Nuclear energy going into the future

At present, 5% of the world's global energy supply and 11% of the world's electricity supply comes from nuclear energy. However the potential for this to increase is quite clear. The World Nuclear Performance Report (2016) estimates that nuclear energy could provide up to 17% of the world's energy supply by 2050. Despite this immense potential to create an even diverse energy mix, some countries are still apprehensive about adopting nuclear power as an energy source and this has mainly been driven by the events that enfolded in Fukushima during 2011 (Chu and Majumdar 2012 writing in 'Nature'). Throughout the entirety of this blog, I have been quite neutral in terms of my assessment of nuclear power however I would like to make it clear in this post that I am quite pro-nuclear. However, if we are to make nuclear energy a success story, there are two main hurdles in my opinion which we must deal with - security risks and nuclear scepticism:


Geopolitical risks from nuclear power:

Concern regarding the security threats posed by terrorists and other entities on nuclear energy installations is entirely justified given the numerous threats issued. On top of this, as mentioned in my earlier blog posts, many of the world's nuclear installations are also based in areas where the risk of terrorism is quite high. Threats do not just come from terrorist outfits, but also from states such as North Korea who are developing their nuclear programs, often for malicious purposes. Well, how can we solve this problem? That is the prevailing question that all international organisations and countries are faced with and there are no simple solutions.

An interesting solution put forward by Bleek and Lorber (2014), one I agree with, is that certain countries around the world need to be given security guarantees in order to reduce nuclear proliferation risks. In simpler terms, it means that if a country that does not have a nuclear weapons program is threatened, countries and international organisations should support the country militarily in the case of a conflict. This could deter non-nuclear weapon holding countries from developing their own weapons. Another solution to deal with nuclear security threats is to increase security along nuclear installations. At present, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has provided countries with specialist equipment and training to ensure that their nuclear security is meeting international standards. However, I still believe that individual countries must also play their part to ensure that their nuclear facilities are secured to an acceptable extent. It only takes one event like Fukushima to derail the positive effect that nuclear energy can play in our energy system.

Nuclear scepticism

Another key hurdle in the successful use of nuclear energy is public opposition. A poll from Ipos Mori in 2011, which gathered opinions from over 24 countries, suggested that 62% of people were against nuclear power. This resentment has given way to nuclear energy being contested by large scale NGOs such as Greenpeace, but also by citizen led movements propping up all around the world. One which comes to my mind is the one in Taiwan during March 2014 where 130,000 people marched against a government decision to build more nuclear plants.

Protest in Taiwan against the building of nuclear power plants in March 2014

The sensible thing to do in the face of public opposition, is not to ignore and silence people, but to listen to their objections and grievances. As Rolf and Ingermar (1992) rightly explain, citizen uprisings must not always been seen as selfish reactions. When deciding to build nuclear power plants, ordinary people must be included in the decision-making process through public consultations and feedback sessions. This could limit opposition and ensure that a consensus is reached. A key example of this is the consultation that EDF has carried out in regards to the building of the Sizewell C nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast. Feedback and surveys in this example have changed the initial plans and have made sure that the concerns of ordinary people are listened to - have a look at this video below: 

Another interesting solution to public opposition is offered by Kiran Stacey in the Financial Times, in which she suggests that small modular reactors could be built. These small scale, moveable reactors are cost efficient and would be likely to reduce public opposition as their noise generation is also at a minimum.

The future for nuclear power is bright, however public opposition and security risks must be considered and dealt with effectively. Nuclear power is an alternative to the greenhouse gas emitting coal and oil and offers a vital opportunity to transform economies, lives and our society in general (believe me, I am not exaggerating). 

To end on a funnier note, enjoy the 'Nuclear Power Song' which is performed by Environment Man. It will surely lighten up your mood:

Trump and nuclear energy: future of America's nuclear policy

In a stunning, opinion-poll defying victory, Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton on 9th November 2016 to clinch the White House. Whilst this stunning victory has reignited populist and anti-establishment political parties around the world, it is important to understand what implications this victory has for the nuclear industry in America - the world's superpower. Whilst Trump's stance on nuclear weapons is quite clear cut and strong, including his failure to rule out using nukes against ISIS as the video below shows, it is not really known how pro-nuclear energy he is.

