Jesus A.

Hernandez

Literature Review

The Cost of Nuclear Energy

April 13, 2019
 Abstract
Nuclear energy is a major part of power generation mix of many countries in the world.
More than 400 nuclear power plants (NPPs) are operating and spreading all over the
inhabited land. Although there have been only a few NPPs accidents, social and
environmental impacts were too high. These impacts have made nuclear power safety a
controversial issue. Creating doubts regarding their environmental impact not only
when disasters happen but also during normal functioning.

Selective search of articles and scientific publications was performed to find differing
positions on the topic. Authors and publications’ backgrounds were checked in order to
obtain close to unbiased and reliable data.

Nuclear Power Plants are not the most environmentally friendly power source society
has but they are much better than the majority of current energy sources. Nuclear waste,
a by-product of nuclear power generation, is one of the major concerns for NPPs since
there is currently little control over how to correctly dispose of it. Still, waste and
greenhouse gas emissions generated from Fossil Fuel Plants prove to be deadlier. Even
when taking into account NPPs disasters such as those from Chernobyl, greenhouse
emissions have a bigger impact on the environment. Finally, with this information it is
derived that further development of nuclear reactors and technology will prove to be one
of the best investments humanity can make today.
 Introduction
Climate change is the current rapid warming of the Earth's climate caused by human
activity. If left unchecked, it poses an unprecedented threat to human civilization and
the ecosystems on this planet. There are ongoing plans to halt it and one of the best ones
is to completely remove Fossil Fuel Plants from the equation. Changing our primary
power sources to be renewable ones such as Eolic energy. But nuclear energy could
prove to be even better than renewable ones since it's not at all clear that they can do the
job alone.

To find why NPPs have not become the must used alternative power source, research
needs to be made. To see why their development was abandoned during the early 21st
century when nuclear energy output was supposed to keep growing. Also, an analysis of
how much nuclear waste and emissions affect the environment compared to the
greenhouse emissions made by Fossil fuel plants. Finally, if there will be many more
NPPs then there’s a bigger risk of a reactor meltdown creating a situation comparable to
Chernobyl and it needs to be analyzed how much disasters such as these have affected
nature and civilization.

As such the research questions that will try to be answered will be the following:

 Is nuclear energy more ecological than fossil fuels?

 How are nuclear accidents, such as those in Chernobyl and Fukushima, still
relevant today?
 Why have some countries stopped the development of nuclear technologies?

This paper will analyze published nuclear energy research to see if nuclear power can
really help diminish pollution or create a bigger problem. Evaluating previous nuclear
disasters contamination, nuclear power plants power output compared against pollution
created, why was nuclear technology abandoned and how nuclear waste can affect the
environment. This essay’s final goal will be to determine if it is worth for society to
invest more research and further develop nuclear technologies.
 Literature
Is nuclear energy more ecological than fossil fuels?

To understand why is it that a radioactive kind of energy is better than that of burning
fossil fuels it must be first understood the importance of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.

A greenhouse gas is any gaseous compound in the atmosphere that is capable of

absorbing infrared radiation, thereby trapping and holding heat in the atmosphere. By
increasing the heat in the atmosphere, GHG are responsible for the greenhouse effect,
which ultimately leads to global warming. A problem that will be catastrophic for both
human society and natural ecosystems. Likewise, GHG outdoor air pollution due largely
to fossil fuel burning is also estimated to have caused over 1 million deaths annually
worldwide. Nuclear energy could help to mitigate both of these major problems.

Studies calculate that world nuclear power generation has prevented an average of 64
gigatons of CO2- equivalent (GtCO2-eq), cumulative emissions from 1971 to 2009. This
amounts to the same quantity China has created in the past 17 years, one of the biggest
CO2 emitters.

This is because NPPs create nuclear waste instead of large amounts of GHG emissions.
This waste is created on a much slower rate but it’s radioactive. As such it follows
protocols that stablish were to dump it and this is mostly done in subterranean
warehouses where the low radiation emitted by the waste is safely away from the
ecosystem.

Since nuclear energy also generate low CO2 emissions it also prevents many deaths. It
has been calculated that a mean value of 1.84 million human deaths have been
prevented in the world by nuclear power production from 1971 to 2009, with an average
of 76 000 prevented deaths/year from 2000 to 2009. Even when into account deaths
produced from nuclear power plants accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, NPPs
prove to cause less deaths.
 Figure 1: Cumulative net deaths prevented assuming nuclear power replaces fossil fuels. (a)
Results for the historical period in this study (1971− 2009), showing mean values and ranges
for the baseline historical scenario. Results for (b) the high-end and (c) low-end projections of
nuclear power production by the UN IAEA6 for the period 2010−2050

As such it can be concluded that NPPs are a much better substitute when it comes to
energy production. Fossil Fuel plants are proven to be one of the major sources of GHG
emissions, creating climate change one of the major problems currently affecting
society. If these plants were to be replaced by NPPs the current climate crisis could be
resolved. Mortalities created by CO2 contamination will also be much lower.
How are nuclear accidents, such as those in Chernobyl and Fukushima, still
relevant today?

