First and foremost, the response to whether or not we should have nuclear energy should not be based on the assumption that every reactor will blow up one day and cause a global meltdown. It should also be acknowledged that one ton of uranium can produce as much as two million tonnes of oil equivalents (TOEs).
This article will also acknowledge that events like Chernobyl and Fukushima are very rare occurrences. With the increase of research and technology going into nuclear energy, these occurrences will become even more infrequent, and future occurrences will be contained so that less damage is done. However, in discussing the costs of nuclear energy, the costs of research and technology need to be taken into consideration, as well as the costs incurred when a reactor fails, such as when safety triggers fail or an earthquake and tsunami hit the plant.
This is a debate that many governments have been discussing, with clear differences in decisions that are being made, such as between Germany and France. In May of this year, the German government announced that they would be shutting down many of their nuclear power plants, with the goal of removing all of their nuclear plants by the year 2022. The reason for giving themselves eleven years is to have enough time to research and implement other energy sources that are renewable and do not have a high cost of failure.
On the other hand, in the last couple of weeks, France has announced that they will be upgrading a number of their nuclear plants, as well as investing one billion Euros (approximately 1.4 billion CAD) into their nuclear program. The reasoning behind this is that that they want to avoid what happened at Fukushima, and with enough funding, they believe that these types of incidents will not happen again.
Every country is developing different policies regarding the funding allocated to renewable energy. Germany is stating that they will not be putting any funding into nuclear power. This will lead to more research groups and companies investing their resources into finding alternative sources of energy. In France, policy makers are taking the opposite approach that nuclear energy is the best option, and that it will be around for a long time. They are putting resources and research into nuclear energy to make it safer and more reliable in the future.
This counterpoint will outline the reasons why nuclear energy is not the right choice. For starters, no matter how much research is going into nuclear energy, there is always going to be a cost of failure that arises when nuclear energy is being used, such as what happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima. The incidents had high death tolls and damages, some of which were irreversible, were done to the environment. Even if billions of dollars are spent to make a nuclear power plant nearly safe, there is that risk that all the systems in place can still fail. When that happens, there will be major consequences. If another energy source is researched that does not have the same disastrous consequences if everything fails, then that option should be chosen before nuclear energy is considered. Following Germany’s lead on trying to phase out nuclear energy on a national level, more companies will be willing to put their money into another energy source, which may lead to a source of energy that is renewable and safer.
Another problem with nuclear energy is that there is no fail-safe way to dispose of the waste that is produced by the reactors. While methods have been introduced that can avoid damaging the surrounding environment and community, the waste is still dangerous if those systems fail after a long period of time. If nuclear energy is continued, more of this type of waste will exist in the world. The probability for such outcomes may be limited, but either humankind will run out of space to put the waste, or there will be so much waste that it will be likely that a couple of these systems will fail.
Global warming is another issue that is often brought up during discussions on different energy sources. One reason some people feel that nuclear energy is beneficial is because it doesn’t release any greenhouse gases. This is false when the entire life cycle of nuclear energy is taken into account. The methods for mining uranium, purifying the uranium so that it can be used in the reactor, maintaining the reactors, and eliminating the remaining waste products all require energy that is not just nuclear, but also gas and other sources that destroy the environment. Now, there can be an argument that this is the same issue with any energy source, including many common renewable energy sources. However, the difference between them is that if a good renewable energy source is found, there won’t be the need for as much energy to be put into protecting the plant and the surrounding environment from a failure. Also, other sources of energy may not need very highly technological devices to maintain the waste, or if it does, efficient, long-term methods can be found much more easily.
The last reason that nuclear energy should be avoided is from the engineering perspective of sustainability. Nuclear energy is not technically a renewable energy source, and while it may be likely to last longer than oil reserves, it will still run out or get to a point where using it is too expensive. On the principle of helping the next generation, it is better to work towards finding an alternative energy source now rather than wait until we are on the verge of running out of resources or destroying our environment, even though this may not happen for a number of years.
It is the hope that readers here see that nuclear energy is very costly, and no matter how much the costs can be reduced, there is always the risk of a devastating failure. There is also the risk of what to do with the waste and what to do with maintaining the system during its operation in order to keep it from failing. Lastly, nuclear energy is not a fully renewable resource and will cause a problem sometime down the road.
Leave a Reply