Why Not Nuclear?

There are many popular environmentalists in the media that are resolutely anti-nuclear. David Suzuki comes to mind. Let's take a closer look.

Nuclear energy has many advantages over both non-renewable and renewable energy.

Advantages include:

1. high fuel density;

2. small land footprint;

3. reliability;

4. lowest emissions – carbon and radiation;

5. relative safety.

Disadvantages are said to include:

1. cost;

2. concerns about spent fuel; and

3. perceived dangers from nuclear mishaps.

Regarding fuel density, “the energy density of nuclear fuel is about 2 million times higher than that of any chemical (like fossil fuel, biofuel, or batteries).” See the following table for examples:

Material	Energy Density (MJ/kg)
Uranium	80,620,000
Natural Gas	53.5
Coal	24-33
Ethanol	30
Wood	18
Lithium	43

Expressed another way: to get the equivalent energy from one-10 gram pellet of uranium (and oxygen) in a modern breeder reactor, you would need: 22 tons of coal; 4,350 gallons of oil; 53.5 cubic ft. of natural gas or batteries containing 16 tons of lithium.

Regarding land foot print, traditional nuclear power uses approximately 103 acres of land to generate 1,000 MWe (Megawatts of electric energy). By comparison, to generate the same amount of power, solar requires 3,200 acres and wind requires 17,800 acres. [see https://www.nei.org/news/2022/nuclear-brings-more-electricity-with-less-land] SMRs require a fraction of the land used for traditional nuclear power. It is estimated that SMRs can generate 1,500 MWe in less than one hectare.

[see https://changeoracle.com/2022/07/20/nuclear-power-versus-renewable-energy/]

Solar and wind power is intermittent. Whereas nuclear power facilities have an average capacity factor of 92%, wind farms have an average capacity factor of 37% and solar has an average capacity factor of 27% .

[seehttps://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/01/f58/Ultimate%20Fast%20Facts%20Guide-PRINT.pdf]

Hydrolelectricty has an average capacity of 38.2% Even non-renewable plants run at only about 50% due to maintenance issues. [https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate.]

Since nuclear produces energy via nuclear fission rather than chemical burning, it generates energy with no output of carbon. Further, nuclear power releases less radiation into the environment than any other major energy source.[see https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate]

Deaths from nuclear mishaps are far less in number than deaths from hydroelectric mishaps. In China alone, at least 26,000 people drowned following the failure of a hydroelectric dam during a typhoon (Banqiao Reservoir). Some estimate that deaths were much higher – as high as 220,000 to 230,000.

Studies have shown that deaths related to different types of power generation are as follows: nuclear - .2 to 1.2 deaths per 10 TWh (least deadly); natural gas - .3 to 1.6 deaths per 10 TWh; hyrdroelectric – 1 to 1.6 deaths per 10 TWh; and coal – 2.8 to 32.7 deaths per 10 TWh (most deadly). If you include the numbers from the Banqiao Reservoir disaster, deaths from hydroelectric increases to 54.7 deaths per 10 TWh. This is 46 times the risk from nuclear power. [https://www.businessinsider.com/dam-safety-statistics-risk-of-death-2017-2]

It is often argued that nuclear power is vastly more expensive than other forms of power, especially wind and solar. Equal comparisons are difficult to make. This leads, on the one hand to claims that nuclear energy is substantially cheaper than alternatives, including wind and solar – see here. And on the other hand to claims that nuclear is 5 times more expensive than wind and power – see here

Regarding spent nuclear fuel, and the disposal thereof, this is no longer a technological problem. More than 90% of current waste is likely to be recycled due to newer nuclear technology. In the meantime, existing waste is safely secured. Existing storage facilities could store the entire world’s nuclear waste for the next 1,000 years. [https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate]

Regarding nuclear mishaps, there have been three large-scale accidents involving nuclear power reactors since the onset of commercial nuclear power in the mid-1950s: Three-Mile Island in Pennsylvania, Chernobyl in Ukraine, and Fukushima in Japan. The partial melt-down of the Three-Mile Island reactor, in 1979, exposed approximately 2 million people each to a dose of radiation equating to 1/6 of that from a chest x-ray. [https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate ] Chernobyl, in 1986, was the worst nuclear accident in history. There were 29 directly related deaths. Radiation exposure is believed to have led to 6,500 excess cases of thyroid cancers, with 15 deaths – all in children who were not evacuated and drank contaminated milk. Radiation exposure for those affected was generally under 1 mSv. For perspective, this is equivalent to what most US residents receive in background radiation per year (not counting radon). The Fukushima incident led to the evacuation of 154,000 citizens from a 12 mile exclusion zone. No deaths were reported. Of those persons tested, two thirds had radiation does within 1 mSv/year and 95% had exposure above 10 mSv. [https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate]

So much for a general discussion about nuclear power. Now, let’s talk about SMRs. The following points are generally from the website at [https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx]

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines a small nuclear reactor as under 300 MWe. “MWe” means millions of watts electricity. Over 300 MWe but under 700 MWe is considered a medium nuclear reactor. A subcategory of small is a very small reactor at 15 MWe. The acronym “SMR” can mean either ‘small-medium reactor’ or, more commonly, ‘small modular reactor’. When used herein, SMR, means a small modular reactor.

SMRs typically use modular technology and module factory fabrication. The advantages of modular technology is scalability and the ability to be factory fabricated. The advantages of factory fabrication are quality control, efficiency and cost savings relative to old nuclear plant construction.

The scalability of SMRs allows them to be used in many different places and contexts. For example very small SMRs can be used in remote locations for very specific purposes while larger or daisy-chained SMRs can provide power for general urban application.

The land footprint for SMRs is a fraction of that needed for the equivalent power generation of solar farms, or even wind farms. SMR locations can re-use sites previously occupied by non-renewable power generation. The re-use of sites can make use of existing infrastructure such as transmission lines, roads, and the like. New solar farms and wind farms, inland or off-shore, require the construction of costly new infrastructure like transmission lines, substations and, ideally, electrical storage facilities of some sort e.g. batteries due to their intermittant nature.

Another major advantage of SMRs is their passive or inherent safety mechanisms in the event of malfunction – i.e. less reliance on active safety systems subject to human error. From a security point of view, their size allows them to be located underground where necessary.

There are many entities worldwide working on SMR technology. This has led to a plethora of design types. Technological challenges and related regulatory hurdles still remain. However, once these hurdles are overcome, it is anticipated that the final products will be efficient to build and install with substantial cost and time of construction savings over traditional nuclear plants.

It seems inevitable, in a good way, that more and more nuclear will be part of the energy supply mix.