Nuclear energy. It calls to mind the most destructive force harnessed by mankind: just two bombs silenced the world collectively into consideration of how dangerous we have become to ourselves, from a total global arsenal of over 70,000 similar warheads; and Chernobyl, that claimed 30 lives and 1,000 square miles as uninhabitable.
These fears continue to this day, with the potential proliferation of fissile material; waste material production; threat of meltdown; and competition against renewable energy technology. As fears, they are understandable – but will they be conquered?
UK Nuclear Energy
In 1997, 26% of supply came from nuclear power. Since then, 11 plants have closed, leaving just 8 still in operation (all planned to close by 2035). The latest plant began construction in 1988: none have been built since. It’s no coincidence that the Chernobyl event occurred in 1986. In 2018, almost 19% of electricity supply came from nuclear power.
So two things are clear here. Nuclear power both remains a significant part of UK Energy supply, and is a technology that has fallen out of favour.
That drop in nuclear energy supply, it could be said, has been recovered through renewable sources. However, that’s still 7% of supply that was taken from nuclear sources rather than fossil fuel sources. Over the same time period, the UK saw fracking projects emerge and the construction of new CCGT (combined cycle gas turbine) plants to utilise it. CCGT supplies more energy than any other source on average, and comprises almost 100% of current fossil fuel consumption in the UK.
Recession from Nuclear energy directly translated into increased fossil fuel consumption and it continues to do so.
Nuclear also continues to be a foundational, reliable promise of energy. Take these examples:
If you weren’t looking for it, you might mistake that straight grey bar at the bottom as just a part of the graph. That’s nuclear supply over a day span. The yellow-orange above it is CCGT.
The Fukushima event in 2011 further secured fear of the technology, although it resulted in no injuries and was a direct result of the Tohoku earthquake and Tsunami, which themselves took 19,000 lives. Instead of a success story for how reactor failure under extreme conditions can be mitigated and dealt with, it became another simplified case study to quiveringly point at.
8 years later, with lessons learned and fear somewhat subsided, 4 new reactor designs are undergoing consideration for new UK builds. The USA experienced a similar journey through these events, with similar resurfacing confidence in the face of data.
Dynamite in a Cigarette – Perception of Risk
Decision analysis is a complex process, and we all use our own sense of judgement to ‘make a call’ depending on circumstance. Whether or not you walk out into the middle of a motorway with a blindfold on is a relatively easy decision. Whether or not you eat that greasy burger is less so.
Ronald A. Howard, a pioneer of modern decision analysis and theory introduced an interesting concept: the Micromort. That is, the 1 in a million chance of death. If an event or action ‘costs’ 1,000,000 Micromorts, that means certain death. Going for a walk on the moon without astronaut PPE, for instance.
Let’s pretend for a moment that tobacco poses no risk to human health. However, 1 in every 1 million cigarettes will fatally explode. There would be far fewer smokers. And yet, statistically, just as many people would die from cigarettes as they do now.
Driving, sky-diving, eating tasty food, crossing the street – just by living and breathing and being born in the first place, we’re exposed to micromorts on a daily basis. The trick is to decide which micromorts are worth ‘paying’ and which aren’t.
How does this apply here?
This is a matter of perception of risk. The fear of a nuclear event, as extremely improbable and containable as it is, has a greater mental impact than the very certain and irreversible danger of fossil fuel consumption.
We don’t get to choose whether or not we pay micromorts, we only get to choose where we spend them. Nuclear power exposes us to significantly fewer ‘micromorts’: vastly safer. In terms of carbon cost to power output over a full lifecycle, it can even out-value current solar technology.
Accidents Averted, but Intentions Vile?
Weaponry. We’ve dealt with forces of nature, but what of force of humankind? Intentional use of fissile material for significant damage is always a factor. And we’ll be exploring this more in a later article on Thorium Reactor technology and its remarkable capabilities for future energy – both on Earth and beyond.
On a broader scale, encouraging nuclear plant development in developing countries brings the greatest benefits. While the proliferation of nuclear material to more nations carries the fear of nuclear weapons programs, the reality seems to suggest this fear is.
30 years ago, we were at the peak of nuclear armaments globally, with over 70,000 across all capable nations. Since then, over 50,000 of these have been gradually dismantled, their fissile material repurposed for energy generation. Perhaps one of the greatest methods for disarming the world is simply to provide a much higher value purpose for the same material.
What’s Next?
With renewables developing at the rate it is, it’s tempting to consider nuclear to be inconsequential – to bypass it entirely.
And while that has a certain validity to it, it overlooks some key points. Energy storage is still a significant challenge that is likely to take longer than renewable energy harnessing itself. Even with an average of 10 years construction time for new plants, nuclear power can carry the burden void left behind. It can replace fossil fuel usage much more rapidly, accelerating climate targets massively. In 100 years time, it’s highly probable that the vast majority of global energy will be renewable, with that last, tricky 1% of supply maintained by nuclear, instead of gas.
Under 20 comparable new plants would be enough to totally replace fossil fuel energy generation in the UK – far fewer with upcoming Gen IV technology. For context, 39 CCGT plants are active, and around 20 other fossil fuel plants are still in operation.
Earth isn’t where our story ends. Renewable energy technology we are currently developing simply isn’t as effective off-world. Solar panels on Mars are around 20% as efficient as on Earth. For budding and flourishing long-term missions and outposts, we need a lot more oomph. Nuclear technology will be vital, which means research is vital, which means we need to be actively using it so these projects receive the funding they need.
China, amongst others, is still in its rapid industrialisation phase, something Europe and the USA have already passed through. This, combined with its huge population, means a significant ramp up in carbon emissions over the last 20 years. Today, it emits almost twice the amount as the US. However, per capita, it emits just over a third. A key part of their success is their continued expansion of existing plants with new and improved reactors, new plants in construction, and more firmly planned in the coming years.
So is nuclear the miracle cure or the terrifying downfall of humankind? As is usually the case, the truth lies somewhere in between. Its strength is both awesome and awful.
Are you looking to change career and gain a recognised trade skill?
New Trades Career
See new trades career reviews and students stories >>
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...