Photo by Daniel West
Output
Why look at the output? Because if we are going to use electricity (and people want to) it makes sense to reap the most watts from the fewest resources to reduce environmental impact.
US nuclear plants generate between 581 megawatts, like the single reactor Ginna Nuclear Power Plant in New York does, at capacity, to 3,937 megawatts, like the triple reactor Palo Verde plant in Arizona. So an average 1,000 megawatt plant can supply a decent-sized city like Seattle (724,000 people) with dependable electricity. Nuclear plutonium provides very efficient energy by volume. They also have an efficient, average capacity factor of 93%, meaning they regularly produce almost as much energy as they possibly can. Nuclear beats out all other usual energy types here.
Materials
Earth has a decent amount of uranium; people mine this naturally-occurring metal on every inhabited continent. Using the current method, scientists estimate earth contains enough for 80 to 230 years. If we can make the technology more economical, we can extract uranium from the ocean or recycle spent nuclear materials in breeder reactors to keep humans powered for tens of thousands of years. Uranium mining causes local damage, whether by digging a pit, burrowing underground, or by dripping water and chemicals into the earth and sucking them up with the uranium. Some kinds of mining leave behind radioactive uranium tailings that last for 250,000 to 4.5 billion years that can foul the nearby air and water along with radon particles that last 4 days. All the main kinds of uranium mining have the potential to contaminate both the surface and underground water. Pit mining destroys habitat and removes plant cover, so the topsoil blows away. Since nuclear energy produces electricity so efficiently per kilogram of fuel, it requires less earth damaging extraction processes than fossil fuels though (as far as i can tell) and more than the typical green energy materials. Building the plants brings the usual construction costs; nuclear plants use a lot of concrete. Nuclear energy also requires rare metals like hafnium and beryllium, not as fuel, but in the production process. Though they are needed for other growing modern technologies, the demolishers can’t simply recycle them once the plant is decommissioned, because the metals will remain radioactive for many generations. Radioactive isotopes prove very difficult and costly to remove from inside metals, so they are usually disposed of instead.
Photo of Australian pit mine by Calistemon
Nuclear Waste
Removing and disposing of the used nuclear materials means leaving behind radioactive elements that last 80,000 years. The US has no long term disposal plan for these spent materials and currently does not recycle them. No human language or civilization has lasted 80,000 years, so unaware future generations might uncover the mysterious disposal containers and expose themselves and their environment to radioactive harm.
CO2 Emissions
Nuclear plants themselves release no carbon dioxide! The steam from their big iconic towers is water vapor from their cooling systems. All the building materials and fuel materials have to be shipped in. The US imports its uranium from all around the world, releasing the usual carbon from ships, trucks and trains. In its lifetime, from mining, to building the plant, to running and maintaining the plant, to disposing of all its materials, Nuclear releases between 4 and 110 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, about as much as the current renewable energy technologies and much less than fossil fuels.
Water Use
Nuclear plants source water from oceans and rivers. This takes up some important and often sensitive habitat space. Fish get sucked in and killed. Nuclear plants return the water to its source 25 degrees F warmer, with much less dissolved oxygen, and a higher Ph. Many aquatic organisms can’t tolerate a change that high and die. Others can and end up overpopulating, leading to an ecological imbalance. The coolant water nuclear plants release is kept separate from nuclear materials and is checked for radioactivity before being dumped, so it drops very few radioactive isotopes and these spread out in water to do even less damage.
Radioactivity
As far as my research shows, enough radiation can kill any living thing. Different kinds of organisms have different tolerances. National organizations set standards and regularly check radiation emissions from nuclear plants, so they give off very little radiation and lots of this decays quickly and becomes tame as it dissipates into the air and water. It seems like scientists haven’t researched low level radiation’s effects on wildlife much; functioning nuclear plants don’t seem to be wiping anything out though.
If an accident happens to new uranium en route to a plant, spent radioactive materials leaving a plant, or if the metal tank containing old materials is punctured, these radioactive particles can seep into the ground and water and cause problems. Different isotopes last from a few hours to 80,000 years. However, the process has been accident free since 1965 and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates a 1 in 1 billionth chance of a spill in transit. The power source is a metal in solid state and is packaged for disaster.
Foreign forces can steal plutonium and make it into nuclear bombs. Obviously, nuclear bombs can kill a lot of wildlife, destroy habitats, and spew radiation all over for many years to come. However, energy plants have a lot of security and they wouldn’t blow up even if an airplane crashed into them. Stealing and making energy grade plutonium into weapons grade plutonium would be very difficult because it’s big, heavy, dangerous to work with and transport, requires extreme specialized scientific understanding, and would take months to a year to make into a bomb.
Nuclear plants have had only 2 major accidents among the 18,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation taking place in 36 countries. Japan’s Fukushima disaster of 2011 happened in part because of an earthquake and tsunami. Chernobyl’s accident of 1986 happened because of substantial human error in a plant lacking numerous recommended safety measures. These accidents show that nuclear radiation can kill plants and animals, cause harmful changes in cell divisions, reduce virility, and imbalance ecosystems. However, wildlife have repopulated Fukushima and Chernobyl and, despite some damage from radiation and changes in the numbers of different species, are thriving. Nuclear energy technology continues to improve on efficiency, safety from human error, security from destructive humans, with layers of redundant safety precautions to prevent even. For instance, some of the newer micro plants take up less than a mile of space, self-cool when they heat up, can remain safe even during power loss, and need to be refueled once every 2 years.
43 of the 61 nuclear power plants currently operating in the US has had at least one spill. 43 sites have had leaks beyond the 20,000 picocuries per liter of radioactive tritium that the Environmental Protection Agency considers safe. Tritium can harm bodies when swallowed, though it rapidly spreads out and fades and investigators can’t usually even detect it in the environment around nuclear plants. It could have human impact after a little less than its 12 year half life.
“Life” Span
Many plants are running longer than anticipated because they are operating without serious problems or signs of senility. In the US, they apply for new licences every 20 years and research shows that they should be able to operate up to 80 years without trouble- although 40 years is the current average “life” span. Fossil fuel plants last 30 to 50. Solar panel 25 to 30 years. Wind turbine 20 to 25. Hydroelectric plants last 64 years on average, though they are quoted at 25 to be safe. Biomass plants last about 30 years.
All the major forms of generating electricity cause at least some harm to the environment and electricity is integral to modern society. So to summarize my assessment: uranium extraction causes some damage and leaves radioactive pollutants; disposing of its seemingly eternal waste is problematic, however it provides CO2-free, dependable energy very efficiently and the plants can last a pretty long time. As far as the environment goes and as long as we can figure out a long term waste disposal method, I think nuclear beats fossil fuels and some forms of “green” energy.
Disclaimer: Other people’s websites might be worse (or better) than mine. They might have false, rude, inappropriate, or otherwise disagreeable content on them. They might have taken down their website since i last viewed it in 2021. None of those issues are my problem.
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1723/ML17236A511.pdf
https://www.power-eng.com/renewables/hydroelectric-generators-are-the-oldest-still-operating-in-the-u-s/
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=104&t=3
https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/how-long-do-wind-turbines-last#:~:text=A%20good%20quality%2C%20modern%20wind,correct%20maintenance%20procedures%20being%20followed.]
https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/resources/uranium/mining.html
Graph
Graph emissions https://physicsworld.com/a/how-green-is-nuclear-energy/
Comments