Nuclear - Clean and Reliable Energy
Global Clean Energy
In order to stay on track to meet the goal of net zero emissions by 2050, low carbon energy sources need to meet the interim goal of generating 75% of global energy by 2030, according to the IEA.
That goal can only be reached if most of the world's energy mix is renewable and nuclear energy combined by 2030. Although renewable energy is projected to make up the majority of that low carbon mix, nuclear is projected to still be a significant share of global clean energy (at least 10%).
Today, nuclear and renewable energy are widely used climate solutions needed in order to reach the 2030 goal. Other low carbon energy sources will hopefully come online at a commercial scale in the next several years to help fill in the gap of ambitious global net zero goals.
Nuclear and renewable energy both represent currently available, large-scale energy technologies. In the IEA World Energy Outlook, renewables are projected to be about 60%, and nuclear just over 10%, of global energy by 2030. This is the necessary future energy mix in order to reach the 2030 low carbon global energy mix goal.
Zero emission energy
However, unlike wind and solar, nuclear continuously generates energy, representing reliable energy with the highest capacity factor of any energy source. A pound of nuclear fuel holds 1 million times more potential for energy production than a pound of fossil fuels, and fossil fuels have a higher energy density than renewables, so nuclear has the highest energy density of any energy source.
Widespread global use of nuclear energy will help the world reach net zero emissions faster. Burning nuclear fuel emits no carbon. GHG emissions from the lifecycle of nuclear power plants are on par with wind and solar. These are not emissions associated with the generation of energy; rather emissions during the lifecycle of the power plant or renewable energy farm.
So, emissions are generated during the transportation of needed capital for the power plant or energy farm, for example. Mining and transporting uranium for fuel is another example. Capital development for these energy sources is another example of an activity that produces GHGs. Looking at the lifecycle assessment of GHGs from nuclear, solar, and wind - nuclear is roughly an equivalent producer of GHGs as those renewable energy sources.
"Building solar, wind or nuclear plants creates an insignificant carbon footprint compared with savings from avoiding fossil fuels, a new study suggests. The research, published in Nature Energy, measures the full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of a range of sources of electricity out to 2050. It shows that the carbon footprint of solar, wind and nuclear power [is very low]. This remains true after accounting for emissions during manufacture, construction, and fuel supply." [FROM - carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints]
Does a nuclear power plant produce CO2 emissions?
To be clear, once a nuclear power plant is at the operational stage, carbon dioxide emissions from a nuclear reactor are zero. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) from mining and refining uranium into nuclear fuel, transporting uranium to nuclear power plants, transporting toxic waste from nuclear sites to safely store the waste, and maintenance for nuclear reactors are energy-intensive activities that do produce GHGs.
Therefore, nuclear energy production must be considered as a part of the world energy mix needed to fight anthropogenic climate change. [Note: neither nuclear nor renewables are actually completely "zero" GHG emissions, but both are relatively just as close to zero emissions as possible; and close enough to zero to be worthy of being called "clean energy", "zero emission" energy sources].
The water vapor seen coming from nuclear cooling towers is the only emission from actual nuclear power generation; the result of steam created by using water for cooling. Renewable energy and nuclear energy both produce little to no GHGs during the energy production process, no CO2, and both forms of energy do not contribute significantly to anthropogenic climate change.
Is nuclear energy clean energy?
Nuclear power is somewhat clean (see the notes about toxic waste generated by nuclear power plants below). Nuclear energy is becoming much safer (see the notes about Gen IV nuclear below).
Nuclear energy, though NOT a renewable energy source, represents a much more concentrated source of energy than fossil fuels or renewables. The capacity factor of nuclear energy is one of its best features, along with the reliability of nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy has a significantly higher energy production capacity than other energy sources. This is especially true considering that only a relatively small quantity of nuclear fuel (uranium currently, thorium for future consideration in Gen III, IV plants - see below) is required for nuclear power plants.
A small amount of fossil fuel, say 1 kg of coal, can only keep a light bulb lit for a few days; while the same quantity of fuel from a nuclear energy source will keep the same bulb lit for well over 100 years. Nuclear does this without any CO2, or most other GHG emissions, generated from the power plant.
Summation of the global need for nuclear energy
Wind and solar are intermittent renewable energy sources. Nuclear energy, while not a renewable energy source, is an energy-dense, consistently dischargeable, fuel source. Nuclear is also a zero carbon emissions source.
In order to provide global zero emission energy on a scale to mitigate climate change, both nuclear and renewable energy's contribution to energy production on the planet must increase. The immediate goal, fully attainable, should be getting zero and low carbon energy to a combined energy production level that is significantly more than what coal alone currently provides (almost 40% of total global energy production is from coal).
Advanced nuclear (small modular reactor, Gen IV nuclear, some Gen III - see below) are designed to be much safer and efficient than current reactors.
Both nuclear and renewable energy are needed in the global energy mix to help fight climate change
In order to cut down on the share of fossil fuels in the world energy mix, nuclear is necessary. As of today, a total of WELL OVER 40% of the world's energy mix for renewable and nuclear energies combined is needed to reach significant greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Over 40% is not a final goal, but represents a realistic initial goal on the path toward the target of over 70% clean, zero emission global energy generation.
To achieve a significant GHG emissions reduction target for the planet, the world needs nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is going to have to augment truly environmentally friendly, renewable energy in the effort to dramatically reduce fossil fuel use.
How much of the world's energy is nuclear?
Nuclear reactors provided 10% of the world's total energy sources, on average annually, during the last decade. 13 countries get at least 1/4 of their energy from nuclear, including France (which gets around 3/4 from nuclear), Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, and Finland.
