Nuclear Energy
In November, Egypt (on behalf of Africa) hosted COP27, the annual 'Conference of the Parties', where they reviewed the agenda from last year's COP26, which agreed on the necessary target of achieving carbon net zero by the mid-21st century. One of the topics being discussed was potential ways to transition towards greener forms of energy production. The world's current leading source of energy is the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) which accounts for approximately 82% of global primary energy. Nuclear power is one possible replacement that could be used to phase out the current reliance on fossil fuels. Unlike renewable sources such as hydroelectric, wind and solar power, both fossil fuels and nuclear power are able to supply energy quickly to meet the huge demands necessary.
In simple terms, nuclear power plants use the energy which is released from a controlled chain reaction of nuclear fission. In a nuclear reactor, a neutron collides with an atom of uranium, which splits into smaller nuclei and releases energy along with more neutrons. The energy is used to heat highly pressurised water which is circulated through pipes and heats more water. This water becomes steam which turns a turbine and powers a generator, which converts the energy to electricity. Despite the high start-up costs, nuclear power plants are relatively cheap to run.
Nuclear energy has been a viable contender for a consistent, efficient, and clean source of energy since the first operating reactors in the 1950s. As of May 2022, there are 439 nuclear power plants up and running across 33 different countries, most notably the USA with 96 and France with 58. The reason nuclear energy is considered 'clean' despite not being fully renewable (as it uses up radioactive fuel) is because it does not release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, unlike the burning of fossil fuels. However, there has always (understandably) been a huge amount of fear surrounding nuclear energy, first and foremost because it uses the same technology that powers the atomic bomb. Especially to the generations who grew up in constant fear of nuclear attacks, this is enough to disregard it as a source of energy altogether.
As a society, we are disproportionately afraid of radiation poisoning, a fear ingrained in us, in part, due to how it is represented in the media. In an attempt to dispel people's fears, workers and advocates find themselves overcompensating for the negative connotations attached to nuclear power. However, the more emphasis that is put on the safety precautions the more we as humans will focus solely on the fact that safety precautions are necessary - inevitably reminding people of the initial perceived danger. The risks immediately associated with nuclear power put it at a significant disadvantage to fossil fuels which are often described as a 'silent killer'. The burning of fossil fuels has been quietly releasing fine particulate matter, one type of air pollution, which causes one in five deaths worldwide. In comparison, nuclear energy makes the headlines anytime the smallest quantity of radiation is leaked.
As well as the fear caused by real life disasters, the way nuclear energy is portrayed in the media has had a huge influence on how much of a risk it is perceived to be. For example, the 1979 sci-fi film The China Syndrome about a fictional nuclear meltdown coincided with the first major nuclear accident, the partial reactor meltdown of Three Mile Island.
Another notable nuclear incident was the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, which was caused by human error and resulted in the spread of radioactive iodine across large parts of Europe. According to a study by the World Health Organisation, the number of casualties has been estimated to be just under 4,000, the majority of which were caused by radiation induced cancer. Besides the Chernobyl operators and emergency workers who received the highest dose, the next highest will have been the local residents, who were exposed to less than 100 millisieverts of radiation. To put this into perspective, you will receive approximately 10 millisieverts per full body CT scan, a common and reliable medical procedure.
Five years after the accident at Chernobyl, a seemingly inconsequential episode of the Simpsons called 'Homer Defined' aired. In the episode, Homer, in his role as a safety worker at Springfield nuclear power plant, gives a tour to a safety inspector. After revealing radioactive waste and fuel just lying around, he nearly causes, then narrowly prevents, a major nuclear disaster. This episode, making fun of nuclear power, was viewed in over 11 million homes across the world and will undoubtedly have affected how people view an industry they know very little about.
The issue of nuclear waste is perhaps the most difficult part to research and understand regarding the potential environmental risk which it poses. Radioactive waste is split into three categories of risk: low, intermediate and high, depending on how long it will remain radioactive. Low level waste is the easiest to deal with, being stored in secure containers on site at nuclear power plants until they have decayed to a level of radioactivity which is considered safe and can be disposed of in specially designed near surface facilities. Intermediate- and high-level waste remain radioactive too long (tens to hundreds of thousands of years) to simply be kept in temporary storage until they are no longer dangerous, and so must be safely disposed of long term. This is a lot more difficult and uncertain than the carefully monitored and controlled storage of low-level waste. The current disposal systems involve burying the remains of nuclear fuel deep in the ground with multiple layers of protection to provide as secure a barrier to the surrounding environment as possible. Since the waste takes so long to decay, it is hard to know what will actually happen to the waste in the future. Scientists now have no control beyond leaving detailed records in the hope that they survive hundreds of thousands of years into the future if something hypothetically were to go wrong, which creates a high level of uncertainty and causes many individuals to be apprehensive.
With the current technologies available to us, nuclear power seems to be a suitable source of energy, that can supply our basic needs, and could be used in combination with various forms of renewable energies to supplement production. Despite its drawbacks, I believe nuclear power is a promising alternative to the current reliance on fossil fuels, and that it should play an important role in the future of energy production.
This piece was written by student writer, Miri
For more articles, click the button below.