But the plan was abandoned and has remained in limbo due to an array of concerns—potential leaks at the site, the lack of a waste transportation plan, a failure to ensure protective health and oversight standards that apply to all other forms of environmental law, and the lack of consent from Nevada itself. Department of Energy terminated the license application in , there has been no consensus between the executive branch and Congress on what to do with all the nuclear waste.
The Trump administration has also rejected Yucca Mountain as a final resting place for the enormous quantity of spent nuclear fuel now stored at both operating and closed reactor sites. NRDC has suggested a path forward based on sound science that could earn public acceptance. Existing nuclear plants have relatively low operation, maintenance, and fuel costs compared to many fossil fuel plants; however these routine costs still make nuclear power economically uncompetitive in comparison with natural gas, wind, and solar.
New nuclear plants are another matter altogether; their continuing high construction costs make them uneconomical. In reality, even those astronomical projections have been surpassed. The project was canceled in , and Duke Energy decided to focus on solar energy expansion instead. Reactors also typically require a long period of planning, licensing, and building. Since six commercial nuclear reactors have shut down, and an additional eight have announced plans to retire by Decommissioning nuclear power plants involves several steps : removing and safely storing spent nuclear fuel, decontaminating the plant to reduce residual radioactivity, dismantling plant structures, transferring contaminated materials to disposal facilities, and then releasing the property for other uses once the NRC has determined the site is safe.
Typically a nuclear power plant takes decades to decommission, and current lax regulations allow this to stretch to as much as 60 years. The process, compared with the decommissioning of other power plants, is extremely expensive, labor intensive, and time consuming, with heightened health and safety risks, which add to the overall cost of nuclear energy generation. A major concern about peaceful nuclear power programs is the risk of nuclear proliferation—the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material, technology, and expertise.
The same technology used to make nuclear fuel for power plants can also be used to produce explosive material for nuclear weapons. In other words, if countries have the capability to enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium, then they can also manufacture nuclear warheads. In a number of countries, peaceful nuclear materials and equipment have been diverted to secret nuclear weapons programs. The United Nations Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of N uclear W eapons NPT , which entered into force in March , aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and eventually to achieve nuclear disarmament.
A requirement of the NPT is that countries with nuclear arsenals—the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom—must negotiate and reduce their nuclear weapons stockpiles, ultimately eliminating these weapons of mass destruction. Distressingly, nuclear weapons are instead increasing in numbers, and so is the danger that they could be used in war again. Uranium from mining is used almost entirely as fuel for nuclear power plants.
It has generally been mined in one of three ways: surface or open-pit mining, underground mining, or a chemical process called in-situ leaching ISL.
Each extraction technique has broad impacts on the human and natural environment. Underground mining exposes workers to high levels of radon gas.
Studies have found strong evidence for an increased risk of lung cancer in uranium miners due to exposure to this odorless, colorless radioactive gas formed during the natural breakdown of uranium in soil, rocks, and water. Miners are also exposed to the risk of cave-ins and pneumoconiosis, a lung disease caused by inhaling dust.
Surface or open-pit mining is safer for miners than underground mines, but the process involves blasting 30 times more earth , and the material left over after processing is radioactive and toxic. The surrounding land is also left with increased erosion, landslides, and polluted soil and water. ISL mining now accounts for most uranium production in the United States. Rather than dig uranium straight out of the earth, ISL sends liquid underground to dissolve uranium directly from the underground ore.
The solution is then pumped to the surface where the mineral can be recovered. ISL operations, located mainly in Wyoming, Texas, and Nebraska, release considerable amounts of radon and produce waste slurries and wastewater during recovery of the uranium from the liquid.
The most pressing environmental risk associated with ISL, however, is the contamination of groundwater. Restoring natural groundwater conditions after completion of leaching operations is virtually impossible and has never been achieved.
For these reasons, security surrounding nuclear materials and nuclear power plants is extremely important. There might be some important pros and cons of nuclear energy, but one of the most important considerations to keep in mind is that nuclear energy is dependent on uranium and thorium to produce energy. Ultimately, nuclear power is only a temporary solution with a very high price tag. What Is Nuclear Energy? Low Cost of Operation After the initial cost of construction, nuclear energy has the advantage of being one of the most cost-effective energy solutions available.