Trump expressing his view on nuclear weapons through Twitter

If there was one thing which both of the presidential candidates agreed on, it was nuclear energy - both supported it during the debates. However, the fact is that most Americans think otherwise. Analysing a 2008 MIT study, Ansolabehere and Konisky (2009) reported that 55% of Americans would oppose the construction of nuclear plants near their neighbourhood. A more recent survey conducted by polling agency Gallup in 2016 found that a majority of 54% Americans oppose nuclear energy. This public opinion against nuclear energy sits quite uneasy alongside Donald Trump's populist stance in which he claimed to represent the views of ordinary Americans on the campaign trail.

Gallup survey result showing that a majority of Americans oppose nuclear energy 

Donald Trump's own 'America First Energy Plan' states that 'we will get the bureaucracy out of the way of innovation, so we can pursue all forms of energy which includes nuclear'. However, Trump has also favoured the coal industry and has claimed to bring back millions of coal jobs. The real question is: will he favour coal over nuclear? That is the million dollar question in my opinion. So far there are positive signs as Trump's transition team has contacted the Energy Department  for assistance regarding how to keep nuclear reactors operational across America. But knowing Trump's uncertain and often contradictory nature, the future role of nuclear energy in America's energy mix still remains murky. As soon as Donald Trump takes hold of the presidency, he must make his policy more obvious as it could have reverberations across the globe.

Britain: a nuclear renaissance?

If you remember, last week I focused on how France has used nuclear energy as a key tool to increase it's energy independence and boost electricity generation. The same story is starting to emerge in Britain in my opinion. Successive British governments have not really been too keen on nuclear energy, with one government White Paper in 2003 titled 'Creating a Low Carbon Economy' stating that 'current economics make nuclear energy an unattractive option'. Given the fluctuating nature of politics, however, government intentions have since changed. Speaking at the World Nuclear Association Symposium in London during 2013, the former Minister of State of Energy (now Secretary of State for Defence), Michael Fallon gave a long speech outlining the Coalition governments energy agenda. Amid all of the political posturing in the speech, three quotes really caught my attention:

'Investing in energy infrastructure is a key part of this Government's growth agenda'

'UK's nuclear market is an attractive one to be part of and we will continue to make the conditions right for investment'

'The skills gaps highlighted can be used as a basis for targeted policy and industry interventions to ensure maximum job opportunities are created locally'

I would like to use these three quotes to analyse whether Britain has made a turn towards nuclear energy, or whether these words are just plain political talk and nothing else.

'Investing in energy infrastructure is a key part of this Government's growth agenda'

The government has sent positive signals in regards to investment in energy infrastructure. As part of the Autumn Statement in 2016, Phillip Hammond (Chancellor of the Exchequer) announced a £23 billion funding in order to boost energy infrastructure, including funding for nuclear power plants. Such investment is not just restricted for building energy infrastructure, but also for maintenance and innovation. UK and China have also promised to co-fund a £50 million nuclear research centre called Joint Research and Innovation Centre (JRIC) in Cumbria which will help to develop new nuclear reactors and aid research in power generation systems.

'UK's nuclear market is an attractive one to be a part of and we will continue to make the conditions right for investment'

Signs since 2009 suggest that the UK government is trying it's best to be seen as an attractive location for nuclear investment. As Lee (2009) explains, the government has established the Office for Nuclear Development which brought forward stakeholders such as engineers and scientists together in order to facilitate a nuclear plant building programme. This has since borne fruit, as the government confirmed the building of the Hinkley Point C power plant project in Somerset through agreements with EDF and the Chinese government on 15th September 2016. This £18 billion project through international cooperation is certainly a signal for other foreign investors that the British government is open to investment in it's nuclear sector as subsidies are being provided for nuclear plants which should encourage other countries/organisations.

Plans for the Hinkley Point C plant 

'The skills gaps highlighted can be used as a basis for targeted policy and industry interventions to ensure maximum job opportunities are created locally'

Payne and Keep (2011) have argued that British policy has often focused too much on boosting the supply of workers rather than working on skills and what employees want. For some time that indeed has been the case, however that has now started to change. The governments Skills Funding Agency has collaborated with nuclear energy providers such as EDF to offer training in radiation monitors and nuclear power plant management which has helped many people, particularly young people in their search for well-paid work and training (have a look at my earlier post about nuclear power providing jobs for more information).

