Could nuclear energy save us in time?
Going beyond nuclear energy's stigma to assess its compatibility with a just energy transition.
Composing the optimal energy mix to support the transition away from fossil fuels is crucial for limiting global warming but has sparked much debate – especially when nuclear energy is mentioned. After losing its support in the previous decades due to catastrophic leakages and national security tensions, nuclear energy has now regained trust in the academic and political domain. Yet, its use remains highly contested. In this post, I explore the ability of nuclear energy to support a just energy transition. Will the promised stable and voluminous energy supply come in time for the deadlines of global climate ambitions? Let’s find out!
(Sorry, it’s long haha but I think it’s worth the read!! Enjoyyyy)
In the current turbulent energy market (caused by e.g. soaring fossil fuel energy prices due to the Russia-Ukraine war), energy security has become a big political and societal topic. Energy security refers to the access to and affordability of energy and is the core focus of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7. Fittingly named “Affordable and Clean Energy for All”, SDG 7 targets the energy transition away from fossil fuels, instead aiming for equitable and decentralised clean energy generation
Beyond merely encompassing social sustainability in terms of energy justice, SDG 7 thus also highlights the environmental sustainability aspect of energy security. “Clean” energy (CE) technologies namely help limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in line with worldwide decarbonisation efforts to limit global warming to 1.5-2°C by 2050 (which are looking rather bleak by the way). The five targets set for SDG 7 are depicted in the below figure.
Sadly, it currently doesn’t look like SDG 7 will be reached by its 2030 deadline. This is due to a few reasons; there is not enough energy efficiency progress, developing countries are left behind in financial flows for renewable energy (RE) development, and CE access in developing countries and rural areas remains challenging. Moreover, amongst other things, weather dependence makes RE supply inconsistent and unreliable.
The technological challenges and lack of reliability of RE has led to the realisation that the energy mix needs to be diversified with complementary CE sources. As nuclear energy (NE) produces stable and large amounts of energy without many GHG emissions, support for nuclear energy is increasing. In fact, many climate scenarios (which are heavily relied on for future emissions and warming predictions) already assume high NE shares – despite there still remaining many challenges around the energy source. Adding to that that nuclear fuel is not renewable due to its exhaustible source, there is much debate around the role of NE in the future energy mix.
In this blog post I have attempted to not just balance the costs and benefits of NE but to assess whether NE could help us meet SDG 7 in time for its 2030 deadline.
Nuclear energy
Overview
So what exactly is nuclear energy? NE is produced through nuclear reactions that release heat in the form of steam that spins a turbine, producing electricity. Despite NE’s considerable historical impact on national security and geopolitics (remember the Cold War?), its current application in various fields, e.g. medicine, is fundamental to human life.
Moreover, aligned with SDG ambitions, NE has low lifecycle GHG emissions, high material efficiency, minimal land use, and stable energy generation costs and supply. Especially for developing countries with growing populations and energy demands, NE can offer crucial clean energy security. However, studies showed that certain developed countries could actually also stand to benefit more from NE than RE in terms of carbon emissions. This applies to for instance Canada, Finland, and Russia.
Status
In 2022, nuclear reactors supplied 9% of global energy and 25% of CE. Thereby, it ranked second highest amongst all CE technologies. Most of this energy was produced in North America, Asia, and West & Central Europe, with Africa and South America producing comparatively negligible amounts. This is no surprise, as the entire continent of Africa for instance only has one operating nuclear power plant.
In recent years, decommissioning of reactors and power outages have led to decreases in production in most parts of the world. This decrease turned out to have unfortunate timing, coinciding with surging gas prices following the Russia-Ukraine war. As a response to the energy crisis that followed, the European Parliament relieved pressure on the energy system by lifting restrictions on NE production and even classifying it as a green energy source in 2022. Given the many challenges surrounding NE, the decision was highly contested and protested by anti-nuclear countries – e.g. Germany, which is instead actively decommissioning its nuclear plants all around the country.
Challenges
General challenges
Challenges for NE include nuclear waste management, safety and infrastructure concerns, slow and expensive construction, lengthy payback periods, and negative public perception of security. NE is also the least sustainable energy source amongst the CE technologies, resulting in higher CO2-e emissions than for instance wind and solar energy. Some of the challenges have already been addressed. For instance, safety concerns have gradually been mediated through solid nuclear laws and better nuclear power plant designs.
Another solution explored is newer, cheaper, and safer Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). As SMRs can be placed anywhere (and then I mean anywhere, apparently even in the water) they offer opportunities for decentralised production of energy by reducing the need for large nuclear power plants. However, SMRs are still in the research and development phase and there are concerns that they will generate more radioactive waste than regular nuclear power plants - but like many factors of the undeveloped SMRs, exact numbers are uncertain.
In general, the promised and necessary technological advances have not materialised, with issues like slow construction and nuclear waste management left unaddressed. Moreover, on the financial front, NE has struggled to compete in the energy market. The resulting decreasing investments in NE development over the years has hindered much-needed research (and the international collaboration) on improving construction and production efficiency.
While nuclear power plants remain operational trice as long as solar panels and wind turbines, the construction timeline before they become operational is a major issue. As globally 62% of the nuclear reactors are older than thirty years, the upcoming decommissioning of ageing reactor will halve the number of reactors by 2030. This means that to meet the projected energy demands, hundreds of nuclear power plants would need to be constructed. Seeing as the building of nuclear power plants takes between 58 and 120 months, questions arise as to whether NE can deliver the required CE fast enough for the upcoming deadlines of the climate goals.
Nuclear waste management
Reports of leaks, and soil and underground water contamination have kept nuclear waste management debates going for decades. Nuclear waste is hazardous waste created as the by-product of fuel processing plants and nuclear reactors. While producing pollution at every generation stage, the amount of waste produced by nuclear fuel is actually negligible compared to other energy sources. The issue, however, is not its volume, but its highly hazardous nature.
The majority (90%) of nuclear waste is low-level waste, e.g. contaminated clothing or utensils from nuclear power plants. Low-level waste can be incinerated or disposed of in (near-)surface landfills. Despite comprising such a large portion of the total waste, low-level waste only contributes 1% to the total radioactive waste. Radioactive waste is the dangerous waste often mentioned in the nuclear debates, as it is highly toxic and can seriously damage and/or even destroy biological tissue.
Intermediate and high-level waste (7% and 3% of total waste) make up 4% and 95% of radioactive waste respectively. While the intermediate-level waste can be stored in underground landfills until the radioactivity declines, high-level waste necessitates special procedures like disposal in sealed containers in geologically formed repositories like old salt mines, buried under layers of bentonite clay and cement.
High-level waste also includes spent nuclear fuel, which remains toxic for 200.000 years. Spent fuel is the fuel that is removed from the core of the reactor and that won’t be reprocessed to recover plutonium and uranium. Despite spent fuel still holding extractable energy (between 25-30% of its original energy), reprocessing is not pursued due to its high economic costs. As the storage facilities designated to keep spent fuel (for 200.000 years…) are nearing their capacity limits, there is a dire need for a solution for the final disposal.
Perhaps, rather than looking at the disposal of high-level waste, research should focus on waste reduction. Extracting 25-30% from spent fuel for instance increases energy use from uranium and plutonium by 22%. In general, closing the fuel cycle would also decrease the need for uranium and plutonium mining. So far, however, waste reprocessing has not been upscaled as it is expensive, and many countries lack the technical capabilities.
From an intragenerational equity perspective (which is the equity within the same generation, but between groups in different places on earth), questions about the siting of waste repositories arise. Despite literature and tests claiming that the disposal techniques are safe, there is no guarantee they will remain so in the future, for instance in the face of unpredictable natural disasters like earthquakes. So far, research has shown that many local communities didn’t get a say in the siting decisions of the waste repositories but did end up bearing the health and environmental risks of them.
Compatibility with SDG 7
SDG 7 covers six concepts: access, affordability, reliability, modernity, renewable sources, and efficiency, with a broader focus on international cooperation, research and infrastructure expansion, and supply to developing countries. It thus goes beyond mere environmental protection, also including socio-economic dimensions. Such a focus on overall national development goals and inclusion of all stakeholders will require consideration of a wider set of energy supply options, including NE.
The literature highlights various benefits of NE; it is fundamental for many processes in the modern Western society, produces low GHG emission, offers reliable energy supply and highly efficient resource use as it i.e. uses the least amount of land of all CE technologies. The first clash with SDG 7, however, is derived from its very core. As NE is generated from uranium, an exhaustible source, it is not renewable. Nevertheless, it is a CE source, and some countries are even expected to have lower carbon emission with NE than with RE.
While especially developing countries stand to benefit from NE’s reliability, nuclear power plant distribution is centred around the Global North (with exception of Asia). Only 1.6% of all nuclear plants are located in Africa and South America, places with many remote communities that could benefit from better access to energy. In short, the current energy infrastructure can’t provide access to NE for developing countries. SMR placement in these regions could increase energy distribution and thereby energy access as they are smaller, cheaper, more modern, and faster to build, requiring less distributive infrastructure – compatible with SDG 7. However, SMRs are not developed yet, so are not a timely solution.
In general, the NE timeline is concerning. Long promised technological developments are not materialising, leaving concerns like expensive and slow construction processes, and nuclear waste management unaddressed. Especially with the high number of nuclear reactors being decommissioned by 2030 due to ageing, the long construction time means that the projected energy output of nuclear power plants will likely not cover the energy demand. International research cooperation could advance the technology, leading to lower costs and expedited plant construction. For now, however (and again), this means that while NE sounds promising, its output will not be in time to support SDG 7 before it’s deadline.
The lack of proper nuclear waste management also remains an issue. Intermediate and high-level waste can remain dangerous for up to thousands of years, and historically pressures in the storage techniques have caused leaks that contaminated the environment near burial sites – compromising other SDG targets that aim for zero air, water and soil pollution. From an intragenerational justice perspective, this also raises questions in terms of where to site waste repositories. Addressing this potential injustice requires adequate environmental protection, sustainable nuclear waste management, and community involvement and consent, but first and foremost, a focus on improving waste reprocessing to reduce the waste volume.
Lastly, in terms of SDG 7’s international focus, if NE was to be introduced to and upscaled in developing countries, these countries should be supported in implementing adequate nuclear waste management techniques, as it is complex and expensive – with many countries missing the technical ability.
Final thoughts
The global pursuit of energy security and sustainability in a modern and developing world is well captured in SDG 7 “Affordable and clean energy for all”. The ideal future energy mix to achieve this goal necessitates a careful examination of a variety of energy sources in which one should look at the environmental impact, as well as justice and equality issues. Nuclear energy, no matter how contested, should not be overlooked in this debate.
Achieving a just and sustainable energy future will ultimately require a careful balance between technologies like NE and their associated challenges. However, in reference to my specific aim of linking NE with SDG 7 development; I conclude that NE cannot deliver support in time for the 2030 timeline. Personally, I am still mostly negative towards nuclear energy. However, once its challenges are addressed (and only then), I believe NE could still play a role in a diversified and complementary energy mix to ensure a stable supply.
(assignment with sources linked)