Reliable Source of Energy While some energy sources are dependent upon weather conditions, like solar and wind power, nuclear energy has no such constraints. Sufficient Fuel Availability Like fossil fuels, the uranium used to supply nuclear power plants is in limited supply.
It Has High Energy Density On our list of the pros and cons of nuclear energy, this pro is quite astounding. Expensive to Build Despite being relatively inexpensive to operate, nuclear power plants are incredibly expensive to build—and the cost keeps rising. Accidents One of the first things most people think of when they hear nuclear power plant is the disaster at Chernobyl.
Impact on the Environment Nuclear power plants have a greater impact on the environment than just the waste they produce. Security Threat Nuclear power presents a unique threat to our national security because it is powered by nuclear energy. Limited Fuel Supply There might be some important pros and cons of nuclear energy, but one of the most important considerations to keep in mind is that nuclear energy is dependent on uranium and thorium to produce energy.
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email. Related Posts. October 6th, September 21st, August 25th, August 4th, Nuclear advocacy group the World Nuclear Association found that the average emissions for nuclear are 29 tonnes of CO 2 per gigawatt hour GWh of energy produces. This compares favourably with renewable sources like solar 85 tonnes per GWh and wind 26 tonnes per GWh and even more favourably with fossil fuels like lignite 1, tonnes per GWh and coal tonnes per GWh.
Nuclear produces roughly the same or less emissions as renewable sources so could be considered an environmentally friendly source of energy. Con — If it goes wrong… Anti-nuclear campaigners will cite the three major nuclear meltdowns of recent times, Three Mile Island in , Chernobyl in and most recently Fukushima in Despite all the safety measures in place these nuclear plants, different factors caused them to go into meltdown, which was devastating for the environment and for local inhabitants who had to flee the affected areas.
The official immediate death toll for Chernobyl was reported as 54 people, although this is consistently disputed, and the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA established a figure of 4, projected deaths in the longer term.
Is the potential of nuclear power worth the risk of powerful radiation leaks, mass evacuations and billions spent in repairs? In addition to the risks posed by terrorist attacks, human error and natural disasters can lead to dangerous and costly accidents.
The Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine led to the deaths of 30 employees in the initial explosion and has has had a variety of negative health effects on thousands across Russia and Eastern Europe. A massive tsunami bypassed the safety mechanisms of several power plants in , causing three nuclear meltdowns at a power plant in Fukushima, Japan, resulting in the release of radioactive materials into the surrounding area.
In both disasters, hundreds of thousands were relocated, millions of dollars spent, and the radiation-related deaths are being evaluated to this day. Cancer rates among populations living in proximity to Chernobyl and Fukushima, especially among children, rose significantly in the years after the accidents 4 5. In addition to the significant risk of cancer associated with fallout from nuclear disasters, studies also show increased risk for those who reside near a nuclear power plant, especially for childhood cancers such as leukemia 6 7 8.
Workers in the nuclear industry are also exposed to higher than normal levels of radiation, and as a result are at a higher risk of death from cancer Studies show that in order to meet current and future energy needs, the nuclear sector would have to scale up to around 14, plants. Uranium, the fuel for nuclear reactors, is energy-intensive to mine, and deposits discovered in the future are likely to be harder to get to to. As a result, much of the net energy created would be offset by the energy input required to build and decommission plants and to mine and process uranium ore.
The same is true for any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions brought about by switching from coal to nuclear The increase in extreme weather events predicted by climate models only compounds this risk. Unlike renewables, which are now the cheapest energy sources, nuclear costs are on the rise, and many plants are being shut down or in danger of being shut down for economic reasons.
Initial capital costs, fuel, and maintenance costs are much higher for nuclear plants than wind and solar, and nuclear projects tend to suffer cost overruns and construction delays. The price of renewable energy has fallen significantly over the past decade, and it projected to continue to fall Investment in nuclear plants, security, mining infrastructure, etc.
Financing for renewable energy is already scarce, and increasing nuclear capacity will only add to the competition for funding. Going down the nuclear route would mean that poor countries, that don't have the financial resources to invest in and develop nuclear power, would become reliant on rich, technologically advanced nations.
Alternatively, poor nations without experience in the building and maintaining of nuclear plants may decide to build them anyway.
0コメント