Future direction

By reviewing these three quotes from Michael Fallon in 2013, it is clear that the UK is experiencing a nuclear renaissance. The government now seems to be focused on investing in energy infrastructure, whilst at the same time trying to build skills to ensure the long term sustainability of the nuclear industry. The real question is how these plans pan out alongside the uncertainty resulting in the form of the Brexit vote. Another interesting observation by Harris et al. (2013) is that the cost of building a nuclear power project can increase during construction and sometimes the construction time can lengthen. This could have implications for current and future projects so the government must make sure that it considers these factors.

France: a nuclear paradise?

I was recently researching countries which used nuclear energy as part of their electricity generation and was quite surprised to find that France, our neighbour, generated 75% of it's electricity from nuclear energy - higher than any other country in the world.

Share of nuclear energy as a percentage of electricity generation

This development of nuclear energy in France essentially started right after World War Two for military purposes, however due to the oil shock of 1973 which saw rising oil prices, France decided to use nuclear energy in order to boost it's energy independence (Wiliarty 2013). Many years later, France now has 58 nuclear plants in total - overshadowing many of it's European countries including the UK. Some may ask: has there been any benefit? Well, the evidence certainly suggests so. France has one of the cheapest energy prices in Europe; on average, each kilowatt hour (kWh) that is used costs 8.02p, whereas the figure is 14.78p in the UK. Not only that, but a study by Accenture and the World Economic Forum rated the French energy system 3rd best in the world, awarding it high marks for sustainability in terms of it's nuclear sector. All the signs suggest that France is a successful example of how nuclear energy can be harnessed for positive electricity generation. Perhaps countries such as the UK should learn from this French example and try to replicate the success.

The two trump cards that nuclear energy has

Chances are that you have probably heard of the phrase 'peak oil', coined by Marion Hubbert in 1956 to describe the point in global history where resources of oil start to deplete. Where concerns regarding the viability of oil and other resources such as coal start to emerge, I think nuclear power is best placed for our global energy future for two main reasons - jobs and lower emissions:

Lower greenhouse gas emissions

As compared to energy resources such as oil and natural gas, nuclear energy releases zero, if not minimal gases such as carbon dioxide and methane which cause the greenhouse effect. As the graph below shows, nuclear energy has one of the lowest greenhouse gas emissions (29 tonnes/GWh) as compared to coal (888) or oil (733). In the presence of such carbon intensive resources, nuclear energy could really become the real alternative and ensure clean energy production. 

Greenhouse gas emissions by energy source 

With global temperatures increasing at a steady rate as the Mauna Loa graph shows, nuclear energy could really benefit countries around the world. Nuclear energy could especially help countries who are more susceptible to climate change such as UAE and Saudi Arabia by providing them with a low-carbon energy system that could help stabilise levels of CO2 (Al Farra and Abu-Hiljeh 2012).

Monthly mean CO2 concentrations (ppm)

Job opportunities

Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. It is something every living person must do throughout their life in order to earn money and live a happy life. Guess what? Nuclear energy provides just that. According to a white paper in 2014 by the Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear plants create some of the largest economic benefits in terms of providing more employment than any other electricity generating technology - each plant requires at least 400-700 permanent workers on average. Not only do nuclear plants create direct jobs, but there are also many indirect jobs that are created. By 2020, nuclear related industries in the US are expected to create around 250,000 indirect jobs through sectors such as operations, construction and management (Kenley et al. 2009 study based on 40 nuclear energy suppliers). 

Job creation through nuclear power in USA

If the production of nuclear energy is increased, imagine the impact that would have on unemployment across the world, especially in the developing world! The impact of nuclear energy on employment is not just prominent in the US, but also back home in the UK. 65,000 people are estimated to be employed in the nuclear industry in the UK, and almost 2000 are on apprenticeship programmes. In a time where many coal power plants are closing down, the rise of nuclear energy could be used to retrain the skills of many workers and help them have careers where there is long term sustainability and job security. I particularly like this video of 21 year old, Ben Lewis who has been working as an apprentice on the Hinkley Point C power plant in Somerset. He explains how he has worked towards qualifications, whilst at the same time worked in roles such as construction and regulation. Have a look at it below:

Cold Fusion: scientific utopia or revolution?

Despite the environmental and security risks associated with nuclear energy that I have talked about, not everything is doom and gloom. There are many innovative and interesting developments that are taking place in nuclear science which show a positive way forward. One of these developments is called cold fusion - something which has caused a massive stir in the scientific community. Cold fusion is the theory in which nuclear fusion can occur at or close to room temperature. Nuclear reactions normally occur at high temperatures, however a 1989 experiment by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, two American scientists supposedly showed that fusion could occur at low temperatures. The experiment basically involved a chemical reaction between deuterons (stable isotopes of hydrogen) which caused the release of helium, alongside tritium (radioactive element) without causing substantial levels of radiation (Storms 2010). The most interesting thing, however, is that the two scientists conducted the experiment using quite simple equipment. A normal flask was filled with a solution of deuterium and a cube of palladium metal was inserted into the water alongside an electrical current which turned the metal into vapour and apparently caused radioactivity (see image below).

