A History That Sparks Fear
Nuclear energy is intimately tied to nuclear weapons, both in the public’s imagination, and in the proximity it has to the material required to produce nuclear bombs. The advent of the technology is also tied to the pursuit of weapons during World War Two, but in the years just after the war, nuclear technology was seen more for its promise, the technological optimism of it, than for its risks.
That started to change when accidents occurred, first with Chernobyl, then with Three Mile Island, and most recently with Fukushima. These accidents have significantly shaped the public’s impression of the safety of nuclear energy, for good reason.
It is worth bearing in mind, however, that the accidents at these plants represent a fraction of the nuclear power plants built. Globally, there are over 430 plants currently operating, with another 60 being constructed. It’s expected that at the end of this decade the number of nuclear power plants will be close to 500.
The Data on Safety
Despite the safety implications surrounding nuclear, the data suggests that it is in fact one of the safest forms of energy production we have. Our World in Data, which does a pretty solid job of researching and analyzing numbers, provides these data, below.
In Ontario, many of us can attest to this. More than half of our electricity is generated in nuclear power plants, with no discernible health impacts, whereas the closure of the coal-fired power plants had a huge difference on the number of smog days, or air pollution, and consequently, too, on our health.
The difference between what the data tells us and the public’s perception of the safety of nuclear might be illuminated a bit by considering this thought experiment.
Assume that a legislator with courage, influence, intellect, vision, and perseverance manages to enact a law that goes into universal effect and employment on September 10, 2001; it imposes the continuously locked bulletproof doors in every cockpit (at high costs to the struggling airlines)-just in case terrorists decide to use planes to attack the World Trade Center in New York City. I know this is lunacy, but it is just a thought experiment (I am aware that there may be no such thing as a legislator with intellect, courage, vision, and perseverance; this is the point of the thought experiment). The legislation is not a popular measure among the airline personnel, as it complicates their lives. But it would certainly have prevented 9/11.
The person who imposed locks on cockpit doors gets no statues in public squares, not so much as a quick mention of his contribution in his obituary. “Joe Smith, who helped avoid the disaster of 9/11, died of complications of liver disease.” Seeing how superfluous his measure was, and how it squandered resources, the public, with great help from airline pilots, might well boot him out of office. Vox clamantis in deserto. He will retire depressed, with a great sense of failure.
(From The Black Swan, by Nicholas Taleb.)
The point is, our attention is drawn towards the big and the sudden and the unexpected – that’s what makes an impression and sticks in our minds. When things just work as they should, we don’t pay them much attention, even though they are foundational to our day-to-day lives.
When it comes to nuclear energy, the big and unexpected – the accidents – as well as cost and construction-time overruns, are what have drawn our attention, shaped the media narratives, and thus contributed to public opinion.
The fact that electricity is generated for many, many millions of people the world over, with far fewer deaths than some of the more popular alternatives, tends to be overshadowed by this.
Sound policy shouldn’t simply be reactive to crises, but, rather, should work to prevent them by being prudent and exercising the precautionary principle.
Is Nuclear Prudent?
First, the proviso – we need to plan our communities, our economy, our society, in a way that realizes energy efficiencies. Using cars to get everywhere, even if they’re EVs, or building large homes that rely on air conditioning to keep cool, for example, is simply wasteful and expensive. This forms the core of what we advocate for here at SCGC.
That said, let’s dive into the data on the different types of fuel that are available for energy production.
Energy Return on Investment (EROI)
This metric attempts to measure the cost of mining, transporting, refining and utilizing energy – all the inputs, in other words – versus the energy produced, or the outputs.
EROI can be difficult to measure, though, which is why you see the wide range of outcomes.
Mining can be efficient or inefficient. Transportation inputs can vary depending on where the resource is mined relative to where it’s refined and then used.
Furthermore, the technology used in these processes are all still heavily reliant on fossil fuels, which, when combined with the inefficiency of an internal combustion engine (typically between 25% and 40% efficiency for gas and diesel, respectively), can further drag the EROI down.
Nevertheless, the indication of relative values is useful, and most data, while varying somewhat, shows that nuclear does have one of the better energy potentials of the various fuel types available to us.
Carbon Emissions
The environmental community is, largely, one that favours renewable energy. It also, largely, opposes nuclear energy. But, as one of the most prominent climate scientists, James Hanson, pointed out, renewable energy isn’t inherently environmentally friendly.
While the chart below shows that hydro, for example, has low emissions, the other environmental impacts that come from damning rivers can be significant.
In the same piece, Hanson argues strongly in favour of the need to employ nuclear power, together with renewables, if we’re to have a realistic chance of addressing climate change and mitigating the damage we’re doing to the planet.
He notes that over the past 50 years, nuclear power generation has avoided 60 billion tonnes of carbon emissions, while pointing out that advanced power generation facilities, currently in development, offer the potential of a largely closed loop system, where spent fuel is reprocessed, removing much of the need for long-term storage.
While there are CO2 emissions associated with building a nuclear facility, as well as with the mining and refining, as noted above, nuclear produces no CO2 during power production.
But What About The Cost?
The cost of nuclear is one of the biggest hurdles that needs to be overcome if it’s going to be a reliable part of a clean energy future.
Nuclear power is understood to be extremely expensive, with power plant construction almost always going way over budget, often with lengthy delays.
But again, the public’s perception of this doesn’t really match what the data shows.
It is true that construction overruns are a problem, and they need to be addressed, but when the amount of power generated by these facilities, together with the length of time they provide that power for, is factored in, the costs per unity start to come down.
Nuclear Power as a Keystone For Stronger Climate Policy
A recent study from Clean Prosperity, a climate think tank, argues in favour of investing in Canada’s nuclear sector. The study argues that now is a crucial time to invest because there is a need from a climate perspective, andbecause there’s potential to build on and leverage a competitive advantage that Canada, and in particular Ontario, has when it comes to expertise in this area.
The refurbishment of the Darlington plant, the study points out, is on time and on budget, setting the stage, if they are able to maintain it, for a success story that will be noticed by other countries interested in building their own fleet of nuclear power plants.
The development of one of the first Small Modular Reactors, or advanced reactors, which seek to build many of the components in a factory-type setting (hence the modular part of the name), thus benefitting from economies of scale to bring costs down, is also going smoothly so far.
But perhaps the most important point the study makes is that “ambitious nuclear policy doesn’t make sense without ambitious climate policy.”
The policy environment, no pun intended, needed to support a successful nuclear sector, the report argues, is one that supports a successful climate sector.
As long as fossil fuels are subsidized, the downward bending of cost curves needed to make nuclear viable remain questionable. The subsidies that fossil fuels receive, it should be noted, include their negative externalities, in the form of CO2 emissions, as well as the straight forward cash amounts the government throws the industry’s way.
Conclusion
The case for nuclear, both as a clean and cost-effective alternative and out of necessity to combat climate change, is strong – James Hanson makes it; the data backs it up. This is especially true if we look at alternative scenarios, at the mountain we have to climb to transition to a clean electrical grid.
Renewables absolutely need to be a large part of this solution – possible the largest part – but nuclear needs to play a significant role, too.
We owe it to future generations, and to the planet, to be clear eyed about the choices we make when it comes to combating climate change.
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Issue Brief’s are first published in our monthly newsletters.
Subscribe to get these in your inbox first!
