Graner and Panebianco opined in late December, 2021 that French President Emmanuel Macron has recently announced that France will invest €1 billion into nuclear power, and build more reactors by 2030 to help stave off Europe's energy crisis. But even in France, where nuclear provides more than 70% of the country's energy mix, the issue is controversial. The debate is particularly polarized among those who live near nuclear power plants, depending on whether or not they profit either materially or symbolically from this proximity. There is also a constant tension between the press and the nuclear industry over coverage of the industry. Decades since the first nuclear power plant was built, the debate is still hindered by misunderstandings over both the advantages and drawbacks of this technology.
[Initial reaction to above introduction: There are three issues here:
1) The press is materially guilty of fear pandering regarding nuclear power for the purpose of selling print or viewership, or for promoting wind and solar projects (more). The media caused the overreaction to the Three Mile Island incident (where no one was killed or injured seriously (Someone was burned with hot (nonradioactive) water, but no one was irradiated, with only a very minor release of radioactive gas to the atmosphere. This scared many people in the U.S. and the world creating small anti-nuclear groups, which also spread to anti-uranium mining (more).
Only a few years later, Chernobyl occurred, which was clearly a disaster caused by "Cold War" pressures on the Soviet Union to cut corners in the management of safety issues. Very small amounts of radioactive gas were detected in Norway with increasingly sensitive laboratory equipment, but were not high enough to cause direct damage to either human health or the environment (more).
Then came Fukushima 25 years later, caused by a tsunami flooding out back-up power to pumps that cooled used fuel which led to a reactor meltdown and explosion of the cooling room by ignited hydrogen caused by boiling water in the used fuel building blowing off the roof in spectacular fashion. This was reported by the media and broadcast live throughout the world media as it occurred. But, once again, no one was killed and no one was irradiated as a result. Thousands of people were evacuated from surrounding areas out of an abundance of caution. Only a very small area was irradiated, which was quickly isolated from possible exposure. In retrospect, the plant management did an outstanding job of containing the event with much work remaining to be done to remediate the area of contaminated soil and damaged reactor waste. A serious incident, but in perspective, this was no worse than a major industrial accident or de-railing with explosion and fire of hazardous chemicals (more).
The impact was world-wide however. Germany and a few other countries panicked, which began with fear pandering by the local press and anti-nuclear groups of predominantly young ignorant people attempting to shutter their nuclear power plants with no evidence of how the Fukushima incident directly affected them, except physiologically in the fear of radioactivity, like there should have been fear of coal-burning particulates of mercury, silica, etc. that actually kill people (more). Political expediently also merged with the impact in Germany, which garnered support of nuclear withdrawal without reasonable foundations after spending billions in nuclear construction of state-of-the-science reactors for the purpose of moving away from burning their lignite-coal and burning natural gas from Russia, while at the same time constructing renewables that were not meant to operate efficiently in the weather of Germany, unreliable wind and solar resources (more).
2) Understanding risk is another, albeit associated matter that affects peoples' views on nuclear power. It is clear, and well documented that nuclear power has been operated safely for more than 40 years in plants now counting some 400 reactors world wide when compared with the safety records of coal (mining and transportation), oil and natural gas, (pipelines, refineries, etc.), and even renewables (construction and O&M accidents), not counting the birds. Nuclear power's record is superior by a large margin. Except for Chernobyl, no one has died or been seriously irradiated since the major nuclear power plants began operations. Yes, there was one mysterious death in Idaho at a small military test reactor and one in the UK, but all occurred at the outset when mistakes were made out of a lack of experience in managing such operations. Since then there has been zero (0) nuclear-related accidents other than typical industrial incidents than all industries have in common (more).
Another risk often cited by anti-nuclear groups is the nuclear waste issues. Nuclear plants produce used fuel, not waste that needs to be disposed somewhere. The fuel rods are replaced every 4 or 5 years and these are clearly radioactive and must be "cooled" in water for a few years at the plants before they are cool enough to be handled (more). Because the used fuel can be recycled with the new "breeder" reactors that both India and Russia are developing (more), the used fuel can be stored at the plant site indefinitely (more). The issue of nuclear waste has therefore been blown way out of proportion by the media and by anti-nuclear groups, often with agendas supporting wind and solar (more).
