Humanity’s Potent Weapon Against Climate Change: Nuclear Energy
The Green House Gas Challenge
Few days back I was despondent , after the Ukraine war started, that we are losing the war against climate change. Europe and to a greater extent entire world has become desperate for energy resources and increased usage of fossil fuels like coal was negating all the gains. Then I read about nuclear energy and its potential and I was amazed we have neglected such a powerful tool due to misinformation. Recent breakthrough in US with respect to fusion is a great news for humanity.
The biggest challenge facing humanity is climate change due to Greenhouse gases. Humanity is trying to come up with different solutions but there is a consensus that the quantum of GHG in the atmosphere must be reduced and or removed. There are natural and artificial ways to remove GHG from the atmosphere. GHG are normally removed naturally by plants and vegetation through photosynthesis and by the ocean. This article will be focusing on the reduction of GHG.
GHG are predominantly released while using fossil fuels to produce energy. The Electrical energy generated in power plants comprises approximately 40 % of the total energy consumed and the rest of the energy is consumed for transportation, heating etc. The various types of fossil fuels being used are coal, petroleum LNG or natural gas etc.
GHG are gases that trap the heat on earth and do not allow it to escape whereby increasing temperature and trapping pollutants like smoke dust etc. GHG comprises the following gases CO2 (80%), Methane (11%), Oxides of Nitrogen (7%), and other fluorinated gases. As is clear from the data CO2 has the largest share and contribution to the rise of temperature. It is not that GHG gases are not desirable at all as they should maintain the temperature at around 15deg cent and the absence of these gases would have frozen the world. The explosive usage of fossil fuels has increased the quantity of GHG gases far more than the normal level. The concentration of CO2 was 280ppm before 1750 which has increased to 411 ppm and is expected to increase further.
The average world’s temperature due to human activities has already gone up by approx. 1deg cent over pre-industrial times from the year 1850 to 1900 or around 0.2 deg cent per decade. So why is the target 1.5 deg c and not 2 deg cent? The impact of 1.5 degrees will be a loss of around 6% of insect life and still able to save coral reefs but at 2 deg centigrade around 18% of insect life and all coral reefs will be lost. This target can only be achieved if we cut down the GHG by 43% by 2030.
Importance of energy for development
The power consumption of a country is reflective of its development. As the world develops the requirement for energy has gone up from around 175 EJ to 425 EJ. China is the biggest consumer of energy followed by US and India. In case we consider the power consumption on per capita basis the picture changes drastically and US citizen consumes around 12 times more than an Indian and around 3 times more than Chinese. Somalians consume a paltry 236 KWH which is 300 times less than US citizens. As these regions, which have high human density but low per capita income, during their development, energy consumption is going to explode. Even after using efficient techniques/ technologies, energy consumption is expected to increase to around 700 EJ by 2050 which is around 2% per annum.
Sources of CO2 emission
CO2 is the largest component of GHG and it is produced when fossil fuels are burned for producing energy. Fossil fuels have a high concentration of carbon which combine with oxygen to produce energy. Energy is also captured or made available by renewable resources and nuclear power plants without combustion or conversion of C to Co2. Below given graph shows GHG produced in terms of grams of Co2 per KWH of power generation.
12 gms of gCo2 which is the least amount of GHG produced from all available sources. Renewal systems comprise the usage of wind, solar, geothermal, and hydel energy for power generation whereas nuclear energy uses fission reaction (currently) with radioactive material as raw material.
Energy Scenario: Hype and the truth
In 2021 energy generation by different sources/ fuels is given both in terms of percentage and absolute value. The energy generation summary is as given below
Fossil fuels: 84% (biomass+ coal+ oil+ natural gas+ biofuels)
Renewables:12% (Solar+ Hydro+ winds+ Other renewables)
Nuclear: 4%
In 2021 power generation by different sources/ fuels is given both in terms of percentage and absolute value. The energy generation summary is as given below
Fossil fuels: 62% (biomass+ coal+ oil+ natural gas+ biofuels)
Renewables:28 % (Solar+ Hydro+ winds+ Other renewables)
Nuclear: 10%
Based on the actual growth of renewables in recent years euphoria is being created in media that we may be able to win the war against GHG but unfortunately the world is hopelessly dependent on fossil fuels. Our dependency on fossil fuels has not come down drastically and it is unrealistic to think that the situation is going to change in near future.
