Debunking Myths: The Case for Nuclear Energy.
Nuclear energy sparks intense debate with supporters lauding its potential and detractors raising safety and environmental concerns. This article aims to dispel common myths about nuclear power, highlight its strengths, and examine its role in the global energy transition.
Myth 1: Nuclear Energy Is More Dangerous Than Other Energy Sources
Understanding Radiation
Radiation often triggers fear due to its portrayal in media, but the word simply means the transfer of energy via waves or particles. Radiation is all around us in everyday phenomena like sound waves, the warmth from a radiator, or UV radiation from the sun. Due to radiation being a natural, physical process, human bodies are capable of metabolising it in a similar way to how plants photosynthesise sunlight into energy.
Nuclear reactors, however, emit certain types of radiation harmful to humans in high doses, but rigorous safety measures protect against this. For perspective, standing next to a nuclear plant 24/7 for an entire year exposes you to as much radiation as a quarter of a chest X-ray or 1/20 of the radiation from a transatlantic flight—far below harmful levels.
Pollution and Emissions
Contrary to popular belief, nuclear plants emit no greenhouse gases during operation, only water vapor from cooling towers. Moreover, nuclear energy produces the least greenhouse gas emissions per gigawatt-hour of electricity produced compared to other energy sources. The emissions primarily arise during plant construction, similar to renewable energy sources like hydro and wind, which require energy-intensive materials like steel and concrete.
In fact, retrofitting old coal and gas plants to house nuclear plants could reduce construction-related emissions by up to 35%, making it a practical step in decarbonising energy systems.
Myth 2: Nuclear Plants Can Be Weaponised
One major misconception is that nuclear power plants can create nuclear explosions akin to the infamous atom bombs. This is scientifically inaccurate. The uranium used in nuclear power plants is significantly different from the material required for nuclear weapons. Reactors use uranium enriched from natural to about 5% (of U-235), which is sufficient for a sustained chain reaction to generate electricity. This is far below the 85% required for weapons-grade material or even the 20% needed for it to be “weapon-usable”. This high level of enrichment involves complex and highly controlled processes that are absent in power plant operations. Additionally, the reactor’s design is optimised for steady energy production, not the uncontrolled rapid release of energy necessary for a bomb. Simply put, it is physically impossible for a nuclear power plant to produce the explosive energy of a nuclear weapon.
If a nuclear power plant were struck by a missile, it would not result in a nuclear bomb explosion. Instead, the damage would be mechanical, potentially leading to the release of radioactive material if the reactor’s containment structures were compromised. However, modern plants are equipped with highly reinforced containment buildings designed to withstand significant impacts, including natural disasters and attacks. As discussed above, the radioactive fuel would not detonate like a bomb because the precise conditions required for such an explosion—high enrichment and exact assembly—are not present.
Myth 3: Reactor Meltdowns Are Catastrophic and Frequent
Nuclear incidents are categorised by the International Atomic Energy Agency on a scale of 1 to 7. The only two level 7 incidents in history were Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011), with Three Mile Island (1979) at level 5. These are the only high-level nuclear power plant incidents in history and, for this reason, are the most famous. Due to their social and environmental disruption, they have fuelled fears of reactor meltdowns but, while these events were significant, their outcomes were less catastrophic than public perception suggests:
- Three Mile Island (1979): No direct fatalities.
- Fukushima (2011): No direct fatalities.
- Chernobyl (1986): 30 immediate deaths.
For context, coal power causes over 24 deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity produced, largely due to air pollution, while nuclear energy has a fatality rate comparable to wind and solar power—well under 0.1 deaths per terawatt-hour. However, due to the fatalities nearly exclusively coming in clusters due to accidents, and these being well-publicised, the impression is that nuclear energy is much more dangerous than other forms of energy production. While deaths are tragic and should never be downplayed or ignored, nuclear energy is one of the safest methods of electricity generation.
Myth 4: Nuclear Waste Is an Insurmountable Problem
The image of glowing green sludge popularised by The Simpsons is pure fiction. In reality, 96% of nuclear waste is recycled back into fuel for future use. Most of what is left is kept in medium term isolation until it becomes safe in about 300 years. Less than 1% of nuclear waste is radioactive high-level waste – the most dangerous type. It is contained safely within copper and granite miles below ground and sealed away forever.
Since the 1950s, the total global volume of high-level waste requiring deep storage amounts to less than 10,000 cubic meters—roughly one-tenth the volume of the Royal Albert Hall—far from being an unsolvable problem.
Myth 5: Nuclear Energy Is Unnecessary
The global energy transition hinges on renewable sources like wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal. However, these sources have inherent limitations:
- Intermittency: Solar and wind power depend on weather conditions.
- Location Constraints: Hydropower and geothermal require specific geographic features.
- Inefficiency: Wave and biomass technologies face challenges scaling efficiently.
To fill these gaps, we need clean firm power—energy sources capable of providing reliable, on-demand electricity without emissions. Nuclear energy fits this role perfectly. Unlike fossil fuels, it is clean, and unlike many renewables, it offers consistent output regardless of environmental conditions.
A single pellet of nuclear fuel, about the size of a pencil eraser, generates as much energy as burning:
- 481 cubic meters of natural gas
- 677 litres of oil
- 900 kilograms of coal
This remarkable efficiency, combined with its low emissions and safety record, makes nuclear energy an essential component of the future energy mix. Despite fear-driven opposition from some oil companies and environmental groups, the data is clear: nuclear energy is safe, clean, and virtually limitless.
Conclusion
Nuclear energy is an often misunderstood but vital tool in the fight against climate change. It provides safe, low-emission electricity that can complement renewable sources to meet global energy demands. By dispelling myths and reducing stigma, we can embrace nuclear energy as a cornerstone of a sustainable future.
*Hannah Ritchie (2020) “What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?” Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved from: ‘https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy’ [Online Resource]