As part of assessing the best energy sources for the future, we are looking at the pros and cons of these different energy sources.
This is our guide on the Pros & Cons Of Nuclear Energy.
Summary – Nuclear Energy Pros & Cons
- Low to no emissions during operation compared to fossil fuel
- High fuel to power output ratio
- Produces reasonably priced electricity in some countries
- Uranium is a fairly cheap fuel source
- Costs to make a nuclear plant are generally recouped back over the lifetime of the plant
- Lifetime of a nuclear plant are generally around the same as a coal plant
- The remaining supplies of uranium in the ground are adequate for short to mid term use (possibly more), and research and science would indicate that there might be other ways to find new supplies (such as in the sea), or develop current nuclear energy technology
- Nuclear plants tend to have a positive economic impact and provide jobs
- Low level and short lived radioactive waste can be safely stored on-site
- Nuclear requires less construction materials than solar and wind
- One of the safest energy sources available
- New nuclear reactors are more capable of ramping up up fast
- It’s expensive to setup and build a nuclear plant, especially in Western countries
- Nuclear waste is very hazardous and radioactive
- Nuclear waste must be managed and disposed of properly – this can be costly as it can’t go to a regular landfill (long lived and high level radioactive waste can be buried deep underground)
- Nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel can take hundreds of years to decompose – where in the meantime it can be a threat to the safety and health of humans, wild life and plant life
- Uranium and nuclear are not renewable like solar or wind power for example
- It can be expensive to decommission and handle fuel at the end of a nuclear plant’s lifetime
- Significant nuclear accidents have happened in the past
- Nuclear plants are a potential terrorism or security risk
- Not a portable or small use energy source like solar panels for example – more for large scale energy generation
- Old nuclear reactors are not as capable of ramping up fast
We probably don’t have any better overall options right now for short to medium term mass energy production than nuclear. Renewables don’t provide the level of mass energy production nuclear does right now with the technology they have and the challenges they pose in transitioning to them, and fossil fuels such as coal are high GHG emission energy sources (natural gas is better than coal and oil though in this regard).
*Note – the above pros and cons are broad generalisations. Obviously there are different variables to each specific energy project that impact the final pros and cons (like new technology that reduces emissions for coal power plants just as one of many examples). Each energy project and situation (in different countries and cities) should be analysed individually. Having said that, some broad principles and patterns about the pros and cons of different energy sources tend to stay consistent too.
Pros Of Nuclear Energy
- Low Greenhouse Gases During Operation – Compared to coal, gas, and other electric-generating plants. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), nuclear energy produces more clean-air energy than any other source. It produces 62 percent of all emission-free electricity in the United States. The large clouds you see leaving the smoke stacks are nothing more than vaporized water. Wind energy produces about the same greenhouse gas emissions as nuclear (dailymaverick.co.za)
- Incredibly High Fuel To Power Output Ratio – It has the capacity to meet city and industrial needs with just one reactor. A relatively small amount of uranium can be used to fuel a 1000 Megawatts electric plant, providing enough electricity to power a city of about half a million people. Renewable sources, such as solar and wind, provide only enough power to meet residential or office needs. They don’t yet have the capacity of nuclear to handle large-scale power needs, especially in the manufacturing world
- Produces Inexpensive Electricity When Operational In Some Countries– cheaper than gas, coal, or any other fossil fuel plants. Uranium is also a fairly cheap fuel source
- Over Lifetime, Nuclear Recoups Costs – the costs to make a nuclear plant can be high, but over the lifetime of a plant, costs are almost always recouped back
- Decent Lifecycle – average lifecycle of a nuclear power plant is around 40-60 years – around the same as a coal plant (54 years average)
- Doesn’t Rely On Fossil Fuels – so it’s not affected by the unpredictability of oil and gas costs. We won’t be depleting the Earth’s supply of resources nearly as quickly. Nuclear power requires much less fuel to produce a higher amount of energy.