The most recent nuclear disaster is that of the Fukushima accident, which occurred in
2011 at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in northern Japan, the second worst nuclear
accident in the history of nuclear power generation. The site is on Japan’s Pacific coast,
in northeastern Fukushima prefecture about 100 km south of Sendai.

Since the NPP was situated in the coast of japan, radioactive material was released into
the ocean as a cause of the multiple reactor meltdowns. This was the best-case scenario
proposed when designing a NPP that operated in the ocean. Nuclear material being
leaked into soil proves to be much more damaging as was seen during the Chernobyl
accident.

Unlike contamination of soils on land, vertical and horizontal mixing rates in the ocean
are fast, diluting the primary contaminant signal quite rapidly, particularly in the
energetic coastal waters off Japan where the Oyashio waters move south and interact
with the rapidly flowing and offshore meandering of the Kuroshio Current.

After taking samples from the surrounding pacific japan coast and from nearby marine
life it was seen that the incident didn’t had a lasting effect. The data showed peak ocean
discharges in early April, one month after the earthquake and a factor of 1000 decrease
in the month following. Although some radionuclides were significantly elevated, dose
calculations suggest minimal impact on marine biota or humans due to direct exposure
in surrounding ocean waters.

It was also seen that more lives were lost as people had to evacuate their homes
compared to the zero recorded deaths linked to radiation exposure or reactor
explosions.

It can be concluded that NPPs nuclear disasters can be contained to reflect minimal
damage when the reactors are located near coasts. The rapid mixing of ocean waters and
the longevity of the radioactive isotope were the major points as to why the disaster
didn’t had a long lasting effect. With good security and protocols disasters such as these
could be close to 0.
Why have some countries stopped the development of nuclear
technologies?

There's a simple, compelling argument that the world should be building many more
nuclear power plants. But the biggest problem current NPPs face, more than safety or
waste issues, is their high cost. Modern reactor technology continues to become
increasingly more expensive to build. Back in the 1960s, new reactors in the US were
one of the cheaper energy sources around. But today, after a series of missteps those
costs have increased six fold.

United States was one of the countries that saw a bigger effect on the building costs of
reactors and chose to almost completely abandon the idea of nuclear energy. It started
with the second wave of nuclear reactors. When utilities ordered more reactors, supply
chains for parts and skilled labor became stressed, causing delays and cost hikes. While
also, both industry and environmentalists were finding new safety issues to deal with.
Early core cooling systems had flaws and required upgrades. Rules and requirements
changed midway through construction. Causing delays and idling workers and
equipment, leading to massive budget overruns.

The mortal blow for NPPs in the US came after the much-publicized meltdown at Three
Mile Island in 1979. Every reactor still under construction at the time now faced major
regulatory delays, changes in safety procedures, and new back-fit requirements.
Construction times doubled, stretching out past 10 years. Making costs go through the
roof. Making not a single new reactor between 1978 and 2013.
 Figure 2:Overnight construction cost of US nuclear power reactors by construction start date.

But on the other hand, countries such as France, Canada, and Japan did a better job of
keeping costs down. France had only one utility and one builder when it came to NPPs.
They settled on a few standard reactor designs and built them over and over again,
putting multiple reactors on a single site. Allowing them to standardize their processes
and get better at finding efficiencies. Canada and Japan kept costs relatively stable with
similar tactics. Contrast this with the US, where the electricity sector is split up among
dozens of different utilities and state regulators. As a result, US nuclear vendors had to
develop dozens of variations on the light-water reactor to satisfy a variety of customers.
 Conclusion
Nuclear power is certainly the energy of the future. The low waste and gas emissions
created by NPPs can help society solve current climate problems by lowering the CO2
emissions to sustainable levels. Data from the research show how China, one of the
biggest GHG emissions creator, can see a much lower mortality rate by adopting nuclear
energy. Disasters such as the Fukushima incident help develop protocols and safe
guards for NPPs in the future so that they are better contained. Their impact on the
ecosystem also show how the current amount of GHG emissions are even deadlier in the
long run.

Still the major problem nuclear power technologies face is that of their soaring high
costs of construction. Solving these problems will help bring again NPPs to their old
glory. Having stable regulations are essential for nuclear power to thrive, so that
projects are not changed midway during their construction. Standardization of design is
also a must, lesson learned from countries like France and South Korea, that
standardization is invaluable. Build multiple reactors at the same site will also lead to
major efficiencies.

Nevertheless, that's also not the industry's only headwind. Nuclear power remains
deeply unpopular in some countries since they are not aware of studies made or choose
to opt into safer power sources. Germany is phasing out its reactors by 2022, and there's
heavy opposition in Japan to restarting reactors shut down after Fukushima. Plus,
issues like how to correctly dispose of radioactive waste and how to decommission old
plants need to be solved.
Plumer, Brad (2016, February 29). Why America abandoned nuclear power. Vox.
Retrieved from: https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-us-
france-korea

Buesseler, Ken, Aoyama, Michio & Fukasawa, Masao (2011, October 20). Impacts of the
Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants on Marine Radioactivity. Environmental Science &
Technology. 45(23), 9931–9935. doi:10.1021/es202816c

Hansen, James & Kharecha, Pushker (2013, March 15). Prevented Mortality and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power.
Environmental Science & Technology. 47 (9), pp 4889–4895. DOI: 10.1021/es3051197