An illustration of how the initial cold fusion experiment was carried out

At first this experiment made headlines in the scientific community,  even featuring in a US government report, however as reported in 'Nature', it was quickly was dismissed as a mere joke.
Why was this the case? The reason is that many scientists repeated this experiment with varied results  and quite a few reported that there was no obvious detectable radiation present - even if there was some level of radiation, it should have led to some health consequences, but it didn't. Similarly, Platt (1989) reported in a study that not all cells present in the experiment had the same effect. Despite this scientific ruckus, such experiments are still being carried out across the world where some people have claimed success - have a look at this video below by JL Naudin who carried out a cold fusion experiment:

Benefits of Cold Fusion

Hoax or not, the theory of cold fusion could be revolutionary if proved true. Deuterium, the element used in cold fusion, is quite abundant around the world, and in the words of Daviss (2003), 'a cubic kilometre of ordinary lake or ocean water contains enough deuterium to rival the combustion energy in all the world's known oil reserves'.  Not only would it conserve oil and gas resources, it could provide a real solution to the global warming crisis (Storms 2010) as it would create no harmful gases and could lead to cheaper energy access. That could truly be a game changer for many people, especially many in the developing world in my opinion who are more susceptible to the risks of energy insecurity and climate change. Win-win situation! To some, cold fusion may still seem like a scientific utopia. However, scientists have achieved bigger things in the past so this cold fusion theory may not seem as far-fetched as first thought. Plus, it could even power our cars - that would really benefit me! 

Threat from North Korea

The threat from nuclear proliferation (which I discussed in my post last week) is quite strong from North Korea, a state that has made headlines through the past couple of years. At the time of writing this post, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) issued a statement which expressed a 'grave concern' regarding North Korea's missile launches. North Korea, according to Nikitin (2012), has around 50kg of plutonium which could be used to create at least 6 nuclear weapons, many of which can be used to attack it's arch rival South Korea at will. The start of North Korea's nuclear program can be traced back to around 1956 where Soviet assistance helped the country to set up it's first nuclear reactors. Another striking news investigation report surfaced in 2002 by the New York Times which claimed that Pakistan supplied the North Korean government equipment such as centrifuges and uranium which was crucial in the development of it's nuclear program. If such reports are correct, then this is a massive embarrassment in the face of nuclear non-proliferation and a key failure of international institutions in their attempt to regulate nuclear trade around the world.

Map of North Korea's nuclear facilities 

The striking thing is that North Korea has the capability to produce both uranium and plutonium weapons - plutonium is considered to be more strong than uranium. Despite repeated trade embargoes and sanctions placed by organisations and countries, North Korea has not halted it's nuclear program. Instead, it has repeatedly provoked South Korea (who does not possess nuclear weapons) by threatening it with nuclear attacks through speeches and loud speaker broadcasts. Not only that, but it has provoked it's neighbour militarily through regular shelling and military drills (see the timeline below). 

North Korea's history of provocation

In a analysis of media sources, Park (2013), writing for the Journal of Media and Communication Studies argues that the level of nuclear threat posed by North Korea has often been exaggerated by the mainstream media outlets that are present. I personally disagree with this study, as military provocations and regular speeches by Kim-Jong-Un, the leader of North Korea, are certainly not exaggerated by the media - in fact these are credible threats that would shock any country around the world. The fear is that countries such as Japan and South Korea, countries that have been threatened by North Korea, might be forced to start their own nuclear programmes (Hughes 2007). If that is the case, then surely this is a downward spiral towards greater insecurity and risk - both of which will undermine the positive uses of nuclear energy that I will discuss later in my blog.

Nuclear weapons: a geopolitical threat?

In my earlier posts, I have talked about the risks posed by nuclear energy which is primarily used for generating electricity. However, we must turn our attention towards nuclear weapons which are becoming a more prominent geopolitical threat for our global society. In a normal nuclear reactor, the chain reaction (splitting of the uranium atom) is controlled and moderated (see my second blog post for more information) however in a nuclear bomb the chain reaction is uncontrolled. We have all probably heard of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 by American forces which led to the death of around 200,000 innocent people. Ever since then, nuclear proliferation has increased rapidly and many nuclear powers around the world have increased their nuclear arsenal. A yearly study by Norris and Kristensen (2009) has reported that Russia and the United States possess 96% of the world's global nuclear inventory. Apart from that, other countries have also developed their own nuclear weapons as I will explain below.

Worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons

Nine countries are reported to possess nuclear weapons globally, however Israel has not acknowledged the existence of it's program.

Countries with nuclear weapons worldwide 

This worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons for military purposes is not the only thing which we should be concerned about. The second aspect is to look at the number of nuclear warheads that each country possesses: 

Nuclear warhead inventory (by country)

Essentially, nuclear warheads are weapons that can be fitted into missiles and rockets for the purpose of attacking. Technological advancements have meant that warheads are becoming more minituarised and sophisticated (O'Nions 2002) meaning that they can be fitted onto smaller devices.  The danger which arises is the fact that many countries such as North Korea (which I will talk about next week) are developing the ability to produce miniaturised weapons that are used to attack neighbouring countries. The threat to neighbouring countries can also be seen through the Pakistan-India example. In order to confront the threat posed by arch-rivals India, Pakistan is developing it's short-range nuclear arsenal and is expected to have around 250 warheads by the end of 2025 (Kristensen and Norris 2015). And in many cases this nuclear arsenal can go into the hands of non state actors....

Terrorist access to to nuclear weapons

It seems like the stuff out of a Marvel superhero movie - but the threat is real. Barack Obama, speaking at an International Security Summit in April 2016 has warned that ISIS and other terrorist organisations might be able to acquire nuclear weapons. Whilst some of you may dismiss this threat as simple fear-mongering, I would disagree completely. Many of the world's nuclear installations are located in 'global trouble spots' according to Hynes et al. (2006) and this means that the chance of rogue employees working in the nuclear selling nuclear equipment in the black market remains highly probable. Compounding this problem is the fact that many countries such as Israel, India and Pakistan have not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and this means that any high-ranking official within these countries could export nuclear expertise or equipment to anyone. The possibilities in my opinion are endless. An ISIS magazine in 2015 claimed that it was close to buying a nuclear weapon from Pakistan through it's links with the Pakistan military establishment - have a look at this news story from the Indian channel 'Indian Today':

Chernobyl: the mother of all nuclear disasters

Any discussion regarding the risk of nuclear energy is incomplete in my opinion without the discussion of the Chernobyl disaster which took place on 26 April, 1986. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, so I thought I would share these emotional images taken by British photographer Michael Day who visited the ghost town of Pripyat in Northern Ukraine in 2011 to witness the horrors of the disaster. Looking at these pictures, it it hard to believe that this bustling town was home to 40,000 people at some point in history.

An abandoned room inside the Palace of Culture in Pripyat

Empty lecture theatre

Empty town of Pripyat

Causes of the Chernobyl disaster

The cause of the disaster have been hotly debated and still remains a cause for concern for many scientists around the world. Essentially, stress tests were initiated in order to see how the nuclear plant would react to a power failure, however the reactor capacity was dropped to around 20%. On top of that, Kortov and Ustyantsev (2013) claim that the insertion of protection rods led to an immense increase in reactivity which led to a blast. The immense scale of the reactor explosion could be blamed upon the lack of equipment which was present at the site according to a report commissioned by the Ukrainian government (edited by Baloga in 2011). Staff did not have adequate access to radiometric equipment which meant that the radiation levels around the plant could not be measured straight after the accident struck according to the Nuclear Energy Institute's investigation - this caused the death of 28 reactor staff.

100 times more radiation than the Nagasaki and Hiroshima nuclear disaster was released by the fire which raged for over 10 days. As the figure below shows, increased radiation doses were recorded all across Europe on a scale which had never been witnessed before.

Increased radiation dose all across Europe in the aftermath of the disaster

I found this video online from the BBC 1 documentary called 'Surviving Disaster' (2006) which shows a reconstructed version of how the Chernobyl disaster happened from the perspective of a scientist called Valeri Legasov, one of the staff working at the plant. Personally I found it quite interesting, however it has received quite critical comments on social media for not having consideration for the reality of what happened. Have a look for yourself and let me know what you think:

Thyroid cancer in children 

Not only did the disaster affect adults, it also ruined the lives of many young children. According to a report by the United National Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2003), 2000 cases of thyroid cancer were reported in children under the age of 18 during 1900-1998 in Belarus, Ukraine and the former Russian Federation. As the intake of milk is higher in children and their thyroid gland is more sensitive to radiation (Hatch et al. 2005), children were the most affected. And every since then, the number of cases of thyroid cancer have risen to around 5000 according to the World Health Organisation.  

