Humans need the energy to exist and frankly do anything. For a long time for heat and then electricity, we were burning wood, then gas & fossil fuels, when finally, 20th century tamed the power of the atom and the civilian nuclear power was born. After disasters in Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011) came a large opposition to nuclear energy and the fear of similar accidents persists in today's pro/ban nuclear conversation. These accidents provoked decisive geopolitical changes. However, in the light of growing energy demand and further aggravation of climate change through fossil emissions, nuclear energy has once again taken the center stage. Namely, a few weeks back, just before the climate conference (COP) in Glasgow, the France-led EU coalition submitted the request in Brussels to label nuclear energy as "green". Why? Unlike fossil resources, nuclear does not rely on combustion. Producing next to no greenhouse gases (GHG), it gives colossal quantities of "pure" energy. In the eyes of the coalition, nuclear is, therefore, a climate-friendly technology. Germany, on the other hand, is keen to remove its entire atomic power from the grid by late next year, which will cause this climate fighter to miss its own climate targets (see here). An ultimate Green Party paradox.
I tend to agree with the French coalition for reasons ranging from energy security, environmental issues (climate and air pollution), and surprising to many, because of public health. I say this fully aware of 2 points. Firstly, whatever EU-centric, COP-hyping countries decide to do about their energy provisions will not matter in the grand scheme of (environmental) things since half of the global energy consumption (IRENA data) is based in Asia-Pacific. What counts for "not overheating the planet" is what the fastest growing economies in Asia-Pacific do to maintain the climate system and mitigate air pollution. This means reliably leaving coal behind that dominates Asian energy production. In Europe, the fight for nuclear seems to be about energy security and independence as much as about environmental impacts. Secondly, as I live within the 50 km radius of 3 nuclear power plants (enough to be in the affected zone in case of a meltdown), you can stand assured that I mean every single word you will read. I do not belong to the "nuclear is ok, but not in my backyard" camp. So, let us see what is at stake.
1.The plug does not care where the socket gets its power, so long as it always does.In other words, energy security is the principal worry and it is a fine game of supply and demand. Add to that environmental & social trade-offs, and it is no naïve undertaking. As it currently stands, nuclear energy represented 26.4%in electricity mix of EU-27 where hydro, wind, solar, coal, gas, oil, etc. all co-exist (2019 data). Now, what happens if we take this 26.4% out of the grid because we decided to shut down nuclear, mostly out of fear? Then, we go on a quest to electrify the mobility sector (e-cars, buses, trucks, e-everything). Now, all the energy provided by petrol and diesel engines has to come from the electricity grid, which increases the electricity demand. By shutting nuclear without a viable alternative, we create a wide electricity gap (supply goes down & demand goes up) or an energy crunch and so goes all notion of energy security including stable energy prices and energy independence.
Before someone jumps at me to point out that renewables - indeed superbly eco-friendly energy sources like wind and solar - are a large-scale viable alternative to nuclear now, I will say the following. They absolutely will be when science & engineering finalize the energy storage and figure out how to manage the grid stability with renewables; that is not the case yet, but I am very optimistic. Because of their intermittency and without large-scale energy storage, renewables like wind or solar do not produce stable energy inputs for the grid. They are subject to weather patterns (sunlight and wind) which unlike Einstein's E=mc^2 do not work reliably day and night, cold and warm, frost or heatwave. Intermittency creates stability issues in the grid because there is constant fluctuation in the energy input and that electricity must be used up at all times. As I said, energy storage and grid management will be part of the solution in the coming years. On the other hand, atomic power plants operate non-stop, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In the words of the US Office for Nuclear Energy, "They are designed to operate for longer stretches and refuel every 1.5 – 2 years. In 2019, nuclear plants operated at full power more than 92% of the time, making it the most reliable energy source on the grid today". As a final point here, if Nuclear Energy Agency had it right, viable uranium supplies are predicted to last for the next 200 years. I am positive we can figure out the energy storage and battery recycling by then! Staff from Leibstadt nuclear power plant puts the predictions at thousands of years because reactors differ around the world; and as we go along many deposits will become economically viable. In summary, energy security should rely on source diversification where nuclear has a role of a reliable baseline and a complementary source to renewables. If you need any proof of how bad energy diversification looks like, go no further than #Texasfreeze in February 2021 when the energy system completely failed due to extreme cold, having 210 casualties, and forcing life to a halt.
Model of the Leibstadt nuclear power plant (Switzerland).
