drastically change their way of life. This opens nuclear power up to another debate: how much say should a local or national government have in imposing structures without total community support? Some method of electricity and power generation must exist for them to be used, so deciding on the location and type becomes a divisive problem.
As with the rest of the technology industry, nuclear research is continually advancing. Molten salt reactors, employing thorium as fuel, are regarded as “cheaper, cleaner, and safer alternatives” when compared to traditional reactors fuelled with radioactive elements. Meanwhile, small modular reactors are currently in development, which have a power capacity of up to 300MW per unit, around 1/3 that of a traditional nuclear power reactor. Their modularity and small size allow them to be used in many situations where a full nuclear plant would not be possible, reducing cost and construction time. These two reactors may end up playing key roles in the clean energy transition, filling international gaps in energy supply.
Access to nuclear power differs globally, which makes its use and identity all the more difficult to consider. Within environmental movements, a sense of worldwide responsibility and collaboration is often emphasised. In light of this, how do countries share energy sources and encourage shifts away from non-renewables and pollutants? Often, the most suitable technology will be unique to a country’s resources, needs and culture. For example, some countries, such as Italy and Lithuania, take a harsher view against nuclear power, particularly because the risk of meltdown and because of the impact of its waste and the difficulty of managing it. Further, it can be a very costly process to implement and maintain, with specific skills which may not be readily available everywhere. Once a nuclear plant is no longer safe or efficient, they are usually decommissioned. The UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estimated that it would cost £149 billion for 23 reactors. Given current trends, some experts have put that figure as high as £260 billion. Many argue that it is no longer a cost-effective method of energy generation, particularly when other competitive and renewable sources are being developed. Less wealthy countries may find it even more difficult to cost or justify, despite its potential large-scale impact on energy sourcing and distribution. Where possible, international communication and trade may allow more countries to access nuclear technology, but governments should remain conscious of the fact that it will not suit all nations.
If people choose to, implementing nuclear power plants requires a comprehensive approach, where safety and transparency should become main features of management culture, so that the impact on people and the environment is carefully balanced and remains positive. Long-term implications of the process are impossible to ignore and should be assessed by governments and bodies at all levels. The nuclear dilemma is a deeply complex one, and it should be noted that research is ongoing and will hopefully continue. As people develop and adapt alternate and safer nuclear technologies, it may become a more viable, and greener, approach to energy globally.