Nuclear Power - The Debate

A few weeks ago I posted a TED video about the energy debate which touched on a number of the different issues. Here is a summary of the debate with evidence from other publications as well.

In Proposition of Nuclear Power: 

1. New technologies - to improve safety of the plant and waste removal. For example the AP1000, developed by Westinghouse Electric Company, reactor does not require any human input to be activated and it prevents the release of radioactive waste (Ferguson, 2011, Nature) 
2. Reliability - nuclear power is a consistent and reliable source of energy. Despite several very serious examples of safety issues, it can be argued that nuclear power is safe providing it is well regulated. Corner et al (2011, Energy Policy ) argue that the UK public is 'reluctantly accepting' nuclear technology because of the reliability and energy security it offers. 
3. Low carbon - nuclear power does not produce carbon dioxide as a bi-product therefore it is seen as low carbon compared to fossil fuels. Much political debate has now re-framed nuclear power as part of the solution for low carbon energy options (Bickerstaff et al, 2008, PUS). 
4. Energy security - nuclear offers energy independence to many countries and is relativity unaffected by embargoes, which affect other non-renewables. 

In Opposition to Nuclear Power: 

1. Safety - the Fukushima disaster left a 30km2 area around the power plant "severely affected" (population evacuated) by radioactive waste. In addition the long term impacts on health, mental well-being and the economy are hugely implicated (Brumfiel, 2013, Nature)  
2. Expense - construction of a large nuclear reactor (>1000 megawatts) varies between £3-6 billion. (Ferguson, 2011, Nature). Since the 2009 Fukushima disaster, the cost of nuclear power plants has escalated due to increased safety precautions and governments often have to subsidise construction.
3. Nuclear waste - one of the arguments in favour of establishing the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch includes information about changes in chemical traces in the earth (Zalasiewicz, 2011 Royal Society). There are strict regulations about disposal of radioactive waste however there are still many concerns that storage is not sufficient for isotopes with long decay rates. 
4. Takes focus from renewables - a slightly less quantifiable yet still important issue is how much does this detract from researching new technologies? If governments and companies have to subsidise nuclear power so heavily, wouldn't this be better invested in more sustainable solutions. 

In conclusion...

The term 'reluctant acceptance' used by Corner et al, 2011 seems to fit a lot of peoples view of nuclear power and I think it sums up mine as well. It seems a bit ridiculous that we have to take the safety risks inherent in nuclear technology yet the reliability and security of energy supply it offers are unparalleled. 

My prediction is that nuclear power will cease to play a significant part in energy supply over the next 50 years. Why? Simple: it is going to get too expensive. Better technology, improved safety and depleting uranium supply will eventually make this a completely unviable business model.