2. Lungs and environment care where the socket gets its power from.Despite Europe's love & hate relationship with nuclear, crucial developments in energy and climate mitigation will happen in the fastest-growing Asian economies like China or India where 58% of primary energy comes from coal (Chinadata). Young Asia has to decarbonize and expand its supply. Old lady Europe has to choose: stick with nuclear or fall back on coal & gas to compensate for the loss of nuclear? In that light, nuclear and coal stand opposed, because both are continuous sources of energy. None has intermittency issues. Unlike coal, nuclear produces energy largely emission-free. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculates that electricity from coal comes with 820g CO2 eq./kWh electricity in its life cycle, as opposed to nuclear with 12g CO2 eq./kWh electricity. In other words, the highest authority on climate change tells us that there is a 68 times difference in emissions per kWh energy produced between coal and nuclear. An average German, Swiss or French citizen uses about 6500 kWh of electricity per year, so hypothetically we are looking at 78 kg of CO2 eq. emissions from 100% nuclear and 5330 kg CO2 eq. for 100% coal-based grid every year. Chinese use about 5300 kWh per person per year, meaning roughly the same emissions profiles per capita. Except, Chinese energy policy multiplies the emissions by billions not millions of citizens. The math on climate change is clear. But what about pollution?
In the 60+ years of civilian nuclear power, there have been 2 grave accidents (level 7). Fukushima caused 1000 death (tragic by every stretch of the imagination!) and 100.000 people were displaced. Chernobyl numbers are not clear because of the secrecy of the times and it is certain that it would all look very different if things would have been handled timely and correctly. In 2019 BBC run a comprehensive article on the estimates and consequences that you can check out here. Now, without minimizing the severity of nuclear victims, let us compare that to the figures on air pollution from coal. Coal kills 800.000 people annually through air pollution effects. Coal is a chronic issue; does not provoke large visible accidents with major outcry and as such, it is constantly underestimated. In fact, it is a far bigger killer than nuclear energy. Controversial and shocking but not a contentious numerical issue. Bigger polluter & bigger climate problem.
Nuclear accidents erased areas of Earth from further daily use (e.g. Chernobyl perimeter but you can safely visit the exclusion zone nowadays). Carbon emissions from fossil fuels are messing up the climate to the point that parts of Earth will become uninhabitable – faced with desertification, extreme drought & flooding cycles, landslides, hurricanes, etc. People in the affected areas like sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and island nations will need to move to other places for bare survival. Climate refuge is a term that already exists in the UN dictionary and will materialize in this century.
Finally, talking about pollution, nuclear waste & radiation is the elephant in the room, which I will address in a stand-alone post because I want to bring details it deserves. As I was writing this post, I realized how great the discrepancy between public perception and scientific & engineering reality in nuclear waste management was. A single visit to a nuclear power plant (go to Beznau or Leibstadt if you live in CH) and a conversation with their technical staff will make you aware of this.
3. "It is a matter of probability and odds." (Vesper Lynd, Casino Royale)Every risk is a combination of danger/gravity and the likelihood of an accident. For nuclear, big accidents are indeed grave and the likelihood is extremely low. In fact, in 60 years of atomic energy and thousands of hours of experience, there have been 2 grave accidents. Nuclear reactors are "beasts" insured by backup systems, containment chambers, series of physical and cyber security measures, protocols, etc. See examples here. None of these systems was the reason why Chernobyl and Fukushima happened. Chernobyl was a consequence of serious censorship (pre- & post-accident); Fukushima a consequence of inaction and ignoring the seismic risk alarms prior to the accident. In Chernobyl, the operators did not have the full knowledge of their own reactor due to the Cold War political and social atmosphere incl. official document redacting, followed by a series of poor judgment calls in a reactor stress test. Not knowing the nuclear beast that they were supposed to tame proved lethal to many. In Fukushima, years prior to the accident, tsunami and earthquake studies in this seismically active region were ignored and nothing was done to "tsunami-proof" the plant. In a world far more aware of such issues, which actually retrofitted the Chernobyl-like reactors and assessed the risks once again, does the fear have a grounding? Nobody takes nuclear likely, definitely not the staff who run it.
Blunt rejections of nuclear, sparked by the fear of a new disaster cannot be the driver of energy politics if we are to electrify mobility, maintain and raise the standard of living, and most of all, have an inhabitable planet. After seeing the upsetting scenes from HBO's mini-series, the impulse to abolish atomic energy is understandable but not helpful. The 21st century requires 21st-century solutions. [Edit] In my view, turning off the nuclear energy to substitute it with gas or coal does not qualify as a 21st-century solution which is what is going on in Germany. Simply put, burning hectares of forests for large-scale heating (just leave biodiversity alone), polluting air with coal (rising health care costs and premature deaths), and relying solely on increasingly erratic weather (a direct consequence of climate change) for power could not substitute the densest energy source in existence.
You can choose how to view nuclear - either as an emissions-free grace period for the mass installation of renewables while figuring out energy storage and grid stability; or an alternative to coal and a stable energy source in a well-diversified energy mix of hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, some biomass, on-demand sources. France will innovate nuclear energy and mitigate the risks with smaller plants; Germany is keen to abolish it at seemingly all costs. As climate summits fail repeatedly, and developing countries do not want to endanger their progress (who could blame them?), I presume nuclear energy will have to get a second life just like in France. I wish strength and courage to the political leaders who will take this issue back to the public eye. After all, they will be threading an atom away from activist backlash, and in nuclear this is all it takes to start the reaction. 🍀
Honestly, consciously and informedly,
[Edit] Disclaimer: This is an opinion piece.
All rights reserved.
Picture from personal collection.
Comments