Final Thoughts on Nuclear Energy

Over the course of the last few months I’ve covered a range of topics regarding Nuclear Energy Production in the hope of reaching an opinion on whether nuclear energy is part of/is the answer to our energy and climate crisis, while also hopefully allowing you, the readers, of which I’m sure there are many, to have an informed opinion of your own. 

Last post I asked readers to complete a poll asking which energy source(s) they saw hypothetically replacing fossil fuels in the future. I was surprised to see that Nuclear energy, be it fission or fusion, was a highly selected option; this is surprising due to the fact that throughout this blog, a lot of the research I did showed that nuclear is portrayed  as something to be scared of or not be trusted. This poll potentially suggests that when the public know the facts about nuclear, they see past its negative image, and see its potential as a low carbon energy source. I’m glad that the majority of voters selected a combination of them all, as relying on one main source of energy is setting yourself up for failure, and a combination of renewables and nuclear in my opinion is the answer to our energy and climate problems.

Poll Results

My opinion on Nuclear and the Blog

When I started the blog, I was aware that Nuclear Energy was a big subject to cover and that there were lots of topics to go into. However I may have underestimated how big it is and how much depth certain topics have to them. In an attempt to simplify how nuclear energy works and make it a subject that everyone could understand, I added even more topics on too an already big list and unfortunately I didn’t cover a number of issues I wanted to. Perhaps if I was to repeat this blog, I’d reduce the detail I went into for each individual issue I talked about, while increasing the range of areas I discussed. It is the balance of the range of issues discussed, while still giving enough details on each too allow the reader too form their own opinion which is the key, and is something I hope I have allowed you all to reach.

In terms of my opinion on whether Nuclear is the answer, or part of the answer to our climate and energy issues, I’d say I strongly agree it is. The advantages of nuclear energy at present far outweigh any perceived negatives they provide. At this point in time, it is one of, if not the only low-carbon energy source that can greatly increase its energy production without further research needing to be done. Perhaps with targets from agreements such as COP21 needing to be met, and energy demands ever increasing, we’ll see more countries opting for nuclear in the future?

Countering the positives are always the issues of nuclear disasters and nuclear waste. Both the Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters were caused and/or exacerbated by human error. There is no getting past the fact that when nuclear energy goes wrong, it goes badly wrong, but as I lightly touched upon in my last post, nuclear energy actually has a great safety record compared to other energy sources, and each of these disasters has led to further increases in safety. In terms of nuclear waste, it is being reduced by reprocessing in to further fuel and long-term underground storage for final waste is being constructed or has been in both France and Switzerland.

I hope that you have all enjoyed reading my blog and that it has given you something to think about for the future. If you have any further interest in nuclear energy, I implore you to look into it yourself, or drop a comment down below if you wish to discuss any further points with me.

Nuclear Energy at COP21

COP 21 was a climate conference in Paris which occurred at the start of December 2015, in an aim to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, with the main goal of keeping global warming below 2^oC (COP21 2015). 196 countries attended this conference and have agreed in principle to limit the rise in global temperatures to below 2^oC by 2100 (IAEA 2015). As nuclear isn’t a renewable energy, it has normally not played a large roll in these type of talks, so did nuclear play a big role in COP 21?

COP21 Logo (COP21 2015)

In reality, nuclear energy was more of side-show compared to the main talking points. Even though the conference was held in France, which produces roughly 75% of its electricity through nuclear power, it just wasn’t a main focus (France 24 2015). Many groups state that Nuclear energy has to be part of the solution; it’s a mature technology, its barriers are more political and social than anything else, and is the second largest producer of low carbon-energy in the world behind hydro (Forbes 2015). The IEA projects that global nuclear energy production must increase from 400GW to 1000GW by 2050 to have any chance of reaching emission reduction goals, which also factors in wind and solar both producing 2000GW each by then (Forbes 2015).

So if nuclear appears to be so crucial, why wasn’t it discussed? A number of factors play a crucial role in this. Nuclear has high initial start-up costs, which puts it out of reach for many 3^rd world countries when there are cheaper alternatives available (rfi 2015). Another big factor is the negative image that nuclear power has, which is partly due to the fact the media repeatedly portrays old, incorrect facts, and the other being that when a nuclear disaster occurs, it’s quite a big event. However nuclear waste problems have a number of long term solutions, they have carbon emissions as low as wind, life-cycle costs as low as natural gas, and are statistically the safest major form of power production (Forbes 2015) (Adamantiades & Kessides 2009). It is the perceived danger, albeit it is not devoid of any, which prevents any real commitment to the sector.

Fatalities associated with full energy chains (Adamantiades & Kessides 2009)

So did nuclear play any role in COP21?! Well it did actually. Many countries such as China, India and Argentina, have included it in their mitigation portfolios (IAEA 2015). This means that Nuclear energy is seen as a low-carbon option and a number of countries have specifically chosen it to be a key part of its strategy going forward. With many seeing that renewables have not advanced enough in the past decade of investment, (wind, solar, geothermal and biomass only produce 2% of global electricity together) and the fact a number of them are not 24/7 sources of energy, perhaps more countries will turn to Nuclear as part of their strategy to commit to the agreement signed during COP21 (Forbes 2015) (Independent 2015)?

Nuclear Energy Cartoons

Today I’ll be doing a short post on nuclear energy cartoons and the general image they portray of the industry.

This cartoon focuses on the potential fallout in America from the Fukushima disaster in 2011. The aftershock, being a smaller earthquake occurring after the main one, is used metaphorically to depict the effects the earthquake in Japan is having in the US. This would mainly be to increase fear of earthquakes occurring in the US that could damage their own nuclear power plants, especially in California which is sitting on a fault line. This has led to activists calling for a review on energy policy and the potential stopping of nuclear power expansion. These two comics (Japan + USA), although in a similar stream, focus on the risks of building nuclear power plants near a fault zone, both in the US and Japan.

Aftershock of Fukushima (Nate Beeler 2011)

This second cartoon illustrates how the decisive issue of whether or not to build or use nuclear power plants are often made in snap decisions depending on events occurring. This particular image displays how the price of producing power is often a big influence, with its cost against the traditional fossil fuels key; This potentially points to the fact that governments only build nuclear power when it is a cheaper and more convenient alternative, rather than actively trying to reduce carbon emissions as a main goal. This linked comic also goes along the same theme of how quickly we are influenced by disasters around the world, and how the public perception changes through this.

Nuclear Plant Demolition ((NEI 2006)

This third comic depicts the main issues with nuclear power, being the lack of the ability to totally shutdown a nuclear power plant. This is because, even when the induced nuclear chain reaction is halted, the natural radioactivity of the fuel means further nuclear reactions still occur, which means the fuel will need to be kept cooled for a long period of time after shutdown. As evident in the Fukushima disaster, if the safeguards put in place fail or are disrupted, there is very little that can immediately be done to prevent the fallout of the continued nuclear reactions.

(Clay Bennett 2011)

These final two comics refer to the longevity of the nuclear waste produced, with the long decay time of the spent fuel and its radioactivity in nature the big problems. Although not much can be done with the waste in terms of time, which will be around for generations, there are advancements in terms of storage which was lightly touched upon in my previous blog about France.

Nuclear Waste (Mandy Hancock 2013)

Nuclear Decay (BATR)

Overall, the majority of the cartoons portray nuclear energy in a negative light, and as they say, bad news is good news for the media, as the majority of news you see will be from a negative standpoint. Nuclear energy does have its negatives, big glaring ones to be frank, but it does have its positives, with the potential positives being huge. The question is, does all the negative stigma the media create damage the future prospects of this industry?