Global energy demands are at an unprecedented high and still growing. Global demand for electricity is projected to grow over 70 percent by 2035. And here in the US, the demand for electricity is projected to grow 22 percent by 2035.
Finding energy sources to power our growing population and economy and meet that demand cleanly and responsibly is part of an on-going debate. President Obama addressed these concerns in a recent speech at Georgetown University, outlining his climate change agenda, including executive actions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
While proposed solutions to solving our energy demands differ, most Americans express a strong desire to minimize dependence on foreign fuels and believe that we must consider a balance of all forms of energy production with their environmental impact.
All forms of energy that are harnessed to support human activities have an impact on the environment: coal burning releases pollutants and greenhouse gases that contribute to acid rain and global warming, oil spills damage aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, natural gas production – when not done properly – can harm precious aquifers, uranium milling to fuel nuclear power reactors concentrates natural radioactive by-products, hydropower alters streams and surrounding ecosystems, wind turbines kill birds, and solar panels require disposal of cadmium and other heavy metals and consume large land areas to be effective.
Because the environmental consequences of any energy source are inherent in their production, it becomes imperative that we weigh the scale of environmental harm compared to the net useful energy output of the source itself.
In a cost-benefit analysis of energy alternatives, nuclear energy stands well apart with regard to environmental, as well as economic impact. It is the cleanest base-load power, accounting for nearly 70 percent of all clean energy produced in the U.S., producing virtually zero greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear’s carbon footprint per kilowatt-hour is the smallest among all energy sources. Furthermore, it requires the least land space per unit of electrical energy produced – a nuclear power plant with a footprint of one square mile generates the same amount of energy as 20 square miles of solar panels or 2,400 wind turbines spanning 235 square miles.
Nuclear energy is also the most cost-efficient base-load power, boasting the lowest per kilowatt hour cost – an average of 2.40 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to 3.40 cents per kilowatt-hour for natural gas, and 3.27 cents per kilowatt-hour for coal, according to Ventyx Velocity Suite’senergy industry market research.
In spite of such advantages, many Americans have concerns about increasing nuclear power generation. These fears trace largely to misguided assumptions concerning the actual environmental and health consequences from accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and, most recently, Fukushima. The latest research on communities most directly impacted by Chernobyl and Fukushima clearly point to various forms of psychological trauma as the primary health impact that can be documented with robust scientific methods.
Misinformation and lack of education about the true safety and regulation of nuclear facilities and radioactive material in the US is astounding, and unfortunately obscures the environmental benefit and energy potential of nuclear power, much to our country’s detriment.
As one of the early scientists that helped develop the field of “radioecology,” a branch of ecology that studies how radioactive substances interact with nature, I realize now how important it is to quantify health and environmental risks associated with radiation, especially with regard to discussions about nuclear power.
That is why I joined with eight of my esteemed colleagues in contributing to a collection of papers recently published by the Health Physics Society on the risks associated with radiation, Radiation and Risk: Expert Perspectives. The purpose is to better inform the public on how we are exposed to radiation, the benefits of nuclear technology, and how science and policy come together to help minimize the risk of radiation exposure.
In Radiation and Risk: Expert Perspectives, I discuss the risks and benefits of using nuclear energy to produce electricity. While some may contend that the amount of radioactive waste produced as a result of increasing the nuclear energy supply would counterbalance any land use and greenhouse gas benefit, radiation exposure to human populations and the general environment from natural sources and coal-fired plants are actually far higher than radiation exposure from nuclear power facilities. Moreover, scientists have calculated that if the entire US electrical energy need was met by nuclear reactors, the total radioactive waste volume from 350 years of production would fit into a cube measuring 200 feet on each side.
The US government, along with the nuclear energy industry, has tested, established and enforced regulations to ensure the safe storage of even the smallest parcels of waste materials and are constantly monitoring for any signs of any effects on surrounding areas.
Nuclear power technology has continued to advance for several decades. Today we have in place regulations and standards for nuclear facilities that effectively minimize risk to surrounding environments as well as human populations. The environmental advantages – reductions in greenhouse emissions and land area disturbances – of nuclear power not only surpass those of fossil fuels, but surpass them by orders of magnitude. Failure to replace coal, gas and oil-burning power plants with nuclear ones will very likely lead to continuing environmental consequences that may result in significant changes in the biosphere and human life support systems.
With the paramount goal of crafting a sustainable energy policy that addresses climate change concerns, it is no surprise that the White House plan unveiled last month includes the continued promotion of ‘the safe and secure use of nuclear power.’ In fact, the construction of five new reactors expanding capacity at nuclear facilities in Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee is already underway.
As the clean energy debate continues, we should all take another look at the power that nuclear energy has to meet our energy demands cleanly and responsibly, while minimizing the degradation of our environment.
F. Ward Whicker, Ph.D is Professor Emeritus at Colorado State University’s Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences. Dr. Whicker is regarded as one of the founders of Radioecology, the field addressing the fate and effects of radioactivity in the environment. His early work on fallout radionuclides in ecosystems had implications for health effects in human, plant and animal populations. His research in that field is known locally, nationally and internationally.
