Nuclear energy has been presented as a revolutionary technology that could herald the dawn of a nuclear revival, but the reality is that this technology is not any kind of technological leap. In fact, nuclear energy offers very little to the importance of tackling climate change and is too expensive, dangerous and vulnerable to be a viable option. The construction of a nuclear power plant is a long and complex process that obviously releases CO2, as is the demolition of dismantled nuclear sites. Over the past decade, the State of the Global Nuclear Industry Report estimates that leveled costs for utility-scale solar energy have decreased by 88% and for wind energy by 69%, while these costs have increased by 23% for nuclear energy.
Unless you're an energy engineer, you don't understand the technical complexities of intermittent energy, such as solar and wind. Hydropower, geothermal, biomass and ocean power are not always available for all geographical areas. All of these technologies have a very low capacity factor and, at the same time, require a large area to build. The most difficult thing to control within the energy system is to balance supply and load.
Solar and wind energy are very difficult to control and balance, and the low capacity factor (solar energy is around 20% versus wind 30%) literally makes their construction and operation technically inefficient. On the other hand, nuclear power has a very high capacity factor (often more than 90%), can be increased and decreased as needed to equalize the load, does not take up a large amount of space, is energy dense (meaning less fuel is used and a lot of energy is still produced), which for grid operators has much more technically sense. Yes, there are other issues related to waste disposal, disasters and security threats. The 444 nuclear power plants that currently exist provide about 11% of the world's energy. Studies show that, to meet current and future energy needs, the nuclear sector would need to expand to around 14,500 plants. However, it is not possible to expand to 14,500 nuclear plants simply because of the limitation of feasible sites.
Nuclear plants must be located near a water source for cooling, and there are not enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. The increase in extreme weather events predicted by climate models only exacerbates this risk. Unlike renewables which are now the cheapest energy sources, nuclear costs are rising and many plants are shutting down or are in danger of being shut down for economic reasons. Initial capital, fuel and maintenance costs are much higher for nuclear plants than wind and solar, and nuclear projects tend to suffer from cost overruns and construction delays. Uranium, the fuel in nuclear reactors, consumes a lot of energy and is likely to be more difficult to reach deposits discovered in the future. As a result, much of the net energy created would be offset by the energy input needed to build and dismantle plants and to extract and process uranium ore.
The same goes for any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the shift from coal to nuclear. When it comes to pollution, there are clear advantages and disadvantages to nuclear power. Current consumption of nuclear energy already reduces more than 555 million metric tons of emissions each year. This reduction in greenhouse gases is a great indicator of how the shift to nuclear energy can help reduce our long-term effect on global climate change. However, nuclear power plants have a greater impact on the environment than just the waste they produce. Uranium extraction and enrichment are not environmentally friendly processes.
Open pit uranium mining is safe for miners but leaves behind radioactive particles which cause erosion and even contamination. Peter Bradford of Vermont Law writes: A world more dependent on nuclear energy would involve many plants in countries that have little experience in nuclear energy with no regulatory background in the field and some questionable quality control records security and corruption. Therefore it is important for countries with experience in using nuclear energy to lead by example and encourage poor countries to invest in safe energy technologies instead.