Nuclear energy is also put to great use in the US, China, Russia, and South Korea, among other countries. Now is probably as good of a time as any in this article to mention a couple of major drawbacks (to put it mildly) of nuclear energy.
Namely the danger- catastrophic disasters due to large-scale accidents like the one at Fukushima, Japan, the enrichment of uranium in order to create nuclear weapons, and the difficult, expensive process of securely managing the disposal of nuclear waste.
The former major problems mentioned (and less waste generated by the nuclear process - Gen IV theoretically can just run on spent uranium) are resolved in the 4th generation nuclear reactor designs, discussed below.
Current reactors, mostly Gen I & II nuclear plants, along with several operational Gen III plants, rely on uranium and water (to cool the plants). Therefore, these nuclear plants still deplete water supplies, create nuclear waste, use a fuel source that can be enriched to convert the material into a bomb, and represent a source of potential danger.
The largest nuclear disaster in history was the Chernobyl disaster (although the risk of nuclear disaster is dramatically minimized in a Gen III plant, and eliminated in Gen IV nuclear. Some Gen IV designs dramatically cut the need for water to cool plants, as well).
Here's a brief snippet from the World Nuclear Association summarizing nuclear energy's current role in the global energy mix:
The first commercial nuclear power stations started operation in the 1950s.
Nuclear energy now provides about 10% of the world's electricity from about 440 power reactors.
Nuclear is the world's second largest source of low-carbon power (29% of the total in 2018).
Over 50 countries utilise nuclear energy in about 220 research reactors. In addition to research, these reactors are used for the production of medical and industrial isotopes, as well as for training. [FROM - world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx]
Advanced nuclear reactors
Safer, cheaper, still energy abundant and emissions-free designs that use relatively benign energy sources (thorium or depleted uranium), and much less water for cooling the reactor than previous designs and current operational nuclear plants, are being envisioned in 4th generation nuclear, and are currently available in a few 3rd generation nuclear power plant designs.
Using a small fraction of the water as in previous designs, Gen IV nuclear plant designs are safe, cost-effective, environmentally friendly, and still offer tremendous potential for energy production. Molten salt reactors using depleted uranium, nuclear waste from other plants, or thorium as a complete replacement of uranium, are being planned in Gen IV nuclear plant designs. 4th generation designs (and many 3rd generation plants, both planned and operational) are autonomous, smart plants, with heightened safety measures.
Thorium is being looked at as a fuel source for new nuclear reactors, as it is abundant, much less radioactive than uranium, and creates by-products from burning the fuel source that can be used again in the reactor. There is a higher level of thorium than uranium on the planet.
Thorium, as well as depleted uranium, are being designed with relatively lower up-front capital costs. Little manpower is needed to run and maintain future, advanced 4th generation nuclear plants, due to the autonomous computer technology set to be deployed in the plants.
Summation of the benefits of advanced nuclear reactors
Nuclear reactors designed to run on thorium and depleted uranium, have a very low chance of being used to develop nuclear weapons, produce less radioactive waste, are abundant fuel sources; and are safer, more cost-efficient in addition to being energy-efficient, and cleaner vis-a-vis energy generation compared to current widely deployed nuclear reactors.
Thorium, in particular, is being looked at by developing nations like China and India because of the relatively low cost, increased safety, an abundance of the material, and tremendous energy potential of this energy source. The U.S. has huge amounts of thorium, in places like Kentucky and Idaho (as well as depleted uranium); and there are large quantities in countries like India, Australia, and Brazil.
The U.S., Europe, and even some of the aforementioned developing countries, also have large stockpiles of depleted uranium. More depleted uranium is being produced every day, which would work in many of the 4th generation designs. A few 3rd generation nuclear plants are already operating, and some more are projected to be developed and ready for operation by 2025. 4th Gen nuclear promises to produce abundant, low-cost energy safely, and with little environmental impact.
In order to meet increased demand for low-emission, safer, lower up-front capital investment, and high-efficiency energy sources, there has also been an increased global interest in light water small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). The benefits of nuclear SMRs include-
Small modular reactors offer a lower initial capital investment, greater scalability, and siting flexibility for locations unable to accommodate more traditional larger reactors. They also have the potential for enhanced safety and security compared to earlier designs. Deployment of advanced SMRs can help drive economic growth. [From - USDOE Office of Nuclear Energy]
One other "good" thing about nuclear energy production is that there are fairly low marginal costs. There are little to no negative externalities with regard to the actual energy production (i.e. little to no GHG emissions); however current nuclear power plants do generate toxic waste. Ongoing costs are fuel and maintenance of nuclear plants; the uranium to fuel the plants, and water to cool the plants, and toxic waste disposal facilities.
Large toxic waste disposal locations are necessary to bury the radioactive waste so people aren't exposed to potentially cancer-causing radiation. Nuclear power plants also carry high up-front capital costs.
Even when looking at the downsides of current technologies for nuclear energy production, 4th generation nuclear promises to be safe, cost-efficient (the cost of new nuclear fuel is low), and environmentally friendly, with a very high energy production capacity given a relatively small quantity of nuclear fuel need for energy production (whenever 4th-gen nuclear gets built).
New reactors can (theoretically) run on spent uranium and even thorium. 4th generation nuclear has entirely safe, cost-efficient designs. Actually, the levelized cost of energy production from new, advanced nuclear reactors that are already available, deployed, and generating nuclear energy, is looking viable.
For a comprehensive guide on public policy that increases nuclear energy globally, in order to help fight anthropogenic climate change, please see: Public policy proposal to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions
Please also see: