For years, nuclear power has been a topic of debate. But now, with much of the world experiencing rising costs due to a global energy crisis, we discuss the misconceptions about nuclear energy and offer our perspective on its potential role in a low-carbon energy mix.
The EU recently announced a groundbreaking move towards enhancing the green industry with the new Net Zero Industry Act (NZIA). This proposed regulation is a vital component of the EU’s response to America’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a monumental green subsidies package.
The act aims to set a “headline benchmark” of ensuring at least 40% of low-carbon technology needs are met by manufacturing within the EU by 2030. To accomplish this, the EU is looking to ensure better conditions to set up net zero projects in Europe and attract investments.
Instead of fully recognising nuclear power in the regulation, the EU commission only made reference to Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactors, which has left many in the nuclear community feeling uncertain about the future of the energy source.
“Whilst this is a step in the right direction, [we] believe that much more could still be achieved by including the nuclear sector as a whole and treating nuclear in the same way as other strategic technologies,” commented Brussels-based trade association, Nucleareurope.
The ongoing debate surrounding the use of nuclear energy dates back to 1956 when the first power station was constructed in Obninsk, outside of Moscow. But why is there such a discourse surrounding this topic, and what makes it such a significant issue?
What is nuclear power?
Nuclear power works by harnessing the energy released when atoms are split, in a process called nuclear fission. Fission is the opposite of nuclear fusion, which is where atoms are combined together, such as in nuclear arms or in the sun.
The energy produced from nuclear fission is used to heat water and produce steam, which in turn drives turbines to generate electricity for general consumption. For you curious ones, an in-depth explanation of how reactors work can be found here.
The state of nuclear today
As of today, nuclear power is the second-largest source of low-carbon electricity, second only to hydro, and produces roughly 10% of the world’s total energy demand. Together with hydro, they provide three-quarters of global low-carbon generation.
In the UK, nuclear currently accounts for approximately 15% of electricity generation, with nine power stations in operation.
The construction of a new plant, Hinkley Point C, in Somerset is currently underway and will provide low carbon electricity to meet 7% of UK demand. The facility is situated close to its predecessor, Hinkley Point B, which ceased operations in August 2022 after 50 years of operation.
In December, the UK government announced a £102 million package for nuclear and hydrogen technologies in an attempt to bolster the UK’s energy security, reducing reliance on expensive fossil fuels.
For some, the technology has fallen out of favour. Lithuania and Italy have shut down all of their reactors, and following the debilitating tsunami in 2011, Japan’s nuclear capacity has dropped by more than half.
For others, nuclear offers low-carbon energy and reduced reliance on dirty, imported fossil fuels. There are currently over 450 operational reactors worldwide, with 66 new facilities under construction in 16 countries, including 22 in China alone.
Join the community 🌍
Keep informed and stay on top of the latest in business sustainability.
As a bonus, we’ll plant a 🌳 in our Ecologi forest on your behalf.
Unpacking the debate on nuclear
Nuclear has been hotly debated for years, with many green groups, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth opposing it over concerns about its safety, the risk of accidents, the long-term storage of radioactive waste it produces, and the potential for nuclear proliferation.
Both the UK’s Green Party and the Scottish National Party have also expressed opposition to the construction of new nuclear power plants, citing environmental and safety concerns.
In contrast, both the Conservative Party and, surprisingly, the Labour Party have expressed their support for nuclear as part of the energy mix. Additionally, public sentiment seems to be on the rise, with growing support likely attributed to the economic pressures faced by the public due to an overreliance on Russian oil and gas.
What are the key discussion points for nuclear?
To assess the potential of nuclear power, this article explores some of the more common arguments against its use, and provides some insights to dispel common misconceptions.
It’s worth emphasising that these points are aimed at demonstrating how nuclear energy can complement the broader shift towards a fully renewable and low-carbon energy system, not act as a replacement for investment in renewable solutions.
Argument 1 – Nuclear waste
Argument against: Nuclear energy produces a significant amount of extremely dangerous waste that cannot be stored safely and can do harm to people and the planet.
The reality: Nuclear power plants use a certain type of uranium, called U-235, that, when exposed to the environment, can cause significant harm. While there is certainly validity in this argument, there are also some misconceptions about the level of risk.
Firstly, the amount of waste produced is minimal. According to the United States Department of Energy, the country’s reactors produce around 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel from nuclear reactors per year. To put that into perspective, the volume of the spent fuel is less than half that of an Olympic-sized swimming pool and produces enough energy to power more than 70 million homes with low-carbon energy.
Furthermore, more than 90% of its potential energy remains in the fuel, even after five years of operation in a reactor it can be recycled.
After recycling, any remaining waste is safely stored in concrete silos called ‘casks’. These casks are then moved to deep geological disposal facilities (GDF), where it’s true they will remain for an indefinite amount of time.
Concerning the potential danger of nuclear waste accidents, it’s worth noting that approximately 15 million packages of radioactive material are transported on public roads, railways, and ships worldwide every year. Despite this, there have been no reported incidents of radioactive releases causing any harm to people, property, or the environment over the course of millions of miles of transport.
Argument 2 – Safety of nuclear power stations
Argument against: Nuclear reactors are unsafe and present a danger to society based on several recorded disasters, notably the Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011.
The reality: While the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters were without doubt catastrophic, it’s important to keep in mind that there are currently over 450 operational reactors, and throughout history, the total number of reactors has exceeded 665. The rate of serious accidents is incredibly low.
Research from Statista into mortality rates from accidents and air pollution per unit of electricity places nuclear at the bottom of the list, with 0.03 deaths per thousand terawatt hours. For contrast, wind sits at 0.04 and solar at 0.02.
Moreover, advancements in design, technology, and regulations have led to safer plants and a further reduction in the risk of catastrophic accidents.
Argument 3 – Investment in sustainable alternatives instead of nuclear
Argument for: Nuclear is not sustainable in the same way as other renewables, such as solar and wind. We should invest solely in those.
The reality: It’s true that nuclear energy is not a fully sustainable method of power generation. Reactors rely on uranium, which is a finite material. The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) estimates that at today’s usage, the supply will last around 230 years.
Advocates rarely suggest that nuclear should be used in replacement of renewables, but as a compliment in the low-carbon energy economy to fill in the gaps.
Renewables present a problem of consistency. Changes in geography, weather, and season result in varying levels of energy production. One day, a renewable infrastructure may power a significant portion of a countries demand, the following day it could be marginal.
For renewables to become a practical solution, they need to be combined with efficient storage methods to allow surplus energy produced during peak periods to be stored and utilised when generation slows. Currently, lithium batteries are the most efficient form of storage, although there are other options being explored.
However, battery technology is still not economical or widely available enough to fully support a renewable only system. Additionally, the supply of lithium needed for manufacturing batteries is, just like uranium, limited and therefore not sustainable.
Until renewables can consistently meet the world’s demand for low-carbon energy, we need to resort to “drop-in” solutions to fill the gaps in production. Currently, the options available for this include fossil fuels and nuclear. Nuclear energy is a far better choice in the pursuit of net zero as explained in the latest UN IPCC report.
Argument 4 – The price of nuclear
Argument for: Building and running nuclear facilities is too expensive. The money should be invested elsewhere, such as in renewable energy sources.
The reality: It’s true that the cost of constructing a nuclear facility is exorbitant. The latest UK reactor, Hinkley Point C, has a staggering price tag of £37.2 billion and will likely increase if there are further delays.
However, this only presents a partial picture. Once operational, the electricity produced by nuclear reactors is significantly cheaper than power generated by coal, gas, or any other fossil fuel plants. Looking at each technology over its entire life-cycle, nuclear actually competes with solar and wind energy in terms of cost per megawatt-hour in Europe, with the estimated cost of a Megawatt hour for nuclear sitting at $71 and $90 for off-shore wind.
Furthermore, the cost per unit of energy using renewable sources can vary significantly, depending on factors such as the maturity of the technology and the availability of suitable geographic sites.
For example, landlocked and mountainous countries that experience poor wind conditions may find it challenging to generate as much energy as countries with offshore wind developments, like the UK. The cost of the turbines remains roughly the same, but the power output will be lowered, resulting in a higher cost per unit of electricity produced.
While the cost of renewable energy production may be competitive in some countries, in places like Japan, Korea, and Russia, it can be more expensive than nuclear energy production.
Argument 5 – Carbon intensity in nuclear power stations
Argument for: While nuclear produces very few emissions during its use, the construction of the facilities is very carbon intensive.
The reality: Similar to that of the price of nuclear, the initial carbon cost of constructing a nuclear power plant is considerable. Construction requires a substantial amount of concrete, which is known to have a considerable impact on global warming.
But, again, the carbon cost should be examined in context across a plant’s entire lifecycle. During operation, nuclear facilities produce minimal emissions. According to research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), each kilowatt hour of electricity generated over the lifetime of a nuclear plant has an emission footprint matching that of wind, at 4 grammes of CO2 equivalent (gCO2e/kWh).
The IPCC classifies energy sources that produce 12 grams of CO2, or less, per kilowatt hour of energy to be low carbon, meaning nuclear energy officially falls into this bracket.
Argument 6 – Nuclear stations take too long to build
Argument for: Nuclear stations take too long to build, and we won’t see the benefits of investment for many years.
The reality: This consideration is true, nuclear facilities do take a long time to build. For example, Hinkley Point C, was due to become operational in 2025, eight years after beginning construction in 2017. This was subsequently pushed back to 2026 after production delays relating to the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. The plant has seen more delays this year and has now been pushed back to 2028.
But how does this compare to other solutions? Let’s compare with Hornsea 2 as an appropriate equivalence. Hornsea 2 is an offshore wind farm located approximately 89 km (55.3 miles) off the Yorkshire coast in the North Sea. Construction began in 2018 and took four years to complete, becoming operational in 2022. The installation is impressive, with a capability of 1.3 gigawatts (GW), enough to power 1.4 million UK homes with an expected lifespan of 25 years.
In contrast, Hinkley Point C will have taken roughly 11 years to construct, it will produce more than double the amount of energy at 3.2 gigawatts (GW), and is expected to have an operational lifespan of 60 years, over double that of Hornsea 2. When viewed over its entire lifespan, the initial build time becomes less relevant.
Given the time it takes to build a plant, it may seem foolish to invest in nuclear power now in order to solve the current day energy crisis. One could make the argument that while the current energy crisis is a result of multiple factors, including the UK’s heavy dependence on gas for domestic heating and inadequate insulation in properties, if the country had prioritised investment in nuclear power in the past, the challenges faced today would be quite different.
The best time to invest in nuclear power was then, but the next best time could be now.
Closing thoughts
Nuclear power offers a promising solution for transitioning towards a more sustainable, low-carbon energy future. No technology is without its limitations, but nuclear represents a step forward in our quest to abandon our dependence on polluting fossil fuels. Providing a clean and safe source of energy has the potential to play a critical role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change.
Nuclear is by no means a perfect solution, and it does have its drawbacks, like everything. Yet, perfection is often the enemy of progress. We should instead focus on weighing the benefits and drawbacks of the technology and work towards implementing it in a safe and responsible manner. With careful planning and oversight, nuclear can be a valuable tool in our efforts to create a sustainable and secure energy future for all.
