Nuclear Notions: How Nuclear Energy Needs to be Completely Reevaluated
Researched and Written by Holly Francis
December 1, 2019
 |
| Sourced From Thomas Industry Update |
Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island. Do these nuclear disasters ring any bells? Nuclear energy is often considered essential in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as air pollution; however, the externalities are neglected in regulations and unplanned disasters have occurred and are difficult to prevent. Furthermore, the public rarely has a say in how nuclear energy operates nor do they have the proper knowledge to contribute to the decision making process. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the US governing body, controls the rules and inspections for nuclear energy, but, historically, has been the one to exploit the public and avoid true consideration of the energy’s latent issues. The NRC has overfunded and overvalued nuclear energy ever since 1951, disregarding any better alternative methods of energy production.
 |
| Picture of Greta Thunberg sourced from USA Today |
As Greta Thunberg, Isra Hirsi, Autumn Peltier, and countless others have made starkly apparent, we are currently in the midst of a climate crisis fueled by human driven actions. Humans’ use and exploitation of fossil fuels causes significant damage that we can already see: oceans rising, coral bleaching, increasing rates of severe hurricanes, and so much more. Regardless of how dire one believes this crisis to be, renewable and clean energy is essential for the world and the human race to remain sustainable and healthy. According to an article from Yale, “switching from coal to nuclear power is radically decarbonizing, since nuclear power plants release greenhouse gases only from the ancillary use of fossil fuels during their construction, mining, fuel processing, maintenance, and decommissioning — about as much as solar power does, which is about 4 to 5 percent as much as a natural gas-fired power plant” (Rhodes, 2018). Like Rhodes, many people view nuclear energy as being essential to the quest for clean energy, but is nuclear really the saving grace so many say it is?
 |
| This figure illustrates how nuclear fission occurs and is sourced from a Penn State webpage |
Nuclear energy is prized for being a clean and consistent form of energy. This closed-system uses nuclear fission where atoms are split apart, resulting in the release of energy in the form of heat and radiation. Uranium is the most commonly used mineral for this process, but the result of this process is a radioactive isotope that needs to be stored properly. Another factor to consider is that uranium is not a renewable resource; however, when nuclear fission occurs, the neutrons that are split off of the atoms fly into other atoms, causing a chain reaction that can be sustained for a long period of time without new input. Because this is an enclosed system that can be manipulated by humans and is much cleaner than its fossil fuel counterparts. There is a lot of debate for and against this form of energy, but it is objectively cleaner and more efficient than fossil fuels.
Many studies and opinions claim nuclear energy is a necessity in the energy solution the world needs. “Switching from coal to nuclear power is radically decarbonizing,” explains Yale’s Richard Rhodes (2018), “since nuclear power plants release greenhouse gases only from the ancillary use of fossil fuels during their construction, mining, fuel processing, maintenance, and decommissioning — about as much as solar power does, which is about 4 to 5 percent as much as a natural gas-fired power plant.” There is no doubt that nuclear energy reduces the amount of greenhouse gases being released; however, nuclear energy has many concerning consequences. For one, the nuclear waste made from the energy generation is dangerously radioactive with a half life of 24,000 years (NRC, 2019b). Storing this spent fuel has been a controversial topic since nuclear energy took off and remains a debatable subject.
 |
| Chernobyl nuclear disaster sourced from The Times of India |
Moreover, there is the chance of major facility malfunctions which could irreparably damage the surroundings of the energy plant. This has happened in three large-scale accidents: Chernobyl in Ukraine, Fukushima in Japan, and Three-Mile Island in Pennsylvania. These facilities lost billions of dollars in damage and have caused some of the largest human-driven disasters. Chernobyl in 1986 is arguably the nuclear disaster that became the most known in the media. This disaster was caused by the power plant itself when the reactor became extremely unstable. “The accident caused the largest uncontrolled radioactive release into the environment ever recorded for any civilian operation, and large quantities of radioactive substances were released into the air for about 10 days” (World Nuclear Association, 2019). The possible fallout of a nuclear disaster is unprecedented in wider history and still remains difficult to regulate, prevent, and train for. Moreover, extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts, and general sea level concerns have been increasing in number in the past years. Any power plants near the coastline or in areas susceptible to natural disasters will have a higher risk of a nuclear disaster. The Fukushima disaster occurred from an earthquake and resulting tsunami, so measures need to be taken to ensure that something as out of control as a tsunami does not create miles of radioactive land.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is the US governing body that helps to address these safety concerns. According to the NRC’s site,
“The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was created as an independent agency by Congress in 1974 to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while protecting people and the environment. The NRC regulates commercial nuclear power plants and other uses of nuclear materials, such as in nuclear medicine, through licensing, inspection and enforcement of its requirements” (NRC, 2019a).
 |
| NRC logo sourced from Crowned Grace International |
There is little to debate when it comes to the idea of a governing body regulating something as volatile and dangerous at nuclear energy, but there are still aspects of this body that need to be critiqued. With such a highly debated and quite dangerous method of energy production, the body that regulates it needs to hold a comprehensive and unbiased view in order to maintain energy generation that is just, safe, and efficient. Without the NRC, the US could have easily experienced a large nuclear disaster, but each facility is required to comply with the regulations that the NRC sets.
