Nuclear Station – Photo Credit : Petar Avramoski
Since the 1970s, the debate about nuclear energy has involved various actors: pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear environmental associations, environmental political parties,and the state in partnership with the nuclear industry. Widely criticized in the 1970s for long-term pollution because of long-term radioactive nuclear waste, nuclear power is now seen as an ecological solution to fight against climate change – as we must reduce global warming and preserve ecosystems. Some ecological positions are accepted by all parties: for example, there is no debate about the fact we should all go vegan or vegetarian to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and tackle climate change. Some people do it, some people don’t but those who don’t can’t say that eating meat is more ecological. On the contrary, the debate about using nuclear energy remains a question that divides ecologists. As we face climate emergency, the question is whether or not we can make reasonable use of this technology in our societies.
Some positions on this debate are clear-cut. For instance, it is common to hear on one side that nuclear power can have dangerous consequences on health and the environment. Anti-nuclear parties point above all the risks of accidents, radioactive pollution of water tables or air, and the problem of nuclear waste storage. Radioactive pollution can cause deaths in the worst cases, or provoke diseases, like cancer, as it was the case for the Chernobyl accident. It can also render an area uninhabitable to humankind, like the radius of 30 km around Chernobyl, in addition to having negative impacts and long-term effects on ecosystems. Fortunately, the probability of these events is quite low thanks to strong security devices. If despite the precautions taken, an accident should nevertheless occur, the consequences would be serious like in France where we have about 50 reactors in use.
For now,the situation is well-handledhowever,nuclear power parks ageing could make all the difference in the mid and long-term if security isneglected. The major problem evoked by anti-nuclear parties is more about radioactivity and waste. For example, after storing waste for a while in marine pits with a risk of pollution, France opted to bury its radioactive products in deep geological layers. The debate then crystallized on the Cigéo project which aims to bury the most radioactive or long-lived elements 500 metres underground. A project that can prove dangerous over time with risks of floods, fires,and external aggressions, according to nuclear physicists like the scientist Bernard Laponche. And what about climate change? The increasing scarcity of water is indeed a strong point against nuclear power. The projected temperature rises mean less water in the future, yet nuclear reactors need water like big rivers to be cooled. All of these are the main arguments against using nuclear power.
Mineral Extraction – Photo Credit : Kelly Lacy
Pro-nuclear parties, on the other side, point above all to the low environmental impact of this industryfrom a carbon footprint standpoint. Compared to other means of energy production (coal-fired power plants, gas-fired power plants, etc.),the climate emergency drives the choice of nuclear technology. It is effectively one of the cleanest and safest ways to produce electricity without emitting greenhouse gas, mainly carbon dioxide (CO2). Nowadays, mineral fossil combustion releases greenhouse gas emissions which are the cause of global warming. Nuclear fields use a principle that is different from combustion, which is fission. As a result, power plants do not emit CO2 to generate electricity. No one seems to be saying the opposite among environmentalists. Greenpeace, who is known for positions against nuclear energy in France, writes on its website: “Nuclear is an energy that emits very little CO2”, which does not mean that nuclear energy is not emitting gas emissions. On carbon dioxide, the 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report notes that nuclear emits substantially less CO2 per kilowatt-hour thanrenewable energy (between 10 and 50g CO2 per kWh). Thus, the environmental impact of nuclear activities is used as an argument both by those who defend it and by those who oppose it.
Even if nuclear power can be dangerous, it is, at present, with wind and solar, one of the safest energy sources. However, storage exists only in small areas at the global scale; better solutions regarding the storage of radioactive waste must be found to ensure long-term environmental safety. Compared to nuclear energy, coal and oil cause many more deaths by accidents or air pollution, but renewable energies require the extraction of strong pollutants which can cause air pollution or diseases,making them, in this way, less desirable than nuclear. Otherwise, nuclear is also a great solution to maximize productivity with the lowest CO2 emission levels. This makes it, for now, the cleanest and safest form of energy production. Once again, nuclear fusion exists at the research phase and could resolve waste and radioactivity issues in the future, because it provides access to a low-carbon energy source while creating only a short-lived source of radioactive waste.
More realistically, recent progress in the nuclear industryis aiming to close the cycle of uranium and plutonium – which are the combustibles extracted to power nuclear reaction and the two main and most dangerous wastes. If those components are consistently recycled, the radioactive waste which needs to be stocked is very limited. Besides, as we don’t know how to store electricity perfectly, adapting power upon request is easier to do with a tightly controlled technology like nuclear compared to renewable sources. Nevertheless, battery prototype development already exists and could be commercialized in the future to respond to the electricity market throughwind or solar.
Activism against air pollution – Photo credit : Markus Spiske
From a scientific point of view, nuclear power can effectively and rationally be a great energy source to tackle climate change. But this assumption is based on the fact that the production and consumption energy systems are not challenged. From another perspective, one might ask whether a system that designs, finances, supports, and perpetuates burying nuclear waste in the ground for thousands of years and which relies on technological progress to solve the climate crisis can create a viable future. The question of using nuclear isless a technological issue but more of an ethical problem. Perhaps the real debate would therefore focus on how our energy is used and how its consumption can be reduced, not how it is produced. Actually, in a capitalist model, we only think about consuming our products and producingmore, or more efficiently, but we also could choose energy sobriety. If we reduce our electricity consumption, our society could reduce and maybe abandon the use of nuclear energy in the long-term – and that is up to you to think about.
References :
(2001). L’énergie nucléaire : l’impossible débat : Entretien avec François Roussely. Hérodote, 1(1), 97-108. https://doi.org/10.3917/her.100.009
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
https://www.sfen.org/rgn/solution-efficace-changement-climatique
This article was written by Jeanne Talamona and Perrine Lambert, all Master’s students in the Muséum’s “Society & Biodiversity”specialization
Muséum national d'histoire naturelle 