Social effects from Chernobyl

We have all probably lost a loved one, maybe a friend or one of our close relatives. However, the sheer social trauma of Chernobyl is something that needs to be highlighted more often in the public sphere. In total, 330,000 people had to be resettled as a result of the disaster and approximately seven million people are still reliant on benefit payments due to their illness or other mental conditions. Not only that, but the sudden trauma of the event and the aftermath has led to a plethora of issues such as suicide, victimisation of the survivors and state repression of people who want to come out and express their feelings (Barnett 2007). I believe that social media is a key force which can help the survivors of Chernobyl bring their voices out across the world. I found this particular quote from the book 'Voice from Chernobyl' by Svetlana Alexievich published in 1997 quite strong as it includes a real story from a father who lost his daughter in the aftermath of the disaster:

'We put her on the door....on the door that my father lay on. Until they brought a little coffin. It was small, like the box for a large doll. I want to bear witness: my daughter died from Chernobyl. And they want us to forget about it'. 

Stories like these truly bring forward the human tragedy that was felt as a result of the disaster on 26th April 1986. Chernobyl should be seen as a clear lesson for governments across the world in terms of nuclear safety and governance. However, the sad fact is that lessons have still not been learnt. Despite the official Exclusion Zone (18 miles) around the power plant, the town of Pripyat is gathering the attention of tourists who want to see the town which is stuck in time. The sad fact is that Pripyat will never be the same again...

Rivers flowing with nuclear waste!

Not all nuclear energy and waste that is produced is stored carefully - some can also find it's way into rivers and lakes which can have disastrous effects. Despite the London Convention, which was signed in order to prohibit the disposal of radioactive substances in rivers during 1972, developed countries have still failed to stop the leaking or dumping of waste in rivers (Melosi 2009). This historical problem, despite it's consequences, has not been given enough attention as the focus is much more on nuclear waste leaking underground (Plato 1974). Well, I think it should be given more attention! Nuclear reactors regularly emit liquid radioactivity which contains isotopes such as Cesium 137 and Strontium 89. Normally this liquid radiation is stored and taken care of, however many times it has leaked which has led to severe health complications. In her study in South Korea, Lee et al. (2015) explains how radioactive isotopes such as Strontium 89 (which has a half life of 30 years) have been known to spread throughout the body which has led to a reduced sperm count and organ failure in many cases.  Let me show you a real life example where nuclear waste in a river has led to severe consequences...

Hanford Site in Columbia River


The Hanford Site on the Columbia River, which has now been decommissioned, was established in 1943 and was the world's first plutonium production reactor. It has been declared as 'the largest nuclear clean-up site in the Western Hemisphere' according to the Times. Decommissioned in the 1960s, the plant left around 53 million US gallons of radioactive material which had been stored in nuclear tanks and eventually this leaked in 1962 which led to around 0.6-1.5 million gallons of toxic material such as Cesium 137 and nitrates being released into the Columbia River. Water sediments taken by Fredrickson et al. (2004) have shown an increase in river temperature due to the presence of radioactive material which is still present today. The exact cause of this leak has still not been discovered, however the main explanation is that the carbon steel shells which stored the material had cracked which led to the escape of the radioactive liquid.

Selection of pictures taken in 2012 showing the cracks in the carbon steel shells 

Although clean up of the plant and the nearby river started in 1988, construction companies such as Bechtel have been given government contracts to develop water treatment plants amounting to over $12.2 billion. The total cost to treat the area has been reported to have reached $40 billion and further leaks were reported in 2013. Imagine where else that money could have been used! The ecological effects of this disaster are still ongoing as low radioactive concentrations of Plutonium-238 have been reported in the nearby fish and aquatic wildlife which the Native American population relies on (Delistraty et al. 2010).  The sad fact however is that Hanford is not the only place which has seen this disaster. Lake Karachay in Central Russia was used as a dumping ground for radioactive waste during the Cold War. According to 1990 figures, just standing by the lake edge for a few minutes could have given you a dose of around 600 roentgen which could have been enough to kill someone. This shows how crucial it is to have the constant maintenance of nuclear disposal sites to ensure that there are no leaks in the future. Not only that, but I believe that international sanctions and rules should be strengthened to ensure that any negligence or carelessness is dealt with accordingly. After all, these incidents have an impact on generations to come.

