Nuclear Energy: When Availability Bias Kills
La Loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte (Energy Transition for Green Growth bill) was adopted by the French government led by François Hollande. One of its main objectives is to reduce nuclear energy consumption to a threshold of 50% by 2025. This de-escalation, however, was quickly postponed by President Macron.
In Germany, Angela Merkel’s decision to phase out nuclear energy production by 2022 came following a public outcry in 2011 after the Fukushima disaster. It is hard not to call it cheap populism. Very few logical arguments have been brought forward. On the contrary, experts have warned that this transition would not be possible without increasing the consumption of coal. The Chancellor’s promise was a quick way to gain support – a short-term decision that would hurt all of us in the long term.
Most of the public outcry comes from fear. The Chernobyl incident, more than 30 years ago, prevents our leaders from discussing nuclear energy in logical terms.
Looking closely at death rates, one can clearly see that no alternatives come close to nuclear energy in terms of safeness. Being afraid of nuclear energy is not very different than arguing that planes are more dangerous than cars: you may give as many examples of gruesome accidents as you’d like, you will always be wrong. Nuclear energy actually saves lives. According to NASA, between 1971 and 2009, 1.8 million deaths were prevented by the use of nuclear power. The number of deaths attributable to nuclear energy? Around 5,000, in large part due to one accident mishandled by the Soviet Union.
In 2011 in England, wind energy accounted for 15 billion kWh, resulting in 14 deaths. Nuclear energy? 90 billion kWh with no reported deaths. One could argue that nuclear energy is safe until it is not – the year 2011 might have been a good one, but the day things go wrong, the number of deaths will outweigh the good years.
Since Chernobyl, no accidents have resulted in more than 10 deaths. According to the WHO, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster will result in virtually no deaths in the long run. One man died from cancer in 2018, which was attributed to the event. Surprisingly enough, most of the deaths reported were caused by the evacuation. According to Malcom Grimston, honorary senior research fellow at Imperial College, if first responders adopted a 'do more good than harm approach', “we would abandon forced evacuation altogether, especially where iodine tables are available."
There have been less recorded fatalities related to nuclear energy in the U.S. than there have been protests opposing nuclear energy.
In a day and age in which every alternative is being considered – from planting a trillion trees to nuclear fusion – we are straying away from what could be one of the most safe and efficient way to reduce our CO2 emission.
The only logical arguments that could stand between our current state and a complete adoption of nuclear energy is the handling of waste and its costs.
Even then, waste is manageable, which at this point should be enough to jump on the bandwagon. It is not to say that waste disposal is a non-issue, but more that in the current climate change crisis, it feels like a non-issue. According to Nicolas Fortier, master’s student at McGill university, “nuclear waste is becoming less of a problem on two levels – firstly compared to the climate catastrophe that is already under way, and secondly thanks to technological advances”. By technological advances, Nicolas Fortier is referring to the fact that new reactors are much more efficient than old power plants and can operate rods for a much longer time. China, for one, is building these reactors. Furthermore, some of these new reactors also run on radioactive salts that are made from spent fuel rods. They tap directly in our reserves of waste, generating plenty of electricity and effectively reducing our waste to a minimum. He adds that we already restrict access some areas, like mines for example, to protect the public from health concerns. Allocating space to dispose of radioactive waste is not much different. One kilogram of uranium is enough to power NYC for over 2 days. For comparison, the Chernobyl sarcophagus holds around 200 tonnes of nuclear waste – enough to power NYC for over 1,000 years.
As for the cost, it is fair to have reservations about nuclear power plants. In 2011, nuclear energy had the cheapest production cost, at 2.10 cents per kilowatt hour. Coal production costs averaged 3.23 cents per kilowatt hour and natural gas production costs averaged 4.51 cents per kilowatt hour.
However, nuclear power plants take around 50 months to be built and have high capital costs. While they are complex to build, France is a great example that it is possible to build quickly. The Messmer Plan, launched by Prime Minister Pierre Messmer to reduce France’s reliance on oil, was a huge success.
The capital costs to build power plants has significantly increased in the last few years, notably because we build so few. However, according a report published in 2015 by the International Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency, nuclear energy is very much in line with coal and natural gas in terms of costs, including capital costs.
According to a Dr. David Petti, Emeritus Laboratory Fellow at the Idaho National Laboratory, very little of the enormous capital cost has to do with the actual nuclear reactor. Most of it is related to the supply chain, the design and the overall management of the construction, something that could be worked on if we really wanted to.
Nuclear power plants can be built pretty much everywhere and are extremely efficient. Nuclear energy releases no greenhouse gases (other than from the transportation of uranium), is not a hazard to water and is much more reliable than other alternatives – in 2016 in the U.S., nuclear power plants operated on average 92% of the time, compared to 38%, 35% and 25% for hydroelectric facilities, wind turbines and solar power stations, respectively.
It is not that the adoption of nuclear energy is not worth debating. The problem is that the discussion often revolves around misconception about the risks associated with the technology. Costs, efficiency and emissions should drive the discussion, not some made up fear.