With the recent announcement that the UK will use more nuclear power by 2035, it seems like a good time to talk about what nuclear energy is, and what its pros and cons are.
Before we delve into the topic, let’s establish why fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground. According to Mike Berners-Lee’s latest edition of How Bad Are Bananas?, ‘...burning “just” the world’s conventional proven reserves... would trigger about 4℃ of temperature rise on top of what we’ve already caused.’ You may have heard people talking about the urgent need to keep global warming to 1.5℃. A rise of 4 degrees would be catastrophic.
So, as you read this article, bear in mind the urgent need to withdraw from coal, oil and gas. For all its cons, nuclear is a ‘clean(er)’ energy source that is available to us now. Without time on our side, is this a ‘needs must' situation?
Please note: more access to renewables (be that nuclear, solar or anything else) does not mean less fossil fuels if energy demand continues to rise.
'If we were to replace today's energy supply with renewables, but double our energy usage, then we'd still be taking just as much fossil fuel out of the ground as we are now.' -- Mike Berners-Lee
We must pair clean energy with a drop in demand, of which some can come from the improved efficiency of our products, but not all. In the UK and other developed countries, we are going to have to learn to live with less. If we don’t, our journey to net zero will stall. And that’s time we simply don’t have to waste.
What is nuclear energy?
Nuclear energy is released when atoms -- typically uranium atoms -- are split. Nuclear reactors (or power plants) then turn this energy into electricity (NatGeo). Unlike fossil fuels, splitting uranium atoms does not directly produce carbon emissions, although there are still emissions associated with the mining and refining of the element (EIA).
In fact, no energy source is truly emissions-free. See the infographic below:
Nuclear energy also isn’t commonly considered ‘renewable’ because -- despite there being an infinite source of energy available from fission -- there’s a finite amount of uranium on earth.
The pros of nuclear energy:
Of course, I’ve already covered one of the main pros: nuclear power offers us a clean(er) way to generate electricity. The real clincher however -- and this is why nuclear gets a look in when the likes of solar, wind and hydro exist -- is that nuclear offers a consistency and reliability in supply that other renewables can’t (yet). (There’s No Planet B, 2019)
Take solar for example: even in the sunniest of places, the sun is only out for a maximum of 12 hours a day. Nuclear reactors, on the other hand, can be run 24/7. So where renewable supply fluctuates, nuclear can provide a constant ‘baseload’ of electricity. While we wait for technology which will allow us to effectively store and/or transmit renewable energy around the world, nuclear offers us a low-emissions way of securely and reliably supplying electricity.
The cons of nuclear energy:
If you’re familiar with Chernobyl or Fukushima, then you know the damage that a nuclear disaster can cause. An explosion at a plant can release radioactive particles, which can be fatal to humans and animals and even damage plants (although vegetation near the Chernobyl exclusion zone seems to have returned with a vengeance -- good ol’ Mother Nature!) (BBC, 2019).
The possibility of a similar accident -- or even sabotage -- is one of the most concerning downsides to nuclear energy, although it must be said that the process is safer than it used to be.
Perhaps a lesser-known concern however, stems from the waste that nuclear produces. Nuclear waste comes with different levels of radioactivity. Items on the lower end of the spectrum have well established disposal methods (WNA). But the disposal of higher activity radioactive waste is a bit tricker -- according to Electrical Review, ‘20 countries with a nuclear programme are already working towards the solution endorsed by the global scientific community: geological disposal.’
This involves burying the waste deep underground in special containers. In the UK, it can only occur in areas where consent from the residents who will be directly affected is given (RWM RSO). Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) -- the organisation tasked with finding a suitable site -- has been looking at Northern England but, perhaps unsurprisingly, this has been met with resistance from locals.
It seems we face a Sophie’s choice when it comes to nuclear waste disposal. Personally, I wouldn’t agree to host a party in my back garden if nuclear waste was the special guest. Yet leaving it above ground -- which ‘is not a long-term solution beyond much more than a 100 years’ (FT, 2021) -- turns it into a problem for future generations to deal with; something I think we can all agree we don’t want to do (anymore).
Other concerns around nuclear energy include the risks involved in transporting the waste; the heightened possibility that nuclear weapons could fall into the wrong hands; and the cost of generating nuclear power. There’s also the argument that focusing on nuclear is preventing renewable energy from getting the funding it needs. Jan Haverkamp, a nuclear expert and activist, believes ‘Every dollar invested in nuclear energy is… a dollar diverted from true urgent climate action’ (DW).
Regardless of which side of the nuclear divide you sit, the fact remains that we need to decarbonise our grid, pronto. The sooner we do it, the more fossil fuels we can leave in the ground.
As an individual, there are levers you can pull to facilitate this shift, whether that’s writing to an MP about a climate-related issue you’d like them to address, or educating yourself on the ways you can reduce your own electricity demand. Every small action makes our 1.5℃ goal a little bit more achievable.
---
If you’re looking for an eco-companion to help you along your journey to low carbon citizenship, check out Pawprint. We’ll nudge you towards the eco habits that matter!
