NUCLEAR ENERGY: A RADIANT FUTURE?

Saubere Sache?

How much carbon dioxide (CO₂) does a nuclear power plant really emit? The figures vary considerably, since calculations are based on a range of assumptions and scenarios. The Umweltbundesamt, Germany’s central environmental protection authority, quotes an article on CO₂ by the broadsheet newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung in which the entire life cycle of all types of energy sources is compared. In the direct comparison of carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt-hour (kWh) – the energy equal to one kilowatt of power sustained for one hour – nuclear energy comes in at third place with 16 to 23 grams of emissions. The first and second places are occupied by water and wind power, with solar energy only making it to fourth place. Fossil fuels – natural gas, crude oil, hard coal and lignite – are to be found at the bottom of the chart, with carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt hour varying from 410 grams to 1,230 grams. [1] If nuclear power plants were to produce their own fuel, which only a few are capable of doing, carbon dioxide emissions would be close to zero – but only during the generation of electricity. With nuclear power, most of the CO₂ emissions are incurred either before or after electricity production, for example during the extraction of the fuel uranium and during the erection and dismantling of the reactor, when, among other materials, a large amount of concrete is needed .[2] When the fuel – for example uranium – required for operating a nuclear power plant has been used up, it needs to be disposed of. The big problem in this regard is that some of the components created by nuclear fission emit nuclear radiation – with amounts decreasing over time, but still radiating for a total period of more than one million years. This radiation can damage plants, animals and humans. [3] In order to protect the environment from nuclear waste, the search for safe repositories, be they temporary or permanent, is underway. So far, however, the latter do not exist. But this could soon change: in Finland, the first permanent repository for high-level radioactive waste is scheduled to be commissioned in 2020.

HOW SAFE IS NUCLEAR ENERGY?

With nuclear power, the greatest dangers for the environment and humankind lie in the accident risk it poses. Accidents in nuclear power plants can cause radioactive material to escape, contaminating the environment extensively and permanently. In 1986, a nuclear catastrophe occurred at Chernobyl in the Ukraine when the reactor exploded after overheating, causing more than 350,000 people to flee the region. The Chernobyl Forum works from the basis that thousands may have perished, many of them dying from the long-term effects. In 2011, a nuclear power plant at Fukushima in Japan exploded following an earthquake, leading to the evacuation of around 160,000 people. [4] According to a study by the Max Planck Institute, an accident like the one that happened at Fukushima could occur every ten to 20 years – 200 times more often than previously assumed. [5] In addition, nuclear power plants are potential targets for military attacks, and some reactors are a source of nuclear-weapons-grade material. [6] The risk of an accident, or of nuclear proliferation, will increase if we increase the number of nuclear power plants to compensate for the loss of fossil energy supplies. Fossil fuels still generate more than 80 percent of the world’s energy, whereas nuclear power provides only around five percent of the total energy. [7] A large number of nuclear power plants would therefore have to be built to continue to produce the same total amount of energy. But other energy sources could be hazardous to humans too. Advocates of nuclear power claim that coal-fired power plants cause permanent, and supposedly even greater, damage: according to estimates by the Heinrich Böll Foundation and the foundation Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND), more than 18,000 people die each year in the European Union as a result of air pollution caused by coal production and coal-fired power plants. [8] According to the report, the figures across the world vary. Risks are linked especially to particulate matter and heavy metals, which are said to damage the human body, for example, by causing lung function disorders, poorer brain circulation, high blood pressure, cardiac arrhythmia and many other health issues. Apart from emissions, coal is also harmful to people’s health due to the particulate matter produced during the process of coal extraction. Lignite mining poses a particular threat because the rock contains radioactive uranium, thorium and potassium-40. These elements accumulate in fine dust and in this way endanger our health. [9]

ENERGY – ANY TIME WE WANT?

So why not rely on solar, wind and water power to produce environmentally friendly electricity? Sceptics have pointed out that the energy output from solar and wind energy in particular tends to fluctuate unpredictably and cannot (as yet) be used – at least to the degree required – in combination with storage technologies. So far, it is not possible to predict over longer periods of time when and if the sun will shine and how strong the wind will blow – even assuming there is any wind in the first place. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, is available every day at any time. However, we do not know exactly how long we can continue to produce nuclear electricity. The main fuel used is uranium. In 2018, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimated that the world’s uranium reserves would last for approximately another 130 years. [10] If we were to build more nuclear power plants, we would consume this uranium all the more quickly – which is why researchers are also investigating reactor concepts that can recycle the fuel.

WHAT ARE THE COSTS?

Nuclear power is cheap, say its supporters. According to an investigation by the German magazine Der Spiegel, in 2019 one kilowatt hour of nuclear power in Germany cost more than ten eurocents; electricity produced by (on-shore) wind, gas or coal, by contrast, cost four to eight eurocents. So even though nuclear power is government-subsidised, it is still significantly more expensive than other (likewise subsidised) energy sources. [11] In addition, the high costs involved in the comparatively expensive dismantling of the power plants are not even included in the calculation. On top of that, the expenses of a possible repository would have to be added too.[12] The German Institute for Economic Research calculated and analysed the costs of nuclear power and came to the conclusion that it’s too expensive and dangerous. [13] Investing in a nuclear power plant with a capacity of 1,000 megawatt capacity is just not profitable – on the contrary, losses of 1.5 to 8.9 billion euros could be expected.

