Nuclear Energy: Is Fission a False Solution or Just What We Need?
The imposing cooling towers of the Chooz Nuclear Power Station in France. Rather strikingly, France produces around 70% of its electricity from nuclear stations such as this one pictured above. Photo via Wiki Media
As our planet tips precipitously closer toward a state of climatic chaos, the need for low-carbon sources of energy becomes all the more apparent. Fortunately, a hefty variety of technologies (of various degrees of practicality) offer us a way out. They run the gamut from wind and hydropower to literal space mirrors that reflect the sun’s rays onto earthbound solar farms.
However, at a time when open-minded conversations about effective solutions are needed more than ever, one source of energy oftentimes remains shunned: nuclear fission, the black sheep of electricity generation. Many shudder when they imagine the imposing cooling towers, piles of radioactive waste and the numerous historical disasters associated with our attempts to tame the atom. Nonetheless, all the fear surrounding this power source begs the question: is fission truly deserving of its unsavory reputation, or ought we to consider nuclear energy in the fight against a warming world?
A typical fuel rod assembly, containing hundreds of thousands of pellets. Owing to the high energy density of enriched uranium, fuel rods can last upwards of five years without needing to be changed. Photo via Flickr.
Before we begin, perhaps it would be prudent to clarify exactly how nuclear fission works. Like a coal plant, water is boiled to make steam and rotate a turbine at breakneck speed, but the source of heat in a nuclear plant is different; in this case, the radioactive decay of uranium atoms is what produces the high temperatures. As the large isotopes of uranium break apart into smaller atomic components, some of its mass is actually converted into energy, in accordance with Einstein’s famous equation: E=MC2. As a testament to the sheer power contained within atoms, one 7-gram uranium pellet contains as much latent energy as a ton of coal.
What’s most striking about nuclear power is its ability to provide extremely high amounts of electricity without emitting any carbon. The only CO2 emissions are those which come from the construction of plants and the processing of fuel, which puts nuclear roughly on par with solar. Nuclear energy also excels from a construction perspective; it requires only one-tenth of the steel, concrete and glass that a solar or wind farm of equivalent wattage would need, and covers far less space.
While nuclear is low-carbon, materially efficient, and largely immune to intermittency issues, surely it must still be too dangerous, as disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima demonstrate. In spite of the ubiquity of this critique, nuclear is on average one of the safest energy technologies out there, averaging just 0.07 deaths per terawatt-hour of power generated (for reference, coal is around 25).
Experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency assess the damage at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. In spite of nuclear’s relative safety, water-cooled reactors, such as this one, are vulnerable to meltdowns should the pumps that circulate water become damaged or inoperable. Photo via Wiki Media.
Diagram of a molten-salt reactor concept. As opposed to more conventional designs, this reactor uses a liquid salt as both the coolant and the liquid in which fuel is suspended. This setup confers numerous safety advantages, including the fact that the reaction is largely self-stabilizing and doesn’t require constant cooling. Photo via Wiki Media.
Nonetheless, in the exceedingly rare chance that systems do fail, the results are catastrophic. The designs of power plants like Fukushima and Chernobyl need a constant stream of water to cool the reactor; should the pump be brought offline by, say, a tsunami, then the uranium core violently overheats and causes a meltdown. However, when generalized to nuclear as a whole, these critiques sometimes ignore the evolving nature of the technology. The conventional water-cooled reactor is seen as outdated by many, and a whole slew of innovative new designs are currently in the works, from cheap modular varieties to molten-salt reactors that are physically incapable of having a meltdown.
Current power plant designs are ripe for innovation. In addition to their risk of meltdowns, many only extract a fraction of the energy from their fuel, leaving upwards of 90% of the uranium unreacted. Many new reactor concepts promise to more efficiently utilize their fuel, significantly cutting down on waste, which is arguably nuclear’s biggest hurdle.
Even so, none of this is to say that nuclear fission is a standout solution to our energy woes. Disagreements on where to store all of the radioactive waste still rage on, current designs face enormous economic barriers to increased adoption, and many of the newer technologies, while promising, are only in the prototype phase. Additionally, usable fissile fuel is a finite resource, and while it will almost certainly outlast fossil fuels by at least several hundred years, a truly renewable energy mix is the end goal.
Nevertheless, renewables like wind and solar currently face numerous barriers to wider adoption; no matter how one slices it, the grid and storage infrastructure required to support them would incur an enormous logistical and economic burden. A reliable, high-density power source like fission could significantly alleviate intermittency issues. Instead of vilifying nuclear, perhaps we should recognize it as the complex, imperfect and nuanced beast that it is. Perhaps, as this brief overview has hopefully shown, we ought to consider the nuclear option.