Nuclear Energy in the Green Debate

European policies: the Green Deal

The European Union is committed to becoming climate neutral by 2050, as defined by the EU Climate Law. The target is to reduce emissions by at least 55% by the end of 2030, facilitated by the implementation of the Fit for 55 legislation.

In order to maintain fair competition for European companies, a new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism has also been introduced. This mechanism ensures that imported products in covered sectors will be subject to a carbon tax at the border. This serves as a tool to encourage global emissions reductions and uses EU market influence to advance climate goals.

Important to mention is also the EU Taxonomy Regulation, a piece of legislation within the European Union focused on establishing a framework for sustainable finance. It introduces a classification system (taxonomy) for economically sustainable activities, defining what is qualified as environmentally sustainable. This regulation (Article 10) emphasizes that an economic activity should be considered as contributing to climate change mitigation if it helps in stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, aligning with the long-term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement. 

Why Nuclear Energy?

Nuclear energy is starting to be recognized as a green energy source due to its low greenhouse gas emissions.

Currently, nuclear energy contributes about 13% to the European energy mix, and 12 out of 27 European member states run nuclear power plants.

Since 2009, with the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union has strengthened its role in decision-making, ensuring the functioning of the energy market, the security of energy supply, and the modernization of technologies concerning renewable sources. 

Several factors seem to be driving interest in nuclear power:

Energy security

The dependence on energy imports poses a risk of power supply interferences. For this reason, the International Energy Agency and the energy arm of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development have developed plans for managing disruptions, and nuclear power could become one of the main instruments. 

Nuclear plants help to keep power grids stable by adjusting operations to follow demand and supply shifts, limiting the impacts of seasonal fluctuations in output from renewables.

Global climate change

The growing concern about climate change since 1990 has led to a focus on low-GHG emitting energy sources such as hydro, wind, solar, and nuclear.

Under normal operations, nuclear power plants produce almost no airborne pollutants, and the radioactive gases emitted are under controlled conditions and supervised by regulatory authorities, posing no significant threat to plant workers or surrounding populations. 

Availability of resources

Nuclear energy relies on the mineral uranium, which is present in large quantities on the planet, though it is hard to find it in concentrated quantities. Unlike fossil fuels, uranium is widely available, but the current combustion cycle uses only a small portion of the uranium’s energy, resulting in the production of substantial waste.

Is it really green?

Nuclear power has been praised for its low carbon emissions and energy security benefits, presenting itself as a clean and cost-competitive energy source, especially considering its ability to produce substantial electricity on minimal land compared to other clean energy sources. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, wind farms require 360 times more land area to produce the same amount of electricity, and solar photovoltaic plants require 75 times more space, making nuclear a cost-benefit-convenient resource.

However, the definition of "green" for nuclear power is debatable due to the challenges of water consumption, uranium extraction, and radioactive waste disposal, which remain a persistent obstacle despite efforts to reduce its volume and toxicity. 

Currently, there is no safe way to collect nuclear waste, but one possible solution could be storing it in glass or ceramic containers, encasing it in corrosion-resistant containers, and isolating it geologically. Because of the potential future uses of useful materials in spent nuclear fuel, disposal programs stress to ensure the retrieval of such waste. However, the costs and risks due to natural or human-caused accidents do not incentivize this system.

It must also be considered that the energy recovery time for a nuclear power plant takes more than ten years to offset the energy consumed during construction and fuelling, meaning that nuclear power plants need to operate for at least a decade before producing net energy. By comparison, wind power takes less than a year to produce net energy, and solar less than three years.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission emphasizes that this calculation does not consider unforeseen risks, such as nonfatal health impacts related to radiation exposure and environmental concerns.

Economic factors are also to be considered.  Extending the life of existing reactors is more cost-effective than building new ones, having as a consequence the tendency to invest in the maintenance of implants with old working systems rather than building new and safer ones.

Another fundamental problem is related to the cost-benefit ratio for the people living close to nuclear implants and those affected by uranium extractions. The industry brings systemic environmental injustice, from racial and economic disparities in the distribution of fine particle pollution to the displacement of tribal nations to access uranium and the uranium contamination of the water.

For instance, many uranium mines in the U.S. are located on or near Indigenous lands, exposing tribal nations to contaminated water and soil, leading to higher health risks like cancer and other illnesses. These communities often lack political power and resources to resist or mitigate the impacts of extraction. Similarly, economically disadvantaged groups are more likely to live near nuclear plants or waste disposal sites due to lower property values, resulting in greater exposure to potential radiation leaks.

Furthermore, at high doses, radiation can cause immediate damage to a person’s body. At lower doses, it can cause health effects such as cardiovascular disease and cataracts, as well as cancer.

Future prospects: navigating shortcomings and enormous potentialities of nuclear energy

Nuclear power offers many advantages, including minimal CO2 emissions, energy independence, and substantial electricity generation with minimum exploitation of finite resources. Additionally, nuclear energy is less influenced by meteorological conditions compared to wind or solar power, enhancing its reliability and efficiency. Even concerning cost-benefit, it is more convenient than other renewable sources since it is the only one able to sustain a capitalistic system without causing as much environmental harm as coal or oil.

However, the primary concern lies in the risks associated with human activities. The constant threat of intentional harm to nuclear facilities during conflicts poses a significant danger, potentially resulting in catastrophic consequences. The potential costs of accidents, whether caused by human actions or natural events, far outweigh any economic benefits.

While the positive aspects of nuclear power persist, if the EU wants to make it the main energy source, it is crucial to improve the functioning of facilities and establish a robust protection system not only reliant on regulations and common sense but also incorporating effective measures to safeguard this potent energy source from reckless actions. Furthermore, keeping the population informed on the new technologies and innovations for nuclear plants can positively influence public opinion, encouraging investments in this field.