Nuclear power is efficient, cheap, and produces less air pollutants than traditional power plants. Uranium, the element used to generate nuclear power, is commonly found in nature. However, nuclear power plants require a large amount of water and there are concerns about safety and radioactive waste. New safety measures are being developed, and if established worldwide, nuclear power could become a preferable alternative to traditional methods of power generation.
Nuclear power has many advantages over other energy sources, especially older methods like oil, coal, and hydroelectricity. It is more efficient than these traditional sources of energy, and the raw materials needed to produce it are commonly found throughout the natural world. Furthermore, nuclear power plants are relatively cheap to operate and safety measures have greatly improved since the accidents of the 20th century. While there are some well-known risks to the use of nuclear energy, most are generally comparable to the risks of other types of power generation.
History
In the early 20th century, scientists discovered how to create energy through the use of highly radioactive elements such as uranium. Famously, this led to the atomic weapons that ended World War II, resulting in a decades-long pattern of nuclear proliferation in countries around the world. At the same time, however, a different process was discovered that could use controlled, non-explosive nuclear reactions to generate cheap electricity. In the 1920s, nations including England, the United States, and even Japan were building nuclear power plants called reactors.
Efficiency and Availability
A small amount of nuclear material can produce a lot of energy; a single kilogram (2.2 lb) of uranium, for example, can produce at least as much energy as 200 barrels (8,400 gallons or 31.8 m3) of oil or 20,000 kg (44,092 lb) of coal. Uranium, which is the element used to generate nuclear power, is about as common as tin in nature, though it must be in a high enough concentration to be worth commercially mining. The ore must be mined and treated to separate it from the surrounding rocks, then processed to turn it into uranium dioxide.
Because uranium is so common, it is not subject to the price fluctuations that are standard in the fossil fuel market. Oil, for example, is found in only a few places in the world, and production levels can make a big impact on the price.
Clean energy
Nuclear energy is considered “clean” as the amount of carbon and air pollutants it produces is very small compared to traditional power plants. Although the plants produce nuclear waste, the ratio of energy generated to waste produced is far higher than that of fossil fuel plants. However, nuclear power plants require a large amount of water, which can affect the surrounding environment. Once used, this water is often contaminated with salts and heavy metals, but this also applies to water used by other types of power plants.
Construction and operating costs
Uranium is relatively inexpensive, although the cost of treating it and disposing of waste after it’s been used adds to the costs. This means that nuclear power plants are quite cheap to run. They are expensive to build, however, due to the special materials and safety features required.
In contrast, plants using fossil fuels such as natural gas, oil or coal are easier to install and their higher fuel costs are often offset by revenues from power generation. The nature of investment capital means that these short-term returns usually have more attractiveness to investors than the long-term returns of nuclear power. However, this dynamic could change if fossil fuel prices continue to increase dramatically in the 21st century.
Safety issues
Although nuclear power is considered safe when plants are built and operated under very strict guidelines, the potential for catastrophic disasters means there is great fear regarding their safety. High-profile incidents such as the Chernobyl disaster in Russia in 1986 or the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011 have eroded public faith. While these are legitimate concerns, it’s helpful to place them in the context of other methods of generating energy. Pollution from fossil fuels, for example, is estimated to kill over 10,000 people in the United States annually, mostly due to respiratory ailments. In comparison, fatal accidents at nuclear power plants are relatively rare; the infamous partial collapse at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 resulted in no fatalities, and studies have found that people who lived in the area had no long-term health problems related to the crash.
Other concerns relate to highly radioactive waste which is an inevitable by-product of nuclear energy. Spent nuclear fuel remains dangerous to human and animal life for thousands of years. A safe method of storing nuclear waste for this time has yet to be discovered, but it is possible to rework it to extract the remaining uranium and plutonium and turn it into usable fuel. Although the high expense of this technique has prevented its implementation in the United States, it is performed in Europe and Russia. This reused fuel, in turn, produces less radioactive waste.
Future solutions
The Chernobyl and Fukushima catastrophes inspired greater safety measures in the design of future nuclear plants. One such design calls for liquid cores that cannot melt in a crash, as they are effectively pre-melted. As concerns about global climate change grow, the environmental benefits of nuclear power may be re-evaluated. If the highest safety protocols and reprocessing of radioactive waste can be established worldwide, nuclear power could become preferable to traditional methods of power generation.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
