|
|
| Fig. 1: Total and Nuclear Energy Consumed Globally by Year. [1] (Source: J. Wilson) |
While it may not be considered a renewable energy source, nuclear energy is a great source of carbon-free energy. In the year 2019, slightly over 50% of all carbon-free energy in the United States came from nuclear sources, totaling 7.6 exajoules (7.6 × 1018 J) consumed. [1] In 2018, nuclear energy accounted for 71.7% of all energy generated in France. [2] Despite this, data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy (Fig. 1) shows an interesting trend in global nuclear energy consumption when compared to other sources over the same period. While total global energy consumption is growing, nuclear energy consumption seems to have stagnated. From 2009 to 2019, global energy consumption increased by 20.9%, and in the same time nuclear energy consumption slightly decreased by 2.2%. [1] This is particularly interesting when noticing nearly all other sources of energy have seen some growth including carbon-based sources such as oil and coal which have grown by 14.9% and 8.4% respectively. [1] If nuclear energy is a viable source of clean energy, what is holding back the segment's growth?
One possible limiting factor on the growth of nuclear energy production would be a fuel shortage. Nuclear energy is a non-renewable source of energy and relies on the mining of radioactive uranium-235. If there was a shortage of this resource, one could expect nuclear energy growth to slow. However, this is not the reality of the situation. There is no shortage of nuclear fuel, and in the last decade alone the known global uranium resource amount has grown by at least one quarter, totaling about 6,147,800 tonnes of uranium metal as of 2019. [3]
Another possible limiting factor could be price. If nuclear energy is not economical to produce compared to other sources, it would make sense that the cheaper sources would be prioritized when trying to increase total energy production capacities. While nuclear power plants do typically have a large initial capital cost when compared to other energy sources, the continued operating cost is typically cheaper. [4] Additionally, the relative cost of nuclear energy changes country to country. According to the International Energy Agency, the average median levellised cost of energy (LCOE) between coal, gas, nuclear, on and off-shore wind, and solar, in the United States is $62.5/MWh, and the median LCOE for nuclear power is $71/MWh, the second most expensive source, behind only coal ($110/MWh). However, in some countries the relative cost of nuclear energy is much cheaper, such as China and Japan. In China, nuclear power, costing $66/MWh, is below the average median LCOE of $68/MWh, and in Japan nuclear energy is the cheapest source, costing $87/MWh compared to an average median LCOE of $132/MWh. [5] Here we see that cost could be a possible explanation for the stagnation, but only on a country by country basis, whereas the trend of stagnation is a global one.
Nuclear energy can be a controversial source of energy due to the history of nuclear disasters causing hesitancy among the public. One such disaster which caused a substantial hit to nuclear energy's reputation recently was the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in 2011. The accident was given a rating of 7 on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, the same rating as the Chernobyl disaster, and caused the evacuation of around 78,000 people. [6] This event greatly effected public confidence in nuclear energy in Japan, leading the percentage of the nation's energy sourced from nuclear to drop from around 13% in 2010 to only around 3% in 2019. [1] This incident had effects outside of just Japan, as other countries also saw increase in nuclear hesitancy following the disaster. Shortly after the Fukushima accident, anti-nuclear protests broke out in Germany, culminating in Chancellor Angela Merkel announcing the temporary shuttering of 17 reactors along with a plan to close all the nation's nuclear plants by 2022. [7] These are only a couple examples of the fear of nuclear disaster and the corresponding negative public sentiment hampering the growth of nuclear energy production globally; however, this continues to be an issue in many countries around the globe.
While nuclear energy production does not emit carbon-dioxide as a bi-product, it does result in the creation of waste, which must be disposed of and stored. As of 2013, a global total of 370,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel waste has been produced since the first reactor went online. [8] The problem of what to do with all this waste is one governments are still trying to solve after 70 years. In the United States, the Department of Energy was to take custody of spent fuel waste in 1998; however, due to a lack of any location for permanent storage, the DOE has had to leave waste management to local utilities in the meantime, which has cost the department over $10 billion so far. [8] Spent nuclear fuel is also still radioactive and can cause various health issues such as kidney disease, respiratory disorders, DNA damage, and cancers if one is exposed to it for too long. There is also a security risk, as spent nuclear fuel can be used to isolate plutonium for weapons. [8] These two risks only add to the complexity and cost of the storage problem, as it must be conducted in a way that is safe for workers and contains the radiation indefinitely, while also needing to be guarded and monitored constantly. With the complex political issue of waste storage and disposal not fully solved, it is unsurprising that to some governments, the prospects of creating new waste at an increased rate may seem like adding additional unneeded burden to this already-existing problem.
Nuclear energy is a carbon-free source of power that is certainly capable of producing sufficient quantities of electricity globally, yet over the last decade there has been a trend of stagnation in nuclear energy. Nuclear energy can be cost-competitive when compared to other sources, and there is no shortage of uranium fuel available to us. This means the limiting factor on the growth of the nuclear energy segment is not a technical one. Rather, the main hurdles for nuclear energy are political: low public opinion of the source due to fears of nuclear disasters, and the various challenges which have lead to the unanswered policy question of nuclear waste management. Despite this, the benefits of nuclear power are known, and some countries, like China, are willing to look past the risks and plan to expand their nuclear reactor fleets. China, for example, has increased its nuclear power consumption by 364% over the last decade. [1] Additionally the country currently plans to build 150 new reactors within the next 15 years. [9] Even if global growth has seemingly flattened, the nuclear era is not quite over.
© Jake Wilson. The author warrants that the work is the author's own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.
[1] "BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2020," British Petroleum, June 2020.
[2] "Nuclear Power Reactors in the World," International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA-RDS-2/39, 2019.
[3] "Uranium 2020: Resources, Production and Demand," Nuclear Energy Agency, NEA No. 7551, 2020.
[4] "The Economics of Nuclear Power," World Nuclear Association, November 2008.
[5] "Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020," International Energy Agency, 2020.
[6] "The Fukushima Daiichi Accident," International Atomic Energy Agency, 2015.
[7] C. Jorant, "Implications of Fukushima: The European Perspective," Bull. Atom. Sci. 67, 14 (2011).
[8] "The World Nuclear Waste Report 2019," Focus Europe, 2019.
[9] D. Murtaugh and K. Chia, "China's Climate Goals Hinge on a $440 Billion Nuclear Buildout," Bloomberg, 2 Nov 21.