Of course, nothing’s perfect. Long-standing questions and concerns abound regarding nuclear energy.
- What about the waste?
When heavy atoms split and release energy, the two smaller atoms remaining (called fission products) are often left with some extra energy to give off. This energy is released over a period of time (the longest-lived waste lasting 100,000+ years) in the form of energetic particles called radiation. The high radiation is hazardous and must be kept isolated from the biosphere. We have not yet agreed on what should be done with this high-level nuclear waste.
Waste solutions #
We know how to deal with nuclear waste safely. The Finns simply chose to go ahead and solve their nuclear waste issue and built the repository at Onkalo. We have good experience with deep geologic disposal in salt deposits that have been stable for 250 million years. Research in deep borehole technology is also looking promising. Finally, if we close the fuel cycle and recycle spent fuel, then it decays to safe levels in several hundred years rather than hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, despite the fear, few people, if any, have ever been injured by stored commercial nuclear waste.
- What about meltdowns?
The radioactive fission products are hottest when a reactor first shuts down. In effect, you can’t shut a reactor completely off. This decay heat must be cooled or else the containment structures that hold the fuel and waste can breach, releasing radiation into the biosphere. Accidents at Fukushima and Three Mile Island were caused by this effect. The unstable reactor design and operation at Chernobyl led to a power excursion and widespread dispersal of radioactive material. So, people worry about reactor safety.
Safety solutions #
Nuclear energy has actually saved over 1.8 million lives by displacing air-pollution-related deaths that would have occurred had fossil or biofuel plants have been built instead of the clean-air nuclear ones [2]. This includes the health effects of nuclear accidents. So they’re like airplanes; when one goes down, it is a major disaster and a huge story, but when you look at the data, it is clear that nuclear reactors are one of the safest ways known to produce energy. And advanced designs can make them even safer.
- What about nuclear proliferation?
The first application of fission was as an atomic bomb. While nuclear reactors and atomic bombs are significantly different machines, there is some technology overlap, especially in fuel cycle facilities like enrichment and reprocessing plants. So, some people argue that having reactors around might make it easier to spread nuclear weapons.
Proliferation solutions #
It is important for nuclear facilities to monitor nuclear material. That said, advanced designs are being developed that reduce reliance on enrichment. Actually, nuclear reactors are useful for peacefully destroying nuclear weapons, and between the late 1990s and 2013, fully 10% of the US electricity was generated in nuclear reactors using dismantled ex-Soviet nuclear warheads in the Megatons-to-Megawatts program.
- What about economics?
Nuclear reactors are generally large and complex, with lots of reinforced concrete and nuclear-grade quality assurance programs. As a result, they tend to be expensive to build. Once they’re built, the fuel and operating costs are relatively cheap, but the capital cost is a major hurdle.
Cost Solutions #
If carbon dioxide is ever treated as a pollutant, then nuclear reactors will become much more competitive. But there is definitely room to improve! Research is ongoing in many venues to reduce the cost of nuclear reactors. Countries that chose a standard design and built many of the same have succeeded in bringing costs down.
Source:
