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?

Nuclear Power - Is our Fear Jeopardising our Future?

This is just a small post to share a video of a talk by Michael Shellengerger; an environmental policy expert who has dabbled in a large area of climate change topics from the planetary boundary hypothesis, to carbon pricing and beyond. This talk discusses how the impact of declining nuclear energy production is having a negative effect on our overall 'clean' energy productions, while also looking at the public's perception of nuclear, and the barriers this presents for the future of nuclear energy and climate change.

Michael's talk brings forward a number of thought provoking points, so if you would like to discuss any of them, please leave a comment down below.

Nuclear Fusion - The Future of Nuclear Energy?

A month or so ago I talked about ‘the science behind a nuclear power plant’ with a brief description of nuclear fission, which is the process of splitting an atom into two smaller atoms and is the way we harness nuclear energy for electricity at the moment. Today I’ll be talking about nuclear fusion, which is seen by some scientists as the way forward for nuclear power and part of the key to a greener future with near unlimited energy supply.

Nuclear fusion, in the way most people will know about it, is the process that powers the sun and ultimately is responsible for all life as we know it on this planet (ITER 2016). In the sun, hydrogen atoms are fused together a number of times to produce a helium atom, and it is this fusing of atoms that produces the energy.

Nuclear Fusion Process in the Sun (Wikipedia 2016)

However on Earth, things have to be done slightly differently; the nuclear fusion that occurs in the Sun begins at roughly 15 million °C, which is pretty hot as you’d imagine (FusionForEnergy 2015). Sadly on Earth, we don’t have it as easy. Due to the sheer size of the sun, it emits immense gravitational forces which produce intense pressure as well as a high heat which allow it to carry out its nuclear fusion (WNA 2016). On earth, we are not able to produce pressures on such a magnitude so we have to compensate for this by increasing the temperature input to around 50 million °C (WNA 2016). The most efficient and feasible reaction scientists are able to perform at the moment is a fusion of deuterium and tritium, which is essentially two different heavy forms (isotopes) of hydrogen (HyperPhysics 2016).  The tritium and deuterium are fused together and a helium atom is created, with a neutron as a by-product; it is this reaction that produces the energy. The aim is to get enough of these fusion reactions to occur continuously that the process will be self-sufficient, and more energy will be produced than is inputted. When this is achieved, nuclear fusion will produce 4 times the energy yield of fission, and for every time pressure within the reaction is doubled, the energy produced is increased four-fold (WNA 2016) (MIT News 2016).

D-T Nuclear Fusion Process on Earth (AtomicArchive 2015)

Now this is all sounds amazing, but there must be some reasons why we aren’t doing this right now; and there are quite a few as you’d imagine. First up is that extremely high temperature that is required to even begin the reaction. This is needed to overcome the electrostatic forces that act as a gateway to the fusion of the hydrogen atoms (WNA 2016). The issue isn’t creating the temperatures, but creating a device that could contain such a reaction for long periods of time. Without a long enough time period, the fusion reaction wouldn’t be able to be self-sufficient and have a net-energy output (WNA 2016). Secondly there is a slight issue of fuel; while the deuterium occurs naturally in seawater (the deuterium in a gallon of seawater has the energy equivalent of 300 gallons of gasoline), the tritium is a bit harder to come by (HyperPhysics 2016). The tritium has no sizeable natural source and due to its radioactivity, has a half-life of around 12 years, which means it has to be bred from lithium; this could possibly be a bottleneck in fuel supply (HyperPhysics 2016). Finally a big problem is the cost and scale it is going to take to research and finally produce a workable reactor. Initial costs of a fusion power plant are estimated to be around £10 billion, but the research for it is even higher, with ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) the centre of nuclear fusion experiments expecting to cost over €20 billion to even construct let alone run the experiments (EUROfusion 2016) (Bloomberg 2016). As fusion reactions are in a gas form compared to fission which occurs in a solid form, the energy released is less concentrated, so fusion reactors will be bigger and more costly to build and maintain (WNA 2016).

ITER Construction Site (Science 2015)

Other than the near unlimited energy that seems oh so far away, are there any other positives? Well, like nuclear fission they would only have a negligible contribution to greenhouse gas emissions if any and are seen as a way to help reduce our CO₂ emissions (WNA 2016). Unlike fission, fusion reactors are easily shutdown and it would be near impossible for a Chernobyl or Fukushima situation to occur (CCFE 2016). The issue of containing the reaction is also seeing positive results, with magnetic fields which hold the plasma where the reaction takes place being the preferred method (MIT News 2016). In terms of waste, no long-lived radioactive products are produced and any unburnt gas is dealt with on sight. There is the slight issue about the reactor structure itself becoming radioactive due to long-term bombardment of high-energy neutrons, but the radioactivity itself would be easily dealt with (WNA 2016). A big concern is a tritium release into the surrounding environment, however this is hoped to be dealt with by forgoing tritium altogether, and just fusing deuterium with deuterium instead (WNA 2016).

Nuclear Fusion Reactor with Magnetic Field (FusionForEnergy 2015)

Nuclear fusion is often seen as the finish line for nuclear energy, and part of the end game in reaching our planet's energy needs. With nuclear fusion experiments breaking previous records and devices containing the reaction for longer periods of time and at higher pressures being built, it seems we are edging closer to the goal (MIT News 2016). However, a long-running joke since the 70’s is that commercial nuclear fusion is always 40 years away, and as you can probably guess, is the latest estimate for now as well (CCFE 2016). Perhaps nuclear fusion is just one nut we’ll never be able to crack?

If you have any questions or are just curious about nuclear fusion, don’t hesitate to leave a comment down below and I’ll get back to you as quick as I can. 

Uranium Reserves – How much is there?

Uranium, as touched upon in a previous blog post, is the fuel used for nuclear fission and is primarily obtained through mining. As an element in the Earth’s crust, uranium is a relatively common metal on the scale of tin or zinc (Kidd 2011). Throughout the crust, uranium is found in different concentrations known as ppm (parts per million), which is how much of a certain rock is uranium. Rocks which have higher ppms will be given a higher grade and will therefore be more economically viable to exploit. The viability of the ore-body will also be dependent on the cost of energy produced from other sources, as a higher energy cost would in turn make more ore-bodies with lower ppms viable (WNA 2016).

Uranium can be found in various regions around the world, although are highly concentrated in certain places, with the top 5 countries having roughly 66% (OECD 2016) of known recoverable resources and just over 75% of Uranium output (Mining-Tech. 2014). The top dog in terms of uranium resources by far is Australia, with 29% of total known recoverable reserves, with Kazakhstan, Canada and Russia each having a respectable 13-9% each (WNA 2016). This spread of uranium reserves across the global and political landscape would mean it would be hard to truly blockade a country from accessing uranium to feed its nuclear intent.

Global distribution of Uranium in the top 15 countries  (OECD 2016)

Uranium per Country with Cost (WNA 2016)

The big questions are how much uranium is there? And how long will the uranium last? This is mainly measured from the price of extracting said uranium, as some ore-bodies will cost more to extract. At a price of USD 130/kg and less, there is predicted to be 5.7 million tons of identified uranium that can be mined (OECD 2016), which if matched up with the 2006 uranium requirements of 66,500 tons, which would last roughly 85 years (Chmielewski 2008). Different sources using slightly different values calculate 80 years and 90 years of Uranium supply left at this price (Kidd 2011) (WNA 2016). These calculations are based on a scenario that nuclear energy doesn't really change going into the future, and a whole range of different scenarios could increase or decrease viable reserves. A decrease would only likely come about if the overall cost of producing energy decreased to a point, that nuclear energy was being priced out by other energy sources. If prices dropped to a point where only uranium mined at a price of USD 80/kg or less was viable, then only 37% of the 5.7 million tons mentioned earlier, would be able to be mined (OECD 2016). Increases of viable reserves could be caused by a number of things; simply an increase in the price of energy would allow more orebodies to be mined that were once too expensive. Discovery of further uranium resources from geological predictions will of course increase supply, with (Chmielewski 2008) estimating that we would have enough Uranium to last 300 years. Recycling plutonium from spent fuel cells could increase the life of today’s known uranium supply by 70 times, which would mean the reserves could last up 3000 years! Technological advances also have the capability to reduce mining costs and extend the life of fuel cells, with the new Generation-IV fast neutron reactors with their closed fuel cycle producing 100 times the energy with the same quantity of uranium (Chmielewski 2008). All these factors have the potential to come together, to give us the uranium we need for thousands of years.

Worldwide uranium resources and potential years of generation (Chmielewski 2008)

Uranium resources have been increasing significantly since 1975 in correspondence to increased expenditure on exploration. This would suggest that as exploration increases, viable reserves of uranium would also increase, with previously uneconomic uranium from Florida once again being examined for possible extraction, and lower-grade ore bodies such as those in Morocco also being investigated (Kidd 2011). This is because, the uranium fuel only makes up a fraction of the cost of nuclear energy; only 2% of the cost is attributed to the uranium, with the vast majority attributed to building the plant, operating and maintenance. This means that a theoretical doubling of uranium prices would only add a 2% increase on to final electricity bills (Chmielewski 2008).

Known Uranium Resources, their prices and Exploration Expenditure (WNA 2016)

As technology advances and additional orebodies become viable and are discovered, it appears that reserves of uranium will be around for thousands of years to come if managed correctly. This could pave the way to an era of cleaner energy if managed correctly. This is dependent on the research and exploration being done however, which may be at risk from investment as recent discoveries of cheap shale have the potential to side-track nations away from uranium exploration. Or there is the potential that uranium may not be needed at all by 2050, with hopeful estimates that we could have nuclear fusion power plants in operation by then!

Public Opinion on Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy has always been one of the most divisive sources of energy; with support depending on the country, how well informed the public are, and the events occurring around the world at the time. There are a number of factors that influence the public such as nuclear waste, security, cost of energy, reliance, safety, the media, climate change and many more.

Chernobyl

There isn’t much data on public opinion prior to the Chernobyl disaster; but in a poll conducted by Harris in the US in 1975, 63% supported building more nuclear power plants (Rosa et al., 1994). This dropped however, to 44% in 1979 after the Three Mile Island accident, and further still to 34% after Chernobyl in 1986 (Rosa et al., 1994). However, the American public recognised nuclear energy as a potential large scale energy source, as in a poll by Cambridge during the late 1980’s; 67%-78% said that nuclear energy was a good or realistic choice for the future (Rosa et al., 1994). In West Germany, one of the closest Western nations to the Chernobyl disaster, polls suggested around 15% supported a withdrawal from nuclear power prior to the disaster; after the disaster, this rose to 37% the following year, and 65% the year after that (Peters et al., 1990). It is noted however, that even after the Chernobyl disaster, parties who supported withdrawing from nuclear power (along with public opinion) didn’t have much, if any, increase in support in Germany’s parliamentary elections the following year, suggesting that although there was a concern, nuclear energy is not something at the forefront of the public minds.

(Rosa et al., 1994)

Fukushima

After the Fukushima disaster in 2011, the German parliament chose to phase out nuclear power (Dorothee et al., 2016). This was in direct contrast to a decision made 6 months earlier to extend the nuclear power plant run-time. This would mean that Fukushima had a direct effect on the decision of the German parliament; but perhaps this was also influenced by the medias reporting? Prior to the Fukushima disaster, Nuclear power was a dividing issue in Germany, with 43% in support and 37% opposed. A few days after the accident, global support fell from 57% to 49% which is to be suspected (Dorothee et al., 2016). News in Germany in the following year also changed dramatically; with the economical (-21%) and energy aspects (-11%) of nuclear energy seeing much less coverage, and on the other side, a large increase in the coverage of the risks of nuclear (+23%) and the demonstrations (+12%) against (Dorothee et al., 2016).

Level of  different themes represented in the news (Dorothee et al., 2016)

Present

Global public opinion on Nuclear Issues (Mycle Schneider 2009)

In today’s time, opinion is very much split depending on the country in question, with a Globescan poll of 18 countries in 2005 suggesting 34% of respondents are not in favour of building new nuclear plants, but prefer to just keep the old plants, 28% want to build new nuclear plants, and 25% want to close down all plants as soon as possible (OECD 2010). Support for closing all nuclear power plants is highest in countries which don’t have any, such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia (OECD 2010). Support in the EU is also slightly lower than the global average, with issues such as safety, security and reliance being a concern on the continent.
Support is also dependent on the level of knowledge around the subject. When respondents were informed about the positive impacts of climate change, support for nuclear expansion increased on average by 10% (OECD 2010). This is mirrored in the US, with 60% either slightly opposing or slightly in favour of nuclear energy; when they feel very well informed, 54% are strongly in favour with another 22% somewhat in favour (Bisconti Research 2016). Even a moderate amount of knowledge on the subject, leads to a 77% in favour for nuclear energy.

(Bisconti Research 2016)

There is even a split in views between the genders, with woman in a range of countries such as the US, UK, Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, Japan and more, being less supportive than men towards nuclear energy since the 1990’s, roughly 39% support for men, compared to 27% for woman (Sundström et al., 2016). This is seen throughout the range of issues with nuclear, with woman being less accepting of nuclear power in general, more opposed to constructing new plants and more concerned about the produced waste (Sundström et al., 2016). The 'health and safety concerns' argument is most commonly used to explain this difference,  with woman believed to have heightened concern for the health and safety of others, and greater sensitivity to the associated risks of technologies such as nuclear, which has potential for a catastrophic accident. (Sundström et al., 2016)

In conclusion, support for nuclear energy has fluctuated greatly over the years, in response to the disasters and development in the world. Prices of fuel, level of education and even gender can have an effect on support towards nuclear energy. What can be seen though is that when the advantages are explained to people, especially involving climate change, the public are much more willing to get behind the idea of nuclear energy; it just depends if they think those benefits outweigh the risks.