According to the NRC’s website, there are five different components to how they regulate: developing the regulations, licensing applicants to use nuclear materials, overseeing operations to make sure safety requirements are complied with, evaluating operational experience at the licensed facilities, and addressing the concerns of people and facilities (NRC, 2017). These steps are shown in the figure below.
 |
| Figure outlining the five components sourced from the NRC |
Upon first glance, these steps are very comprehensive, especially given the fact that each one is expanded upon further down on the NRC’s webpage; however, the entirety of the NRC’s approach is based on risk assessment. “Risk assessment is primarily used to defend unnecessary activities that harm the environment or human health” (O’Brien, 2000, pp. 39). Verbatim from the NRC’s page, “The NRC also strives to improve its processes in these five areas through risk-informed and performance-based regulation” (NRC, 2017). The NRC can have the most solid regulation enforcement plan possible, but if the regulations are based on risk assessment, these regulations are inherently faulty. Justifying poor practices keeps the facilities from having to impose drastic changes or acquire more expenses, compromising both safety and the environment’s wellbeing.
 |
| Nuclear energy waste facility source |
One of the most common argument points against using nuclear energy is the waste that is produced. According to a TED talk by Michael Shellenberger (2016), “There was a study, a survey done of people around the world, not just in the United States or Europe, about a year and a half ago. And what they found is that nuclear is actually one of the least popular forms of energy.” In order for nuclear energy to be successful, the public’s views of it need to change; however, the NRC’s regulations are not making up for all of the validated worries that people have. For one, the waste generated from operating a nuclear plant can be recycled, but the US has prohibited just this. People viewed nuclear fuel recycling as “not cost-effective and that it could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Those were the reasons President Jimmy Carter gave in 1977 when he prohibited it, preferring instead to bury spent nuclear fuel deep underground” (Shughart II, 2014). This established regulation solidified this notion in the US’s mind, preventing any change even after 42 years and the witnessing of France successfully recycling their spent fuel: “France today generates 80 percent of its electricity needs with nuclear power, much of it generated through recycling” (Shughart II, 2014). This has been the case with many of the other concerns regarding nuclear energy safety, leaving the US in other countries’ shadows.
 |
| Helium-3 atom figure sourced from Machine Design |
A way to address these problems comes with a concept that author Mary O’Brien loves: alternatives assessment. “Alternatives assessment means looking at the pros and cons of a broad range of options” (O’Brien, 2000, pp. 130). Unlike the NRC’s way of using risk assessment, alternatives assessments compiles all of the options to analyze which one would be best, so rather than figuring out what waste storage would mitigate the radioactive waste’s danger, options that are as efficient and carbon clean as nuclear energy could be developed to eliminate the radioactive waste entirely. For example, just looking into different versions of nuclear reactors is a step in the alternatives assessments direction. One option would be continuing to develop nuclear fusion reactions rather than the nuclear fission ones that we use now which require uranium. “Nuclear fusion reactors using helium-3 could therefore provide a highly efficient form of nuclear power with virtually no waste and no radiation” (Barnatt, 2016). This would require mining the moon, so the comparisons are complex, but worthy of at least taking careful consideration of.
Furthermore, there is a potentially powerful reactor called a liquid fluoride thorium reactor. In Shellberger’s TED talk, he refers to this type of reactor: “The time came for the thorium reactor, and a bunch of us were excited. They went through the whole presentation, they got to the timeline, and they said, "We're going to have a thorium molten salt reactor ready for sale to the world by 2040"” (Shellenberger, 2016). Thorium is a very advantageous resource; it is more abundant than uranium, the waste is much less toxic, the energy returned on the energy invested is much higher than traditional uranium reactors, and the chance of a nuclear disaster event is much less dire as the liquid just solidifies when cooled or exposed rather than emitting toxic radiation. The major downfall of this method is that there has not been nearly enough research and development put into this method. Alternatives assessment would take all of these facts into consideration and may help us make a better decision when it comes to efficient and cleaner energy.
 |
| Figure sourced from Meetings International |
As a whole, nuclear energy is a much cleaner alternative to coal which has plagued our atmosphere. However, this simple fact does not mean that there are no better options than nuclear energy and this is where the US has really become stagnant. As O’Brien made apparent in her book, the constant use of risk assessment is going to lead us into a narrow-minded and ignorant direction. Alternatives assessment is much more comprehensive, accessible, and ethical for both people and the environment. We cannot hide behind the notion that nuclear energy is absolutely necessary for a cleaner and sustainable society, nor can we hide behind the idea that nuclear energy is inherently dangerous and shouldn’t be used at all. We just have to reshape the problem itself and realize that there are more solutions out there than we are recognizing. All we have to do is take a step back and assess this situation with a different view; then maybe we can fight the climate crisis with a safe, reliable, and properly regulated form of energy.
References
Barnatt, C. (2016, January 30). Helium-3 power generation. Retrieved Nov 1, 2019, from
https://www.explainingthefuture.com/helium3.html
NRC. (2017, December 15). How we regulate. Retrieved Nov 1, 2019, from
https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory.html
NRC. (2019a, July 16). About NRC. Retrieved Nov 1, 2019, from
https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc.html
NRC. (2019b, July 23). Backgrounder on radioactive waste. Retrieved Nov 1, 2019, from
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html
O’Brien, M. (2000). Making better environmental decisions: an alternative to risk assessment.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rhodes, R. (2018, July 19). Why nuclear power must be part of the energy solution. Retrieved
Nov 1, 2019, from https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-
the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate
Shellenberger, M. (2016, June). How fear of nuclear power is hurting the environment.
Retrieved Nov 1, 2019, from https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shellenberger_how_
fear_of_nuclear_power_is_hurting_the_environment/transcript?language=en
Shughart II, W. F. (2014, October 1). Why doesn’t U.S. recycle nuclear fuel?. Retrieved Nov 1,
2019, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/10/01/why-doesnt-u-s-recycle-
nuclear-fuel/#1139919390f1
World Nuclear Association. (2019, June). Chernobyl accident 1986. Retrieved
Nov 1, 2019, from https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security
/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment