I understand why members of the nuclear industry are so adamant that nuclear power is the answer to our energy needs. They stand to make billions of dollars if more nuclear reactors are build. On the other hand, I am having trouble understanding why some prominent environmentalists agree that nuclear power is an important part of the future mix of energy sources. I know that nuclear power has smaller (but not zero) carbon emissions than fossil fuel sources which is attractive to environmentalists.
I assume that the environmentalists have been talking to scientists and engineers who have assured them that nuclear power plants can safe and economical to operate. For the most part, I agree with this idea. There have been improvements in nuclear power reactor designs and tightening of regulations, especially since the Fukushima disaster in March of 2011. Considered strictly from the viewpoint of engineering design, regulations and best practices for operation, nuclear power could be safe. The problem with that viewpoint is that there are many factors beyond reactor design and regulations that affect how safe it is to use nuclear power. Here are some other issues that must be considered when talking about how safe and economical nuclear power might be.
Financial: There are a number of financial problems with nuclear power. Investors are not impressed with nuclear power. Seven years ago the U.S. Department of Energy allocated about twenty billion dollars to a loan pool for the construction of new reactors. In that time, they have only had a request for about eight billion in loans for the construction of two new nuclear power plants in Georgia. For years, the owners of new power reactors could sell electricity at a fixed price for up to twenty years, guaranteed by the buyers. With the turbulence in the current energy market, this type of guarantee is disappearing, making investment more risky. There are also issues with the mandatory decommissioning fund required by the NRS. Some reactor owners have not paid the required amount into the fund. Then there are issues with insurance, accident liability and so on.
Environmental: Of course there have been many problems with the mining and processing of uranium and normal releases of radioactive gases from nuclear power plants can affect human health. And there is the problem of water supplies. Reactors require a lot of water to cool. Recently, due to climate change, bodies of water used for cooling have become too warm and reactors have had to be shut down. This problem will only get worse. And the environment can also cause problems such as floods, hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes which can threaten nuclear power plants. And, of course, there is the problem of what to do about all the accumulating nuclear waste from power plant operations without a permanent geological repository in the U.S.
Political: There are far too many stories about the failure of the NRC to adequately regulate the nuclear power plants in the United States. And far too many stories of nuclear power plant operators failing to purchase new parts, failing to train staff adequately, failing to follow engineering designs correctly, failing to respond to and report problems, openly lying about reactor operations and problems, etc. Both the government and private companies have a bad record with respect to the treatment of whistleblowers. In the event of war, such as in Ukraine, nuclear power plants might be destroyed either deliberately or accidentally.
This recount of problems with nuclear power is only a brief and partial list of some of the additional problems beyond engineering designs and regulations on the books that make nuclear power a very bad choice for the generation of electricity.