THE END OF NUCLEAR ENERGY?

To counter all these problems, researchers are currently developing new types of reactors known as Generation IV reactors. Factors that may vary in these types of reactor include their fuels and cooling systems as well as the size of the power plants. The new generation is supposed to be safer because the reactors are being designed to prevent them from overheating and exploding. Many of the designs also provide for fuel that cannot be used for making nuclear weapons. So far, however, Generation IV reactors are still at the research stage. More information about Generation IV reactors is available here.

The so-called travelling-wave reactor (TWR), which does not belong to the “classic” Generation IV models, has a rather experimental design. The nuclear innovation company TerraPower is currently developing this type of reactor. It is supposed to be able to recycle used radioactive fuel rods. [14] Astrophysicist and science journalist Professor Harald Lesch anticipates problems with this type of reactor, though: it requires as its cooling agent liquid sodium, which is considered to be highly flammable and therefore a potential source of trouble. [15] If it were to escape, it could cause fires that cannot be extinguished with water. Additionally, the concept as it stands only exists on paper and is based purely on computer calculations. A prototype of the travelling-wave reactor has yet to be built. Therefore, it remains unclear whether in reality it would really operate as conceived. The German Institute for Economic Research says in summary: “No technological or ecological breakthroughs are to be expected from any of the other Generation IV reactors.” [16]

NUCLEAR POWER, WHAT NEXT?

Nuclear power polarises – regardless of whether we’re talking about older or younger generations of reactors. That’s because problems such as safety and the handling of nuclear waste have not yet been resolved. Generation IV nuclear power plants want to provide solutions, but it is still uncertain whether they are capable of doing so. The fundamental question remains whether nuclear energy should continue to be part of our future energy concept.

SIDE NOTE

Under the Kyoto Protocol, the German government committed itself to reducing by 20 percent by 2020 the emissions of the seven[J1] major greenhouse gases that are believed to contribute to global warming [17] [18] – and by up to 40 percent by 2030 compared to 1990. [19] At 88 percent (as of 2017), carbon dioxide (CO₂) accounts for the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions in Germany. [20] According to the Umweltbundesamt, the conversion of fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas) into electricity, fuel and heat accounts for the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions (84.5 percent). [21]

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES

1] https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/406432/70f77c4c170d9048d88dcc3071b7721c/wd-8-056-07-pdf-data.pdf, p. 21

[2] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/service/uba-fragen/ist-atomstrom-wirklich-CO2-frei

[3] https://www.spektrum.de/wissen/6-fakten-ueber-unseren-atommuell-und-dessen-entsorgung/1342930

[4] https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/boerse/fukushima-jahrestag-103.html

[5] J. Lelieveld, D. Kunkel, M.G. Lawrence (2012): Global Risk of Radioactive Fallout after Major Nuclear Reactor Accidents. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 12 (9). 4245–4258

[6] Der Spiegel, „Strahlend grün“ by Philip Bethge, 14 December 2019

[7] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/167998/umfrage/weltweiter-energiemix-nach-energietraeger/

[8] https://fr.boell.org/sites/default/files/kohleatlas20151.pdf, p. 20

[9] https://fr.boell.org/sites/default/files/kohleatlas20151.pdf, p. 21

[10] https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/nuclear-energy/uranium-2018_uranium-2018-en#page109

[11] Der Spiegel, „Strahlend grün“ by Philip Bethge, 14 December 2019 / https://www.bund-naturschutz.de/wirtschaft-umwelt/erneuerbare-energien-sind-zu-teuer.html

[12] https://www.handelsblatt.com/technik/energie-umwelt/pro-und-contra-atomenergie-die-zwei-gesichter-der-kernkraft/3948876.html

[13] DIW Wochenbericht 30/2019: Zu teuer und gefährlich: Atomkraft ist keine Option für eine klimafreundliche Energieversorgung

[14] https://terrapower.com/productservices/twr

[15] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdAH4019or0

[16] DIW Wochenbericht 30/2019: Zu teuer und gefährlich: Atomkraft ist keine Option für eine klimafreundliche Energieversorgung //

Cf. M.V. Ramana (2016): The checkered operational history of high-temperature gas-cooled reactors. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 72 (3), 171–179 (available online); Benjamin K. Sovacool and M.V. Ramana (2015): Back to the Future: Small Modular Reactors, Nuclear Fantasies, and Symbolic Convergence. Science, Technology, & Human Values 40 (1), 96–125 (available online).

[17] https://www.bmu.de/themen/klima-energie/klimaschutz/internationale-klimapolitik/kyoto-protokoll/verpflichtungsperioden/

[18] By 30 percent if other industrialised countries agree to comparable objectives.

[19] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/klima/europaeische-energie-klimaziele

[20] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/klima/treibhausgas-emissionen-in-deutschland#textpart-3 (diagram)

[21] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/energie/energiebedingte-emissionen#textpart-1