The widespread usage of renewables and nuclear energy can no doubt reduce GHG drastically and combat climate change. Presently policymakers and environmental lobbies worldwide have created a fallacy that the adoption of only renewables for phasing out fossil-based power generation. They have created a deep mistrust against nuclear energy and are advocating a nearly impossible task of meeting all energy requirements through renewables. This is impossible and a pipe dream. Let us analyze the reasons for this
Nuclear Energy requires far less area as compared to renewables footprint for Nuclear energy is very less as compared to the area required by renewables. If a comparison is made than nuclear energy needs
· 360 times less area than wind energy
· 75 times less area than solar energy
The large-scale usage of area by solar and wind farms has already resulted in opposition from local communities against such plants. In case, in the future, we would like to phase out fossil fuels and depend only on renewables the land area may not be available. The area requirement for nuclear power plants is so dense that it requires only 1 sq mile to produce 1000 MW. On the other hand, solar power plants will occupy at least 5 acres of land per 1 MW output and wind energy will need around 25 acres of land for same amount of power generation.
Capacity utilization and reliability of nuclear power energy is far better than renewables
Let us study the data
1. 84% of the total energy requirement is met by fossil fuels.
2. Despite all the hype, 62 % of power is still generated by fossil fuels whereas the installed capacity is only 55% of the total.
3. The installed capacity of renewables is 40% percent but it only generates only 28%.
The important point to note in this data is
· We have a long distance to cover before we can phase out fossils
· Low-capacity utilization and unreliability of renewable power is other major drawback.
· This unreliability of energy generation requires additional complicated and costly systems for storage
Renewable sources of energy are by nature unreliable or seasonal and hence in spite of large installations the actual output is less and inconsistent. Solar plants cannot generate power in night or in absence of sun, similarly, wind-based power is also erratic and depends on intensity of wind. Hydroelectric power which has been utilized for a long time also depends on quantity of water and flow.
Compared to this nuclear power plants can run without stopping for around two years which is far better than performance renewables and even better than fossil fuel-based power plants.
From the data given below the capacity utilization of renewables is three times less than nuclear plants and half of the fossil-based power plants. In other words, for the same amount of power generation renewables will require three times the installed capacity of nuclear power plants. In addition to all these drawbacks, renewables also need additional systems for storage like batteries, compressed air etc which add to complexity and cost.
Reasons for not adopting nuclear energy (Myths versus science)
There are many reasons founded or unfounded which have not allowed to grow nuclear power and take its place in the sun.
Waste by Nuclear plants
One of the biggest impediments to the mass adoption of nuclear technology is the issue of impact and usage of nuclear waste. We must understand that nuclear energy is quite dense and concentrated. The amount of waste is so less as compared to traditional power plants that it is almost negligible. It has been estimated that all the waste which has been generated in US from six decades of operation can fit in a football field or 0.007 sq km using a height of around 9 meters. Not only that, but there are also technologies that use breeder reactors that can convert this waste to reusable fuel. In fact, breeder technology produces more usable fuel as a by-product as compared to the quantity it uses.
Availability of fuel (Sustainability)
Below given is a diagram that gives us the true nature and origin of energy. The root or beginning of all-natural energy is Protons or nuclear energy. All fossil fuels originate from the sun. Plants and trees grow due to photosynthesis using solar energy. When we are burning fossil fuels we actually use the most polluting form of energy derived from the sun. Wind and solar are very diluted forms that also have origin from the sun. The best form of energy which is readily available and free of any pollution is nuclear. This is the same energy which is produced by sun, and it is infinite. It is estimated to be available for 4 billion years whereas life of earth is estimated to be around 5 billion years. Unfortunately, we are neglecting it to our own peril.
Our current stock of nuclear fuel can give energy to our world for more than 4 billion years or till the sun burns out the earth in approximately 5 billion years. This estimate is for Total energy required for earth including, electrical, heating, cooling, surface transport etc (electrical energy is only 40% of total energy requirement).
Sources of raw material for nuclear energy are as given below:
The last factor which has been detrimental to the growth of nuclear energy is concern regarding safety of usage of nuclear power plants.
If we see the history of nuclear accidents, we find there have been three major ones in past.
- Three Mile Island (USA 1979). In this accident, the reactor was damaged but there was no death or environmental issue.
- Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986): In this accident due to an explosion in the steam system the reactor was damaged. Two people died due to fire and 28 persons died due to radiation poisoning. This accident had an environmental impact but after many studies sponsored by UN it was found that the impact was not widespread.
- Fukushima Daiichi (Japan 2011) This accident happened due to loss of cooling because of Tsunami and ended up damaging four old reactors. There was only one death as reported by the Japanese government. Apart from that no deaths or injuries were reported. The Tsunami itself killed about 19,500 people. In fact, it was concluded that large-scale evacuation of citizens from accident site hurriedly during Tsunami created more safety hazards.
In the cumulative experience of running nuclear power plants for 1850 hrs there have been only below illustrated accidents. Due to intense glare of the media, governmental and scientific community the illustration below shows how the safety systems have improved to provide greater safety to nuclear plant operations.
If the entire life cycle of each source or technology is taken into consideration, it is revealed that fossil-based technologies result in more accidents or deaths. This analysis includes the fatalities and accidents during quarrying, transportation and handling. Even so-called hydropower which seems to be benevolent has faced severe major accidents like Banqiao, Shimantan collapsed in China (1975) killing around 230,000 people. Similarly in India and Russia 3575 people were killed in 1979/ 1980 and 2009. A potential breach in Oroville dam in US in 2017 resulted in relocation of 200,000 persons.
The UK-based, Friends of the Earth” society concluded in January 2013 that “Overall the safety risk associated with nuclear power appears to be more in line with lifecycle impacts from renewable energy technologies, and significantly lower than for coal and natural gas per MWh of supplied energy.”
Science and technology should replace half-truths and vested interests
Now if there are so many benefits then why is the growth of nuclear energy so muted? Historically France has utilized nuclear power to around 70% of its requirement and showed a way to the entire world that societies can be uplifted without impacting the environment. Similarly, Sweden utilizes nuclear energy to meet 40% of its energy requirement and Finland uses around 33%. Germany was using nuclear energy to up to 25% of its requirement till 2010 but under the pressure of the anti-nuclear lobby they started to veer towards renewables. Even after their best effort, the usage of renewable started to peak by 2021 and then it started to decline. Economically also it has not been beneficial to Germany. Below find a comparison of the average cost of power in the countries which used nuclear power and ones which depended on renewable. The difference is stark.
Not only this, at many locations there has been a backlash from the local communities against this massive usage of land by solar and wind parks. People have started to question the use of renewables based on their entire life cycle costs which include huge tracts of land, disposal of solar panels, installing battery systems, mining, impact on wildlife, fear of chemicals leaching from solar panels and batteries etc. The dream of renewables is now becoming sour.
It should be clear that renewables alone cannot meet even the complete current requirement, if fossil fuels are phased out, on their own. In addition to this, as societies become wealthier energy requirement is expected to grow by around 2% each year. In case the world must meet its present and future burgeoning energy requirement nuclear energy must play a major role in the energy basket of low GHG-producing energy sources. This basket should have renewables as well.
The adoption of nuclear energy faces a strong challenge from ill-informed or biased environmental lobbies and activists. Some of them may be ignorant but the same cannot be said for all. These lobbies have created a sullen image of nuclear power by clever usage of half-truths, hiding facts, lack of awareness amongst a large percentage of the population and doomsday predictions based on accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima. They have worked smartly to supplant images of the nuclear holocaust in Japan with nuclear power plants. Mankind’s access to easy, cheap, and clean nuclear power can eradicate poverty without giving a bad name to capitalism, this goes against the agenda of competing ideology of socialism and Marxism which can go to any extent to deride capitalism. Unhindered usage of nuclear energy will close the lucrative business of many affiliated industries and high-profile environmentalists. It will end unnecessary power play of environmental lobbies.
It should be realized that the future of mankind is safe if we make correct and well-considered decisions now. The development of mankind depends on availability of energy and a sustainable way of livelihood. We can meet present and future requirements by having a basket of clean energy sources that includes a major share of nuclear energy.
Not only this, at many locations there has been a backlash from the local communities against this massive usage of land by solar and wind parks. People have started to question the use of renewables based on their entire life cycle costs which include huge tracts of land, disposal of solar panels, installing battery systems, mining, impact on wildlife, fear of chemicals leaching from solar panels and batteries etc. The dream of renewables is now becoming sour.
It should be clear that renewables alone cannot meet even the complete current requirement, if fossil fuels are phased out, on their own. In addition to this, as societies become wealthier energy requirement is expected to grow by around 2% each year. In case the world must meet its present and future burgeoning energy requirement nuclear energy must play a major role in the energy basket of low GHG-producing energy sources. This basket should have renewables as well.
The adoption of nuclear energy faces a strong challenge from ill-informed or biased environmental lobbies and activists. Some of them may be ignorant but the same cannot be said for all. These lobbies have created a sullen image of nuclear power by clever usage of half-truths, hiding facts, lack of awareness amongst a large percentage of the population and doomsday predictions based on accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima. They have worked smartly to supplant images of the nuclear holocaust in Japan with nuclear power plants. Mankind’s access to easy, cheap, and clean nuclear power can eradicate poverty without giving a bad name to capitalism, this goes against the agenda of competing ideology of socialism and Marxism which can go to any extent to deride capitalism. Unhindered usage of nuclear energy will close the lucrative business of many affiliated industries and high-profile environmentalists. It will end unnecessary power play of environmental lobbies.
It should be realized that the future of mankind is safe if we make correct and well-considered decisions now. The development of mankind depends on availability of energy and a sustainable way of livelihood. We can meet present and future requirements by having a basket of clean energy sources that includes a major share of nuclear energy.
References
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/germany.aspx
Germany’s Failed Climate Goals (bloomberg.com)
The Complete Case For Nuclear — Environmental Progress
Ch 24 Page 162: Sustainable Energy — without the hot air | David MacKay (withouthotair.com)