3) Alternative energy resources involve hydroelectric and pumped-storage projects that have roles to play in providing electricity if the country's geography lends itself to such construction. Wind and solar also have roles to play, but in remote, low population areas were weather conditions support such devices and where reliability and cost are not factors of concern. The large wind and solar project being constructed these days have limited lifetimes in equipment operations and in their increasing cost to maintain. If remotely located, power-line losses are significant over long distances to the consumer. Unanticipated low efficiency and under estimated O&M costs will degrade the usefulness of these systems over this decade in attempting to also power the main power grid in and around high-population areas.
As the new nuclear technologies materialize in operations around the U.S. and Europe, China, Russia, etc., SMRs will be manufactured by the thousands forming local and min-grids and major power grids to replace the current wind and solar installations and those about to go on-line soon. Their cost advantages will have been lost by increasing O&M and replacement costs, while nuclear systems costs will be competitive, weather-hardened, with minimal O&M costs. After 5 to 7 years the reactor unit containing the used fuel will be retrieved and loaded on a truck and/or train flatbed and taken back to the factory for refurbishing. A new unit will be installed in a relatively short time. In the local grid, two SMRs will initially be built onsite. One will operate with the other used as standby during replacement of the other unit, all for the purpose of maintaining continuous operations in generating electricity to local consumers.]
Contrasting Views
As physicists, the two of us mainly agree on the scientific and technological basics of the debate, and on every argument based on verifiable facts. But our different sensibilities as citizens lead us to weigh each argument differently and reach different conclusions on nuclear power.
One of us (Stefano Panebianco) estimates that the advantages of this technology make it a viable choice for the future, while the other (François Graner) estimates that our efforts should focus on a significant decrease in our energy consumption. [History has shown that Americans will not participate in decreasing energy consumption for many reasons, and then only under dire circumstances]
By drawing on our contrasting views based on a shared understanding of the scientific evidence, we want to help others form an opinion by listing the pros and cons of nuclear power using the rigorous methods of our everyday life as scientists.
To do so, we asked experts from across the spectrum, including physicists, economists, political scientists, anthropologists, historians, journalists, and NGO volunteers to contribute to a review of the major questions relating to nuclear power. The collected works do not provide a conclusion: we leave it to the readers to draw their own.
So, how should you make up your mind? Here are the basics say Graner and Panebianco:
Making choices about the future
The physics underlying nuclear production of electricity are well known. It is rather the industrialization of the process that raises questions.
Scientific and technological research organizations try to anticipate future energy needs and develop new types of nuclear reactors to replace existing ones. Such research should not predict future choices to be made by politicians and society. However, it is a long-term process which often takes several decades of research, design, development and experimentation before approval, and hence the choices of research directions today can be somewhat binding for the future. For instance, the study of fast neutron breeder reactor design and optimization is a long-standing research field. This would allow nuclear fuel to be recycled, which would preserve natural uranium resources and reduce nuclear waste.
In France, two successive demonstrators, Phenix and Super-Phenix, were built and operated last century and a third one, Astrid, was planned in recent years. However, all of these projects have been subject to successive government decisions to pursue, stop, resume, and recently in the case of Astrid, stop again, or at least defer. These decisions were made based on economic, environmental, political and strategical criteria.[However, both India and Russia are well along with "breeders" currently in operation testing for the long run. So, storing "used fuel" is not a problem as mistakenly represented by anti-nuclear groups].
How much does it cost?
Natural uranium, which is used as fuel in power plants, is still a relatively abundant resource and does not yet contribute much to the total cost of nuclear energy. The French Court of Auditors estimated the current average generation cost of nuclear energy for a life-span of 50 years at €60 per megawatt-hour, equivalent to six cents per kilowatt-hour. Though comparisons with other electricity sources are difficult to make, the highly variable public sale price of electricity is around 15 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Cost estimates heavily depend on hypotheses about the future, including the prolongation of power plant duration, waste choices and the decommissioning of reactors. Although decisions are often taken within the short-term vision of an electoral mandate, waste policy must take long-term implications into account. [The latter becomes irrelevant if waste = "used fuel" and can be stored on-site, unless or until a centralized storage facility is constructed to manage the country's "used fuel"].
