If you want to understand why nuclear energy has to be a part of our collective solution to climate change, the article in the url below offers one of the most comprehensive and compelling explanations I have seen:
"Progressive lawmakers, along with environmental groups like the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, have historically been against nuclear power — often focusing on the danger, longevity and storage requirements of the radioactive waste."
Key to the argument, you won't be surprised to hear, is removing the fearmongering and misinformation that is routinely spread about the byproduct of nuclear energy, nuclear waste:
"So it's no surprise that many Americans believe nuclear waste poses an enormous and terrifying threat. But after talking to engineers, radiation specialists and waste managers, I've come to see this misunderstanding is holding us back from embracing a powerful, clean energy source we need to tackle climate change. We must stop seeing nuclear waste as a dangerous problem and instead recognize it as a safe byproduct of carbon-free power."
First, the obvious advantages of nuclear energy (other than being carbon-free, of course):
"The countries that have cleaned up their electricity production the fastest have generally done so with hydroelectric power, nuclear, or a combination of the two. The distinct advantage of nuclear is that it requires little land and can reliably produce lots of power regardless of weather, time of day or season. Unlike wind and solar, it can substitute directly for fossil fuels without backup or storage. The International Energy Agency believes it's so crucial that global nuclear capacity must double by 2050 to reach net-zero emissions targets."
Next, overcoming the understandable (and arguably misplaced) fears about the waste, which is often presented in popular media as some fluorescent material that burns through anything it touches:
"In reality, nuclear fuel is made up of shiny metal tubes containing small pellets of uranium oxide. These tubes are gathered into bundles and loaded into the reactor. After five years of making energy, the bundles come out, containing radioactive particles left over from the energy-making reactions. The bundles cool off in a pool of water for another five to 10 years or so. After that, they are placed in steel and concrete containers for storage at the plant. These casks are designed to last 100 years and to withstand nearly anything — hurricanes, severe floods, extreme temperatures, even missile attacks."
The key takeaway:
"To date, there have been no deaths, injuries or serious environmental releases of nuclear waste in casks anywhere. And the waste can be transferred to another cask, extending storage one century at a time."
And, what about all the misinformation about the half-life of nuclear material?
"The way radiation works, the waste products that are the most radioactive are the shortest-lived, and those that last a long time are far less dangerous. About 40 years after the fuel becomes waste, the heat and radioactivity of the pellets have fallen by over 99 percent. After around 500 years, the waste would have to be broken down and inhaled or ingested to cause significant harm."
The author compares this to industrial waste that we are much less careful with, even though it tends not to lose any of its toxicity, over time:
"Take ammonia: It is highly toxic, corrosive, explosive and prone to leaking. Hundreds of ammonia-related injuries and even some fatalities have been reported since 2010, and we continue to produce and transport millions of tons of it annually by pipelines, ships and trains for fertilizer and other uses."
While there may be security reasons for storing nuclear waste in a single location, deep in the mountains, the author argues there is not much of a safety justification for doing so:
"The waste should really be a chief selling point for nuclear energy, particularly for those who care about the environment: There's not very much of it, it's easily contained, it becomes safer with time and it can be recycled. And every cask of spent nuclear fuel represents about 2.2 million tons of carbon, according to one estimate, that weren't emitted into the atmosphere from fossil fuels. For me, each cask represents hope for a safer, better future."
For interest, the NYT collected reader responses to this article, most of which appear to focus on the storage of nuclear waste, rather than rebutting the core argument (which is that the fears are greatly overblown):
The article in the second url below demonstrates the potential, via a company that has developed a technique that can be attached to existing nuclear reactors to generate hydrogen, at scale. Overall, of course, we need to proceed with caution (and there are all kinds of other issues with nuclear energy, such as how long it takes to approve and build a power station), but our options for significant carbon reduction are limited, and time is running out. Much better to be guided by facts, rather than mythical fears, in plotting the most effective way forward.
Take care
David
David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2023
We're Thinking About Nuclear Waste All Wrong
By Madison Hilly
May 1, 2023
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
A18
Billion-Dollar 'Pink Hydrogen' Plan on Hold as US Weighs Rules
By Will Wade
May 30, 2023
Bloomberg
