Nuclear Energy For Efficient And Sustainable Power Needs
The shift to renewable and clean energy is an important topic regarding sustainable development. The “Green Movement” has been active in influencing policy makers to adopt more greener technologies to prevent catastrophic climate change (i.e. global warming) caused by fossil fuel energy sources (e.g. oil, natural gas, coal).
Yet, at the moment (circa 2020) fossil fuels provide 84% of energy requirements and 64.5% of global electricity production (circa 2017). Electricity production from fossil fuels slightly dropped in 2020 to 60.1%, perhaps due to COVID-19 policies that have affected the economy (Data from BP Statistical Review Of World Energy And Ember 2021). The alternative suggestion has been to adopt more renewable energy as sources for electricity production. However, there is a much better solution in nuclear energy. Let us first look at the pros/cons for renewables and later compare it to nuclear.
Renewable Energy
There are different types of renewable energy sources (e.g. solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass). They are naturally occurring sources from nature that provide energy. Harnessing the sun’s rays for energy to produce electricity is clean and sustainable. The sun provides 1 kW of energy to 1 square meter of land it shines on. Energy from the wind is also clean and is beneficial for rotating turbines to produce electricity. Areas with plenty of sun (e.g. California, Middle East) and wind (e.g. Texas, Germany) are taking advantage of these energy sources. Hydro energy from dams and tides are also significantly being utilized and can provide electricity at scale, but must be built along rivers or tidal coasts.
The only problem is that not all sources (exception is hydro-electric) are at scale to production compared to fossil fuels. Their energy density is lower and thus cannot provide the energy requirements for industrial and commercial needs. Only hydro-electric sources from dams can meet high energy demands, but those require the right location (e.g. rivers) and they are expensive to build. Renewables are still providing energy needs for residential and some commercial customers, like in the state of California (USA) where solar are being produced in vast quantities in 2017.
Some renewable sources are also intermittent, so they cannot provide continuous electricity generation. The wind does not always blow, and the sun only shines during the day. To address this problem would require storing energy for later use. This requires battery storage that can provide electricity when the demand is needed. This can be costly, and has not been applied at massive scale. It has been proven possible though, as a way to temporarily provide electricity to prevent blackouts (e.g. South Australia and Tesla energy project).
Building wind farms and solar arrays can also be harmful to the environment. Wind farms can affect wildlife habitats (e.g. flying birds) while producing solar panels also consumes energy that can be from fossil fuel sources. Producing the wind turbines and solar panels also has environmental impacts, so they are not fully environmentally friendly and clean. While they operate with zero emissions, their production has a carbon footprint. They also require plenty of land in order to expand and operate at scale. This can affect biodiversity in areas where it is important to the ecosystem.
Renewable energy accounts for 27% of global electricity production (Source: BP Statistical Review Of World Energy And Ember 2021). It has grown considerably in the last two decades. It has increased by 100% in the United States in the period between 2000 to 2018 (Source: Center For Climate And Energy Solutions). Renewable sources made up 17% of electricity generation in the US alone in 2018. With so much promise in renewables, it has not yet met all the energy demands from big industry (e.g. transportation, automation, industrial) and businesses (e.g. manufacturing, services).
The Climate And Environment Argument
Climate and energy has become a controversial topic because of the implications one has over the other. Studies (NAP-National Adaptation Plan and UN Environment Programme) have indicated that the main cause of global warming, the burning of fossil fuels, is leading to climate change. Fossil fuel emissions emit greenhouse gases (e.g. Carbon Dioxide) which can trap heat in the atmosphere. This results in an increase of global temperatures that can have adverse effects to ocean water levels, melting of arctic ice, climate sensitive ecosystems (e.g. reefs, biodiversity)and weather patterns.
The consequences that some scientists have pointed out is that higher global temperatures (on average) can affect climate. It can lead to more frequency of powerful storms (e.g. hurricanes), heat waves and droughts. Organizations like NASA have conducted studies that indicate global warming is occurring. While it has been observed with data, there is no single consensus among the entire scientific and political entities regarding what to do with global warming. Many do see the correlation of the data, but not the causation. Support may be high, but not all agree. Despite the debate, the Paris Agreement enacted a treaty in which countries from around the world have agreed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Perhaps the most obvious consequence of burning fossil fuels like coal are harmful toxic emissions and pollution. This is definitely something we can all agree needs to be eliminated, though government policies have been enacted to curb emissions. This includes emissions from cars, which the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) have set strict guidelines. There are health hazards from emissions (i.e. air pollution) that affect the quality of air we breathe (e.g. asthma, respiratory ailments, cancer, etc.). As a result, this is having a negative impact on the environment.
Nuclear Energy
We can now introduce nuclear energy as a solution to providing clean (near or at net zero emissions), less carbon emission and sustainable power needs. Nuclear power was supposed to be the promise of the “Atomic Age” back in the 1950’s. While the atomic bomb or nuclear missiles come to mind, there was a new purpose for using nuclear energy other than military. It was an effort by world governments, including the United States, of putting nuclear energy to more productive and peaceful use as a source of electricity. It was not until the 1970’s oil crisis, that the consideration for nuclear energy grew as an alternative power source.
Commercializing nuclear energy would benefit the work that was put behind its research and development. It has been demonstrated to be a good source for generating electricity to provide power at a larger scale (e.g. cities). The energy found in nuclear is based on atomic chain reactions. This can generate a large amount of power that has been used for submarines. Now it was time to apply it to power plants.
Producing power from nuclear energy starts at the atomic level. Enriched Uranium or Uranium-235 are processed into ceramic pellets and stacked into fuel rods inserted into a reactor core. Nuclear fission or splitting of Uranium-235 atoms is then initiated by bombarding a pellet with neutrons. The aim is to split the atoms to create a chain reaction inside the reactor core, which releases vast amounts of energy from fission and produces radiation of heat. This is then transferred to water.
In LWR (Light Water Reactors) nuclear power plants, the heat is then used either to boil the water to produce steam like in BWR (Boiling Water Reactors) or exchanged from a high pressure to lower pressure water to produce steam like in PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor). The steam that results from the reaction creates high pressure that is then used to rotate turbines in the power plant to generate electricity (Rankine Cycle).
During this whole process, no harmful emissions (water vapor) are involved and less amount of carbon other than in the form of heat is released into the environment. The electricity produced does not affect the quality of air in the same way as burning tons of coal or natural gas. The energy that is produced from a nuclear power plant is clean, providing a more environmentally friendly type of power production for electricity. It is also high density energy that requires less costs to operate, reliable, sustainable and efficient in the generation of electricity for the most demanding industries.
1 pellet of enriched Uranium-235 is equivalent to the amount of energy from 150 gallons of oil. The United States consumes the most amount of electricity generated from nuclear energy at 98.12 Million kW (98.12 Giga-Watts) per year or 809.41 billion kWh (Source: International Energy Statistics data for 2019). France comes in second at 63.13 Million kW per year . As a country, France produces 70% of its electricity from nuclear power (Source: International Energy Statistics data for 2019). The US produces only 19% of its electricity from nuclear power (Source: World Nuclear Association updated May 2021). On the global level, nuclear energy accounts for only 10% of global electricity production (Source: BP Statistical Review Of World Energy And Ember 2021).
The Cons To Nuclear
Environmental activists are not particularly fond of nuclear energy because of their byproducts. In order to generate electricity, nuclear reactors produce hazardous wastes like actinides (radioactive elements). These are hazardous to human health if not properly treated or dealt with. Spent fuel rods are also highly radioactive. They can be reused, but eventually will need to be replaced so they have to be disposed of properly. Currently radioactive waste cannot be destroyed and is often sealed and stored underground where it is isolated for safety reasons. That is an important responsibility for any nuclear power plant operator.
In order to get the fuel required for nuclear power, mining and enriching Uranium is required. It is not an environmentally friendly process. Mining of Uranium can lead to soil erosion, environmental pollution and the release of radioactive particles to the environment. This is being addressed by mining companies that extract the Uranium, but it is still considered highly dangerous to workers health as well.
Most of the world’s nuclear power plants were built between 1970 and 1985. They are aging and old infrastructure that are more prone to natural calamities (e.g. Fukushima in Japan) or accidents (e.g. Three Mile Island in the US and Chernobyl in former USSR). This is the main concern among anti-nuclear activists and proponents. A nuclear power plant malfunction, like a core melt down, is the worst case scenario that can claim many lives and affect the environment. Fallout from a nuclear disaster can also reach beyond borders from the air, so this has global impacts. Some countries like Germany are scaling down nuclear power use in favor of renewables, while others have not approved further operation like in Italy.
Location is an important consideration for operators. It is not ideal to build a nuclear power plant in an earthquake zone or near the coast (prone to tsunami like the Fukushima plant). Building near densely populated areas is not good for the reasons that it makes many people feel uncomfortable with the fears that surround anything nuclear. One example of a nuclear power plant that never opened due to its location is in Bataan (Philippines). Opposition from activists arose due to its proximity near a volcano and active earthquake fault line.
The biggest barrier to nuclear energy are the initial costs. It is a very expensive investment to build and operate a nuclear power plant in the beginning, though it becomes less costly in the long run. Building a nuclear power plant would cost between $2-$9 Billion back in 2015 and is not any less in 2021. It is expensive to finance without quick returns on investment. This is a reason why there are not so many nuclear power plants around the world (443 according to Statista).
Misconceptions About Nuclear Power Plants
A common misconception or misunderstanding is that nuclear power plants emit radiation to the environment. Anti-nuclear proponents blame this as the cause for mutations and diseases like cancer. Nuclear power plants don’t release harmful ionizing radiation at all. They are sealed within the nuclear reactor’s core, and prevented by layers of concrete, lead and other radiation shielding materials. In fact, the amount of radioactive material or isotopes that escape from nuclear power plants is minimal to cause injury to health.
According to the US NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission):
“ … a person who spends a full year at the boundary of a nuclear power plant site would receive an additional radiation exposure of less than 1 percent of the radiation that everyone receives from natural background sources. “
Water and coolants are also used extensively to cool a nuclear reactor’s core. This prevents the core from overheating that can lead to a melt down. If nuclear power plants were emitting enough harmful radiation to affect local populations, countries like France would have noticed and discontinue their operation.
Nuclear waste is treated and stored away from exposure to the environment. It is not discarded into rivers, streams or landfills. This is regulated by government, so operators cannot simply dump radioactive waste wherever they feel like. The waste is sealed in locations where it cannot cause harm to anyone. It also does not use up plenty of land. Most of the world’s nuclear waste or HLW (High Level Waste) can be stored in an area the size of a football field.
Most of the incidents that involve the release of radioactive fallout were due to accidents that can be prevented with more modern designs. The threat from fallout is when mutations and disease like cancer become a major concern. Otherwise, a nuclear power plant keeps harmful radiation contained and isolated from affecting the environment.
Nuclear reactors also do not explode like atomic bombs, even during a melt down. If they do explode, then we would have seen that happen in Fukushima or Chernobyl. The NRC states that a nuclear power plant:
“ … does not have enough radioactive material — or the right kind of material — to cause an explosion. It does not have the capability to produce a burst of energy that one would associate with a bomb.”
Bombs were designed with a destructive payload that requires a detonator to release energy. While an explosion can still be possible inside a reactor, it was not designed in the same way as a bomb to release massive amounts of energy. Nuclear reactors use controlled chain reactions that don’t involve any detonator to release damaging forms of energy.
How Nuclear Energy Can Be A Solution
First thing to consider, from an engineering perspective, is whether it works or not. Based on the results, it does work. It has been effectively used in countries like France and Sweden. Addressing the fears of accidents and waste disposal is something to take seriously. This is why the management of a nuclear power plant must meet strict regulations for operation. This is not like a cottage industry where everyone is encouraged to build and operate to increase capacity.
Next, let us talk about the safety concerns regarding nuclear energy. Many think of disasters like Fukushima or Chernobyl right away. Those nuclear power plants were based on older technologies. The standards have since increased with newer designs (e.g. Generation III) in nuclear reactors with higher standards for safety. Storage and disposal of radioactive waste is also highly regulated, so it is not just discarded unsafely anywhere. Mining concerns are also addressed by enacting stricter requirements to prevent harm to both the environment and workers. Audits, inspections and quality control testing are all part of the certification process for nuclear power plants that operators must follow.
Now we talk about the expenses. While it is initially high to build a nuclear power plant, the costs to operate are actually low. Part of the higher costs is also due to the regulations, which are necessary to prevent unsafe operations from starting. Governments are probably best suited to build nuclear power plants, with private company contractors to bid for projects. In a partnership between public and private sectors, the costs can be addressed. This can get tricky at the policy level, since certain government officials might have objections. The best way to deal with this is a concerted feasibility study with public and legislative support.
The Outlook For Nuclear Power
One important application of nuclear energy is providing power to “Smart Cities”. These are high technology urban developments that are highly automated. These cities combine various technologies like AI, IoT (Internet-of-things), self-driving cars and intelligent infrastructure (e.g. smart roads, intelligent buildings). All it needs is a sustainable power source that is clean and efficient like nuclear energy. In the US, nuclear powered cities like Miami can attract investments from high technology companies and workers. The supply of energy can be sustained to support Smart City development.
There is also support for the use of nuclear energy for Bitcoin mining. The process to produce the digital asset BTC is very energy intensive. If the source of energy to produce BTC are fossil fuels, it is more harmful to the environment. That is why it can be suggested to locate Bitcoin mining facilities where energy is either renewable or cleaner. In this case, nuclear power can provide the clean energy and electricity requirements for Bitcoin miners.
Synopsis
While renewables offer a good alternative to fossil fuels to generate electricity, nuclear offers a much better solution. It is sustainable and efficient. The fuel needed for nuclear energy is commonly found on the Earth’s surface. Uranium has significant deposits in Australia, Canada, Russia, Niger, South Africa, Namibia, Brazil, Kazakhstan and Mongolia. Nuclear energy is also more efficient than fossil fuels and renewables. Most of the energy is converted into electricity with nuclear, while most of the energy from fossil fuels and renewables are converted to heat.
While renewables would require energy storage for continuous generation of electricity, nuclear power is available around the clock. Nuclear reactors generate electricity that can meet the demands of heavy industry and residences at scale, just like fossil fuel power plants. Renewables do not have the same level of energy density as nuclear does, though it is improving. Nuclear power plants also require less space than renewables. Renewables like wind and solar require plenty of land to build upon, which can also affect local ecosystems (e.g. wildlife and flora) negatively.
Nuclear energy use has been put aside due to fear and lack of understanding. Less people have actually died from nuclear energy related incidents compared to coal and oil. Nuclear energy can actually produce clean and safe power, while addressing the concerns that surround them (e.g. waste disposal, environmental issues, high initial costs). It appears to be a more viable solution for meeting the growing demands for energy while reducing the reliance on fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants offer an alternative that was the promise of the Atomic Age, yet has not been utilized to its full potential. It is worth exploring once again, with more up to date information.
