Five key limitations of nuclear power
Nuclear power has some major weaknesses—but not the ones you might think. It’s safe, doesn’t take up much space, generates power all the time, and is almost perfectly carbon-neutral. But despite these pros, five cons currently make it a less effective weapon against climate change.
Wait—nuclear power isn’t dangerous?
Arguments against nuclear power usually play on the danger that plants present and the difficulty of safely disposing of toxic waste. But statistically, nuclear is actually by far the safest source of power. With only three nuclear accidents in history, we can expect just 90 deaths per 1000TWh of power generated.
This is the lowest of any carbon-neutral power generation method, with wind at 150 deaths, solar at 440, and hydro at 1,400. It’s also much lower than any fossil fuel, with natural gas at 4,000, oil at 36,000, and coal at a whopping 100,000 deaths per 1000TWh. These sources of power require dangerous mining, construction, and combustion to generate energy—and coal actually emits significantly more radiation and toxins than nuclear in the mining, processing, and burning of its ore.
Nuclear is also just as carbon-neutral as the other truly renewable energy sources. Even counting construction costs, a nuclear plant will emit just 4 grams of CO2 per kWh over its lifetime, while wind will also emit 4 grams, and solar will emit 6 grams on average.
Despite clearly beating out fossil fuels and situationally besting other green options, nuclear energy has one Achilles heel—the radioactive elements it relies on for fuel. The safe handling, security, and disposal of these materials present five obstacles to the widespread use of nuclear power.
1. Construction speed
We need clean energy, fast. To meet the Paris Accords target of limiting warming to 1.5°C, power infrastructure needs to be fully decarbonized by 2035. While nuclear plants can be built and operated safely, this isn’t quick or easy.
In 2021, the average time to construct a nuclear power plant was 7.33 years. This is because in comparison to other sources of power, nuclear plants require more careful surveying, lengthier construction, and more complex systems overall.
The workforce matters too—in the U.S., nuclear plants haven’t been widely built since the ‘70s. The trade knowledge of how to construct these facilities quickly and efficiently just isn’t there anymore, greatly slowing their build times. This same problem slows development in any country without a history of building nuclear plants.
While construction times can vary based on the size of the facility, wind farms typically go up in two years at the most, while solar farms take around four years at the most. The actual time spent under construction is very short for both—just two to three months.
2. Proper waste disposal
Safe nuclear waste disposal isn’t actually an issue—it’s a solved science. Deep geological repositories have been proven to safely store nuclear waste for thousands of years. Nature has even given an example of how long these sites might last. In Gabon, a natural uranium deposit began a large, spontaneous nuclear reaction two billion years ago. The waste produced by that reaction is still fully contained, having migrated less than 10 meters through the bedrock to this day.
So the issue isn’t disposing of waste safely—it’s making sure it happens. In the U.S., there still isn’t a proper geologic storage site set up for the waste generated by nuclear power. $40 billion, generated by taxing nuclear energy revenues over the years, was intended for this purpose but has been funneled elsewhere. While the waste sits in temporary containment that needs regular maintenance and repair, it costs the U.S. $500 million per year.
Any country seeking to build nuclear plants will have to deal with the expensive problem of waste disposal, and there’s a risk that some may turn to improperly dumping nuclear waste instead of paying the costs of constructing a geologic storage site.
3. Nuclear weapons proliferation
Building nuclear weapons isn’t as simple as just having uranium. Reactor fuel contains only 5% uranium-235, and a nuclear weapon would require at least 20%. To make a weapon from material this low in uranium-235 by enriching it, a lot of fuel would have to go missing.
Weapons could also be constructed from reactor waste, which contains plutonium—but these weapons are more challenging to construct and the waste is closely guarded. There are certainly easier and more covert ways for a state to construct nuclear weapons, but these avenues still need to be controlled.
The International Atomic Energy Agency exists for this reason, to monitor the use of nuclear fuel and ensure that no enrichment is taking place and all waste is securely disposed of. But if nuclear energy becomes widespread and every country has a valid reason to be importing uranium, monitoring the use of this fuel and the disposal of the plutonium-rich waste could become much more complex and costly.
4. Plant security
Security concerns aren’t just limited to the fuel itself. Like any power plant, nuclear facilities are a high-value military target. Unlike other power plants, they’re also incredibly dangerous if destroyed. While rigorous safety regulations make sure that a plant can safely contain a meltdown, these systems are designed to protect against equipment failure and operator error.
When faced with heavy bombardment—or a cyber attack capable of taking those systems offline—they could fail, resulting in a meltdown and massive radiation exposure to the surrounding area. Other sources of power would also be priority targets in a conflict, but bombing a solar plant won’t irradiate the land for miles around.
These plants are also a target for ground-based terrorist attacks and require serious security. Ensuring that nuclear plants are defended from all possible avenues of attack and won’t melt down is a costly endeavor. To mitigate these costs, modern reactors aim to deliver new designs that won’t melt down under any circumstances.
5. Natural disasters
Humans aren’t the only danger. Natural disasters, like the tsunami that caused the 2011 Fukushima accident, are already becoming more frequent as a result of climate change. In the 1980s, the United States experienced an average of 3.1 natural disasters that cost $1 billion or more per year. These numbers have steadily increased since, reaching 20 disasters and $152.6 billion of damage in 2021.
Since nuclear plants rely on huge amounts of water for cooling and power generation, they need to be built near a source of water. Any plant on the coast must withstand a hurricane or tsunami—and any built more safely inland risk shutdowns if their rivers or lakes dry up in the changing climate.
Reactors that can’t melt down—like X-energy’s XE-100—will be key to implementing nuclear plants at increasingly large scales.
What are our alternatives?
While they take up more space and can’t generate energy as constantly, established renewable technologies like solar and wind are just as green as nuclear — and they’re much cheaper and easier to secure, plan, and build.
Next-generation nuclear reactors also aim to solve many of these issues. While proliferation and waste disposal will always be concerns, modern reactors that can’t melt down will make implementing nuclear power much easier.
Still, these sources of power can’t operate everywhere or all the time. As we wait on clean power sources like hydrogen, next-gen nuclear, and biofuels to reach commercial viability, we’ll have to rely on carbon-intensive energy.
To compensate, we can take advantage of carbon capture and utilization projects to remove carbon from both the atmosphere and power plant emissions. Some of these techniques are even profitable.
To meet our energy needs, we’ll need every tool available to us, and nuclear energy is sure to be a part of the solution — but its complicated management and history may hold it back from taking on more of the load.
References
Expand
1. Adlen, E., Hepburn, C., & Arnold, R. (2020, November 18). 10 carbon capture methods compared: Costs, scalability, permanence, cleanness. Energy Post. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://energypost.eu/10-carbon-capture-methods-compared-costs-scalability-permanence-cleanness/
2. Evans, S. (2017, December 8). Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds. Carbon Brief. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints/
3. Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. (2018, July 9). Nuclear waste costs americans billions every year. Medium. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://medium.com/freeman-spogli-institute-for-international-studies/nuclear-waste-costs-americans-billions-every-year-3197935352ff
4. Hyder, Z. (2019, April 23). What is a solar farm? costs, Land Needs & more. Solar Reviews. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/what-is-a-solar-farm-do-i-need-one
5. Jacoby, M. (2020, March 30). As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions. Chemical and Engineering News. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12
6. Kazilbash, S. (2021, February 25). What’s the death toll of nuclear vs other energy sources? Engineering.com. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources
7. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (n.d.). Billion-dollar weather and climate disasters. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/
8. Parshley, L. (2021, May 5). The controversial future of nuclear power in the U.S. Environment. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/nuclear-plants-are-closing-in-the-us-should-we-build-more
9. Published by Statista Research Department, & 13, D. (2022, December 13). Median construction time for nuclear reactors 2021. Statista. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/
10. Reactor: Xe-100 – X-energy: HTGR: Nuclear reactors (SMR) & Triso Fuel. X-energy. (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://x-energy.com/reactors/xe-100
11. What is a wind turbine project timeline? Renewables First – The Hydro and Wind Company. (2015, August 18). Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://www.renewablesfirst.co.uk/windpower/windpower-learning-centre/how-long-will-the-whole-project-take/
12. World Nuclear Association. (2021, April). Safeguards to Prevent Nuclear Proliferation. World Nuclear Association. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferation/safeguards-to-prevent-nuclear-proliferation.aspx
13. World Nuclear Association. (2022, January). Radioactive Waste – Myths and Realities. World Nuclear Association. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx
14. World Nuclear Association. (2023, January). Storage and Disposal of Radioactive Waste. World Nuclear Association. Retrieved March 3, 2023, from https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-wastes.aspx
Thomas Praisner—Freelance Writer 