Nuclear energy is a topic that definitely leaves no one indifferent. There is something close to science-fiction that we can use the energy of atoms to produce electricity in incredible amounts with few power plants. Thus, France is producing the majority of its electricity – 71,67% in 2018 – with the small number of 56 power plants. A relatively small number of nuclear power plants thus enable the country to have a decent and stable supply for its electricity grid.
Despite the hype around nuclear energy and its numerous defenders, nuclear energy remains problematic for so many reasons. One of the first problems of nuclear energy is that it relies partly on international exports of material like uranium for its energy security. Over the last decade, three main countries supplied France with uranium: Kazakhstan (27%), Niger (20%), and Uzbekistan (19%). France has strategic stocks of uranium but the supply is not safe over a long-term period. Thus, Niger has faced a military coup in 2023 and production targets are not guaranteed in Kazakhstan by the world’s biggest uranium miner Kazatomprom. However, recycling of used fuels helps reduced international exports and the production of waste.
Furthermore, there is a bigger risk of shortage when you have a limited and undiversified number of power plants – in other words if you follow the strategy “all eggs in the same basket”. Summer 2022 has been especially complicated for France with numerous power plants stopped for 1) inspection or reparation of corrosion issues and 2) because of cooling issues from drought and heat. The combination of these two issues led to a temporary reduction of France’s nuclear power output by nearly 50 percent. The aging park keep being at risk from technical problems and the cooling issues will only increase with the acceleration of the climate crisis.
After living several years in Germany, there is a position where I slightly changed my mind. When I first wanted immediate exit from nuclear energy, I now see the benefit in using nuclear energy while exiting fossil fuels first. After Fukushima, the German chancellor Angela Merkel decided to first exit nuclear energy and the closing of the three last nuclear power plants in the country appeared in April 2023. The problem is that the country still has hard coal and lignite which has still produced 26% of the electricity in the country in 2023.
During the COP 28 in Dubai, several countries united to promote nuclear energy as a silver bullet to tackle the climate crisis. Scientists for Future listed several aspects that disqualify nuclear energy as a solution to solve the climate crisis including the long construction times and the huge costs – predating directly on budgets to quickly deploy renewable energy. As a matter of example, the EPR of Flamanville – the third generation pressurized water reactor design has been delayed 12 years and the bill multiplied by 6.
One of my greatest concerns about nuclear energy is actually the risk of nuclear catastrophe. The “risk zero” does not exist and I always worry about the next Chernobyl or Fukushima – for example in my home country France. Last year, I was extremely worried about the risks of intentional sabotage at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. I really feel like the world is too dangerous to have such a powerful source of energy. And I cannot comprehend that so many people go on with their lives and do not think about the risks of power plants.
Complementary to the risks of radioactive disaster, I am also horrified that nuclear waste – especially the fuel cells – remain radioactive for periods of time as long as *one million years*. This is more than *three times* the estimated time our species has been living on this planet. This would be equivalent to *33.333* generations if we take the generous estimate of 30 years as a generation time. This is an awful lot of time where we cannot guarantee the safety of the nuclear waste. This is short-term thinking where we leave many costs to future generations. And I have a lot of difficulties calling nuclear energy “green” considering the very longevive nuclear waste.
The bright side of nuclear energy is often shown but there are many problematic aspects about nuclear energy including supply, speed of deployment, risks and storage. With such long-term waste, I am convinced that we cannot talk about nuclear energy as “green”. And also the construction of new nuclear power plants cannot be considered as a climate solution considering the long construction terms.
Because the best energy is the one we do not produce, we have to be as energy-efficient as possible for example by isolating buildings or switching to more energy-efficient techniques like LED lights. And for the remaining electricity, we have to do our best to switch to renewables like wind and solar. These sources of electricity also have their drawbacks like the supply of raw materials or the impact from wind farms on birds and bats that we need to consider. But as stated by the International Energy Agency, “the deployment of renewables in the power, heat and transport sectors is one of the main enablers of keeping the rise in average global temperatures below 1.5°C”.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to my sister Pauline for her feedback.
it's all about climate 