Meanwhile, the technical feasibility of decommissioning is still hard to predict owing to different levels of understanding of the various reactor types. To maintain or decommission a nuclear power plant requires anticipation in term of money, know-how and energy, and so largely engages the next generations.[The same problems exist with decommissioning wind and solar plants, with the added problem of solar panel's containing toxic metals, etc., or otherwise like problems with thinking of nuclear waste as a material that requires disposal rather than storage for later use. The same cannot be said for reuse of solar and wind project wastes].
Nuclear power thus requires long-term political, financial and geological stability. [Unless steps can be taken to maintain political and financial stability (to keep from spending billions on one technology and then backing out of it on the basis of unfounded or poor reasons, like in Germany, etc.. Japan has hardened their plants and bringing them back on line. Engineering protections can also be incorporated to minimize damage from earthquakes and tsunamis].
Is it safe?
In public debates about safety, a purely technical subject has been transformed into a political one. Radioactivity must be controlled throughout all stages of the nuclear fuel chain to prevent any harmful effects on either humans or the environment. The risk of nuclear accidents, whether related to natural events, human error, waste, malice or war, has been addressed over the decades by significant improvements and by experience feedback from the two main accidents of Chernobyl [disaster] and Fukushima [well-managed incident]. However, it remains a major preoccupation for the general public.[See comment #2 above]
Preventing accidents involves many factors, including the human one; the know-how and motivation of workers depend on a strong partnership between operator and subcontractors. Other environmental impacts during normal operations include the exposure of nuclear workers and the public to chemical or thermal emissions: the latter becomes problematic with the global warming, as river water required to run reactors becomes scarce and warmer. [The nuclear industry remains the safest of all energy-producing activities, see Comment #1 above]
Does nuclear have a role in fighting climate change?
What is the future of nuclear power? Scientists cannot make these predictions. Instead, scenarios are useful tools for examining possible consequences and costs of hypotheses or choices, for instance by decreasing greenhouse gas emissions or even decreasing energy demand. The fact that nuclear power plants do not emit carbon, at least during the phase of electricity production (as opposed to the whole fuel and plant life cycles [even these are inconsequential and fabricated by anti-nuclear "experts"]), is an argument to consider in the context of bringing down global emissions.
Nuclear plants also deliver constant power, which is a drawback in terms of adaptation to demand, but an advantage in terms of regularity: development of intermittent renewable energies such as solar and wind exert pressure on electricity distribution networks, as these energies are not necessarily always available at peak times.
The role of politics
In practice, global energy transition scenarios are often used to establish and endorse choices that have already been made. Globally, the decisions which have actually been taken rely heavily on geopolitics, for instance attempts to bring down reliance on petroleum imports, and also decisions to develop military nuclear power alongside energy policy. The dual system of funding civil and military research alongside one another is only justified if nuclear weapons are developed, which is again a political decision. [Why conflate military and energy policy except to pander fear ...?]
Why it's so hard to decide
In deciding what to think about nuclear power, the list of arguments to take into account is frustratingly large, and many are coupled together. For instance, some reactors, loaded with the so-called mixed uranium and plutonium oxide fuel, partly contribute to recycle some nuclear products. Shutting them down could have the side effect of filling the current waste storage facilities more quickly than expected. [Not relevant]
Even worse, decisions are often based on speculative hypotheses due to the difficulty of prediction. What is beyond doubt is that any decision taken or not taken today will affect future generations more than our own.[If pigs could fly ....?]
This means citizens should not leave decisions to be taken only on the basis of scientific or technical arguments, but should make up their own minds, taking into account the political and societal horizon they want for themselves and their children. [The simple problem is that "they" do not have a basis to understand the technicalities and must therefore be based on trusting the experienced scientists and engineers to make recommendations for approval .... If you allow politics and ignorant people to make such decisions, you'll then be in the same predicament that Germany is in these days. Their Chancellor made a huge mistake in going with the flow ...and shutting down their nuclear reactor fleet means becoming dependent on other countries for power ... Norway? and Russia??? But other questions haven't been raised, see (more) and (more)].
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