Lake Karachay has become more toxic over time 

USA's radioactive waste problem

Last week I spoke about how managing nuclear waste, both above and below ground is a key economic, social and safety challenge. A country which epitomises this challenge is the USA, a country which I will focus on in more detail. Most striking is the fact that 1 out of 3 Americans live within 50 miles of a nuclear waste site and this figure is set to increase as more waste is produced. Finding space for this nuclear waste is also a problem and this is compounded by the fact that there are risks that terrorist might try and target nuclear reactors and disposal sites in the aftermath of 9/11. This poses a key problem for the US government and especially the Department of Energy who have so far failed to create a comprehensive strategy to deal with nuclear waste disposal according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Rising nuclear waste in America 

Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository: a failed project

The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project is a typical example of how politicised nuclear waste can actually become. Through the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (1987), the Yucca Mountain in Nevada was designated as a deep geological storage facility where around 70,000 metric tons could be stored. In 2002, President George Bush recommended the site to be constructed however problems started to emerge straight afterwards. Many of the governments own reports, one from the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, reported that there was 'limited confidence in current performance estimates'. There were many other conflicting reports that were published by the government, some supporting the proposal and some suggesting that the site was not geologically safe to be built upon. Funding has since stopped for the project as the Obama administration reported that it was not a attractive solution for storing nuclear waste according to the New York Times in 2011. Amid these political difficulties, Ewing and Macfarlane (2002) effectively summarise that long term implications for the project were not looked at in terms of it's cost and long term maintenance. However, I would like to argue that the main reason why this project failed was because of the behind the scenes lobbying work carried out by the local Western Shoshone people who opposed the project - academic literature has largely ignored their efforts. Have a look at this short documentary called 'An Act of Genocide: The Fight to Save Yucca Mountain' which shows how the local people fought against these proposals through their demonstrations and political lobbying:

Toxic waste removal

Last week I spoke about how nuclear power is actually produced through the process of nuclear fission. Although it is a very interesting process scientifically, there are some major challenges that arise after nuclear energy has been created - nuclear waste. At every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear waste is produced, either through the process of uranium mining or through the reprocessing of the fuel that is left over. In fact, according to Greenpeace, the level of spent nuclear fuel is increasing by around 10,000 tonnes annually. Not only that, but unlike our normal household rubbish, this nuclear waste cannot be dumped in a bin but has to be stored carefully due to it's radioactive nature which I will explain later.

According to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC), there are two types of nuclear waste - high level and low level waste. Low level waste is any item that has been used during the process to create nuclear energy and has been exposed to some form of radiation. That includes everything from mops, medical tubes, equipment and even the clothes that have been worn by staff working in nuclear power plants. High level waste, however, is the spent fuel that has been used during the nuclear fission process. That is where the concern lies. During the process of nuclear fission, transuranic elements are produced. Although these elements do not produce enough heat energy, they take longer to decay and account for a large majority of the radioactive waste that decays over a period of around 1,000 years according to Molecke's 1980 study. Some of the radioactive isotopes in these elements decay within minutes, however some of the elements take quite long to decay - for example Plutonium-239 has a half life of over 24,000. The safe storage of these radioactive elements is a major concern for scientists and governments across the world. Most recently, writing for the American Geophysical Union, Colgan et al. (2016) reported that nuclear waste which has been buried under the Greenland ice during the Cold War period might be released due to rising global warming which is melting the ice layers. The study concluded by saying that this radioactive material might even be released into oceans by the end of the century - yikes! If you think that this is another doomsday scenario by an expert then you are completely WRONG. A radiation leak worth £240m occurred during March 2015 at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, US which sent shockwaves through the scientific community. There are many other nuclear waste leak examples, some of which I will mention later in my blog, however let's have a look at some of the ways in which radioactive waste is stored.


How is radioactive waste stored?

One of the main ways in which nuclear waste is stored is through underground repositories where radioactive material is held in canisters or tankers for hundreds of years. An interesting example is the Oilkiuoto repository on the west coast of Finland which is currently being constructed. This 3 billion euro underground facility, as Gibney (2015) reports in 'Nature', will start storing nuclear waste by 2023.