- Current Supply Of Uranium – With the current supply of uranium, it is estimated that we have at least another 80 years before supply becomes an issue. There are also other forms of uranium that can be used if needed, extending that timeline even further. This is plenty of time to find alternative sources (such as nuclear fusion, the holy grail of energy), if need be.
- Positive Economic Impact – nuclear plants bring jobs and prosperity to local communities. According to the NEI, one new nuclear plant creates 400 to 700 permanent jobs, not to mention thousands of others during its construction. Most nuclear sites have at least 2 plants. This is comparable to just 90 jobs for a coal plant, and 50 for a natural gas plant. Each facility generates close to $500 million annually in sales of goods and services. More workers at plants means more people who need lunches and more people with money to spend.
- Low Level & Short Lived Radioactive Waste Can Be Stored On-Site – this is a relatively straightforward process. Intermediate waste can also be stored on-site. (world-nuclear.org)
- Nuclear requires less construction materials than solar and wind – Solar requires 18 times, and wind 11 times, the construction materials of nuclear.
- One Of The Safest Energy Sources Available – when considering Deaths per 1000 TWh (tera watt hours) generated (bettermeetsreality.com)
- New Nuclear Reactors Are More Capable Of Ramping Up Fast – many designs of Generation 4 molten fuel nuclear reactors will be capable of fast ramping (wikipedia.org)
– renewableresourcescoalition.org, world-nuclear.org, dailymaverick.co.za, bettermeetsreality.com and trimediaee.com
Cons Of Nuclear Energy
- Not Renewable – Uranium is in limited (although currently abundant) supply. Typical renewable energy sources such as solar and wind are in infinite supply.
- Uranium Mining & Activation Process Can Be Expensive – Uranium has to be mined, synthesized, then activated to produce energy, and it’s very expensive to go through this process.
- Environmental Impact Of Uranium As A Fuel Source – A typical nuclear power plant generates about 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel per year. The problem is that this spent fuel is highly radioactive and potentially dangerous.
- Disposal of Radioactive Waste – You can’t take it to a normal landfill. It has to be carefully handled and stored (which costs a lot of money), and it requires a hefty amount of specially designed storage space. High level and long lived waste can sometimes have to be stored deep underground (world-nuclear.org)
- High Up-Front Construction Costs For Nuclear Plants – Construction of a new plant can take anywhere from 5-10 years to build, costing billions of dollars. In the East—in Korea, in China and the UAE, which is being built by the Koreans—the cost is $3,000-$4,000 per kilowatt, whereas in the West the cost is north of $8,000 per kilowatt [due to design, construction management and supply chain and workforce] (forbes.com). In Australia, nuclear is currently priced out of the energy mix compared to renewables. (reneweconomy.com.au)
- Back End Costs Aren’t Cheap – high fuel handling and decommissioning costs.
- Public Safety – Spent nuclear fuel takes hundreds of years to decompose before it reaches adequate levels of safety.
- Accidents – significant accidents are actually incredibly rare, but have happened throughout history (such as the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1978, and the Chernobyl explosion in 1986). When accidents happen – they are a major problem. Casualties may not be high from nuclear accidents, but the environmental and social issues can have an impact decades later. Whilst wildlife has returned to the Chernobyl area, the area won’t be safe for human habitation for at least 20,000 years.
- Potential Terrorism & Security Threat – with fossil fuel plants, you don’t have to worry about them being targeted by terrorists and vigilantes. Uranium used to power nuclear plants is of a different grade than weapons-grade uranium; however, it can be synthesized from it. This makes it a threat if it gets in the hands on dangerous people. Security is tight and the probability of an event is low though.
- Not Portable Or For Small Use Applications – can only be used for powering a large grid or in special applications such as a submarine.
- Existing & Old Nuclear Reactors Are Not As Capable Of Fast Ramping – Thermally lethargic technologies like coal and solid-fuel nuclear are physically incapable of fast ramping (wikipedia.org)
– renewableresourcescoalition.org, livescience.com, forbes.com, world-nuclear.org reneweconomy.com.au