[COLUMNIST] Can nuclear power help in combating climate change?

CLIMATE change has plagued humanity since it was accelerated by the Industrial Revolution and our insatiable hunger for scientific and technological advancement.

While the environmental impact of climate change was proven in the 1980s, and some policies have been implemented to combat the worsening situation, the general public has been sceptical or even outright ignorant of the issue. However, it is no longer possible to ignore the effects of climate change.

According Copernicus (2024), the record for the highest global average temperature was broken twice in July, with the highest temperature being 17.16°C on 22nd July 2024. Although the average temperature in July 2024 is slightly lower than in 2023, and temperatures have started to drop slightly due to the development of La Niña, 2024 is poised to be Earth’s warmest year on record (ABC News, 2024).

In recent years, more and more countries, including Malaysia, are committing resources to reduce carbon emissions and aim to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

While there are many ways to achieve this target, including carbon capture and storage, which our government is currently considering, the best way to truly reach zero emissions would be a complete shift from fossil fuels to sustainable energy sources (The Star, 2024). Traditionally, this includes solar and wind power, but one energy sector that has been discussed since the beginning is nuclear power.

Nuclear power plants can generate massive amounts of energy with little to no greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions. This sounds like the perfect choice for fully committing to net zero emission, but it has its fair share of controversies and concerns.

Thus, it is important to ask: Is nuclear power truly in line with the world’s safer and greener future initiative?

As mentioned before, nuclear power plants do not release GhG when generating electricity, like solar or wind power. However, the main concern is not GhG emissions but the radioactive waste produced, including spent nuclear fuel.

People are understandably worried about how to manage or dispose of radioactive waste safely. However, much like any other waste, disposal is not the only option for spent fuel.

For example, countries like China, Russia, India, and France have adopted a closed fuel cycle for their nuclear power programmes, allowing them to reprocess spent fuel to recover uranium and plutonium for reuse (Wattal, 2017). The La Hague reprocessing plant in France, in particular, has reprocessed 40,000 tonnes of spent fuel since its operation in 1976, ultimately reducing the volume of nuclear waste by 75% (Reuters, 2023; Power Technology, 2024).

For the waste that cannot be recycled, depending on its level, it can be stored in deep geological repositories. Although it is commonly thought to negatively impact the surrounding environment, studies have found that even though the radiation dose rate near these locations has increased, it remains below the limit set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICPR). This means it is highly unlikely to have detrimental effects on the survival and reproduction of individual organisms (Torudd, 2010, 2013; Flamíková & Nečas, 2020).

Some may argue that solar energy is better since it is waste-free. However, this is not the case. Photovoltaic panels (commonly known as solar panels) have a finite lifespan, typically ranging from 25 to 30 years. Improper disposal of these panels could negatively impact the environment and human health, especially if they are lead-based (Schileo & Grancini, 2021; Sharma et al., 2021).

For instance, Rathore and Panwar (2021) estimate that in India alone, approximately 200,000 tonnes of solar photovoltaic waste will be generated by 2030, and 1.8 million tonnes in 2050.

Thus, it seems that in terms of waste, it is just a matter of timing: either managing waste along the way (nuclear power) or handling it all at once in the future (solar power).

Waste management is not the only concern regarding nuclear power. The overall safety of nuclear power plants is always under scrutiny. It is undeniable that nuclear reactions and radioactivity can harm the environment and human health, but is the risk being exaggerated by public perception of historical events?

Multiple studies have found that under normal operating conditions, there is no significant evidence to suggest an increased risk of leukaemia or solid cancers, and no evidence of increased radioactivity in drinking water and ambient doses near a nuclear power plant (Zablotska, Lance & Thompson, 2013; Cao et al., 2022; Ren et al., 2023).

A meta-analysis by Kim, Bang and Lee (2016) concluded that no significant increase in the risk of thyroid cancer (one of the most radiation-sensitive organs in the human body) is associated with living near a nuclear power plant.

Compared to other energy sources, nuclear power plants are among the safest, with the lowest health risk and mortality rate, even lower than solar and wind power (Hirschberg et al., 2016; McCombie & Jefferson, 2016). Furthermore, Purevsuren and Kim (2021) found that radiation doses from airborne effluents from coal-fired power plants are significantly higher than those from nuclear power plants under normal operation.

What about in the event of a major accident? Arguably, a nuclear disaster is one of the deadliest forms of accident, with the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 being the famous (or infamous) example, and the Fukushima accident in 2011 recently stirred up controversy due to the release of treated radioactive water in 2023.

Chernobyl disaster was caused by a combination of severe reactor design flaws and a lack of general safety culture, exacerbating an avoidable disaster. This led to a steam explosion, massive meltdown, and nuclear explosions (International Atomic Energy Agency, 1992).

There is no consensus on the death toll attributed to the disaster, as the scientific community agrees it is impossible to assess with statistical confidence. Some estimates range from 300 to 500. United Nations (UN) estimates it to be at around 4,000, while Greenpeace, known for its anti-technology and anti-nuclear stance, estimates 200,000 (The Irish Times, 2016; Ritchie, 2017).

In Fukushima accident, the power plant was first hit by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake, cutting it off the grid and relying on emergency power. Shortly after, a 13-metre-high tsunami destroyed all but one emergency diesel generator required for emergency cooling, resulting in catastrophic decay heat, nuclear meltdown, and subsequent hydrogen explosions (Lipscy, Kushida & Incerti, 2013).

No deaths were directly caused by the Fukushima accident. Although the World Health Organization (2016) reported a very low risk of increased cancer deaths, the Japanese government has reported that one worker died from lung cancer associated with radiation exposure (BBC, 2018). In 2020, the Japanese government estimated that 2,313 people died due to the physical and mental stress of the evacuation (Japanese Reconstruction Agency, 2020).

For perspective, coal-fired power plants in the United States (US) have killed more than 460,000 people due to pollution alone from 1999 to 2020 (The Guardian, 2023). Assuming the UN’s estimated death toll for the Chernobyl disaster is the most accurate, it would take 115 Chernobyl disasters to match the death toll from coal-fired power plants in the US, or 5.75 Chernobyl disasters per year for 20 years, or 10 Fukushima accidents per year for 20 years.

Human error and natural disasters are not limited to nuclear power plants. Thus, it is necessary to compare the fatalities of nuclear power accidents with those of other power sources.

In the assessment by Hirschberg et al. (2016), the authors found that fatalities per gigawatt-hour of energy during severe nuclear power plant accidents are among the lowest of all power sources, despite their highest maximum consequences, alongside hydropower dams.

Furthermore, Ritchie (2020) found that the death rate from nuclear accidents and pollution combined is the second lowest of all well-known power sources, including hydropower, at 0.03 deaths per terawatt-hour. This includes the deaths caused by the Chernobyl disaster and Fukushima accident.

Nuclear power is not perfect, as nothing ever will be. Every technology has its own risks; the only difference is the magnitude of those risks. Currently, there is an abundance of evidence showing that the risks of nuclear power are minimal, even comparable to popular renewable energy sources.

Advancements in nuclear power have made the technology much safer than in the early days of nuclear development. Evidence shows that the frequency of nuclear power plant accidents has dramatically reduced since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 (Wheatly, Sovacool & Sornette, 2016).

However, Malaysia needs to answer two main questions: Do we have the time to study and advance nuclear power, and do we have the money and other resources needed for it?

---

* Chia Chu Hang is a Research Assistant at EMIR Research, an independent think tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research.

** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.

Read the latest news here