Oilkiuoto underground repository under construction

The main problem, however is public opposition against such large nuclear disposal sites and this poses a key challenge for governments as they try to find new disposal sites. Earlier in 2013, there were plans to build a nuclear disposal facility in West Cumbria near the Lake District however these plans were scrapped because of public opposition. For a minute have a think. Would you want a nuclear disposal site close to your house? Well, I guess the answer would probably be NO. 

Secondly, low-level nuclear waste (which I mentioned earlier) is usually stored overground as it is deemed to be safer in terms of radioactivity. This again presents new problems for engineers, governments and scientists. If radioactive waste is stored overground, there is a heightened risk of corrosion due to air humidity levels (Larsen 2015). Air humidity levels need to be controlled to allow the easy ventilation of air to avoid any corrosion and the cost of keeping these facilities is substantial as this type of low-level waste could stay radioactive for over 25 years. Complex computer generated simulations, as the image below shows, need to be analysed to monitor air ventilation. In a nutshell, nuclear waste poses key challenges for society, both above and below the ground. This can be in financial terms through constant maintenance and even social terms through public opposition and safety risks. 

Simulations showing the circulation of air flow around a nuclear storage facility

How is nuclear power produced?

Before we start the discussion on whether nuclear energy can have a positive or negative impact on our energy needs, it is very important to actually understand how nuclear power is produced. According to research conducted by the Nuclear Energy Institute, 30 countries around the world have operational nuclear reactors (around 450 in total) and over 60 are currently under construction. Not only that, but nuclear energy provides around 12% of the world's electricity according to a worldwide study conducted by Mycle Schneider and his colleagues for the World Nuclear Industry Report 2016. For many countries nuclear energy contributes towards a large chunk of electricity consumption, whereas for others it is not that substantial - 75% of France's electricity is generated through nuclear power but for India the figure is only 2% (see the figure below).

  Nuclear power production worldwide 

Often our understanding of nuclear energy is shaped by what we see in the media and through popular culture e.g. Hollywood films and TV adverts (Gamson and Modigliani 1989). We all remember cartoons like Dexter's Laboratory which showed how nuclear energy is made by a touch of a button or Marvel films which show bubbling cylinders of Uranium.  Whether we realise it or not, such representations have given many people (including myself before this blog) a very simplistic view of what nuclear energy is and how it is produced. Let's change that!

How is nuclear energy produced?

The crucial element in producing nuclear power is uranium. A silvery-white metal ore, uranium is a radioactive substance which is mined underground and is predominantly found in parts of Australia, Kazakhstan and Russia. The key advantage of using uranium is that it is quite abundant across the world, unlike coal and oil reserves which are seen to be dwindling in volume. In fact, a study by Smith (2006) has shown that are around 10 million tonnes of uranium which are classified as being 'undiscovered resources' - resources that have not even been explored yet. Once uranium has been mined, it is turned into small pellets that can be used to generate electricity. Each small pellet, which is generally the size of a peanut, can generate as much power as 800kg of coal (EDF energy research). 

All the magic then happens in the nuclear reactors - the commonly used ones are called Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs) which can be seen below:

Different components in a nuclear power reactor 

Neutrons are fired at the uranium isotope (Uranium 235) which makes it unstable. When that happens, the uranium atom splits which causes the release of more neutrons which collide with other particles to create a chain reaction. These splitting atoms, as the diagram below shows, creates a considerable amount of heat energy which is needed to create electricity down the pipeline. The process through which the uranium atom splits is known as nuclear fission, and according to a MIT study by John Deutch and Ernest Moniz in 2003, the energy released by the fission of one kilogram of uranium is typically equivalent to the energy released by around 22,000 kilograms of coal. 

How an Uranium atom splits

Once enough heat energy has been produced, water is then passed into the vessel to allow it to heat to around 300 degrees. This heated water is then passed through to the steam generator and turbines which cause this water to turn into steam so that it can turn the turbines to produce electrical energy. An electromagnetic field then turns this steam into electrical energy which is then transmitted to the transformer so that the electricity can be allocated to where it is needed e.g. houses and factories.  Phew! That was a long process.  Since the first phase of nuclear reactors in the 1940s, Stoneham (2010) explains how technological developments have made nuclear energy production more efficient over time as laboratory research has enabled scientists to make sure that heat loss is reduced in nuclear reactors. 

If you would like to see nuclear power in action, have a look at this clip from the BBC program 'Bang Goes The Theory' where the presenter explores a reactor core in Austria: