Harvard College Conservation Society
  • Home
    • News Updates
  • About
    • About HCCS
    • Statement of Solidarity with BLM
    • Partners and Opportunities
    • Calendar of Events
  • Blogs
    • Summer Blogs >
      • 2019
      • 2018
      • 2017
      • 2016
      • 2015
    • Forum Conservianum
  • Projects
    • Careers in Conservation >
      • Fall 2020
      • Fall 2018
      • Spring 2018
      • 2017
      • 2016
    • Current Projects
    • Past Projects >
      • 2018-2019
      • 2017-2018
      • 2015-2017
  • Contact
  • Members
    • Inducted Members
    • Resources

Caleb Schwartz - Re: April Johnson - Nuclear Energy is Not Clean

11/16/2017

0 Comments

 
       This post is a response to April Johnson’s 10/12 post on the drawbacks of nuclear energy. 
      Ever since I started to study environmental science, I’ve been conflicted about the role of nuclear energy in a low-carbon future. April’s post argues that nuclear energy is not a “clean” fuel because of its lifetime carbon emissions, toxic radiation, and risk of accident. Yet despite the mentioned drawbacks, I don’t think the points she brings up are enough to discount nuclear energy as a clean energy option, especially in comparison to the other fuels currently in use.
      April draws attention to the fact that nuclear reactors cannot be considered low-carbon, as the carbon emissions from the plants’ construction and the mining and enrichment of uranium contribute a large deal to the energy source’s lifetime emissions. While this can lead in some cases to higher carbon emissions than renewable sources like hydropower, solar, and wind, the reality is that all forms of energy currently have at least some carbon emissions. In comparison to coal and gas, nuclear energy is still a far lower emitter than coal or gas sources, by a significantly large margin. Even by the International Panel on Climate Change’s maximum estimates for nuclear carbon emissions, it is still roughly 75% less than gas, 85% less than coal. By median estimates, nuclear energy beats gas by 94% and coal by 97%  (2014 Working Group III page 1335). April is right in arguing that nuclear power’s carbon emissions should be taken into account when analyzing it. However, it is still by far a lower emitter than the fuels that currently generate most of our world’s electricity.  
      In the same vein, there are serious concerns surrounding radiation from nuclear wastes. The wastes from nuclear energy can last for thousands of years and can pose acute health risks to people in the areas in which they are stored, if stored improperly. However, fossil fuels pose a challenge to future generations as well via their impacts on climate and cause thousands of deaths worldwide due to acute and diffuse air pollution.
When it comes to toxicity of mining sites, nuclear energy poses a problem, as April points out. However, this is also a problem shared by different energy sources. Coal mining, drilling and fracking for gas, and mining of materials for solar cells each pose significant health risks to the area around them. 
     The bottom line is that nuclear is not a great energy solution — but every energy source has its drawbacks. Nuclear energy can take massive health tolls and does contribute to carbon emissions. Many renewable options now are cleaner and more available than nuclear energy and should be probably be built instead of new nuclear plants. However, as energy systems around the globe continue to improve and adapt to changing energy needs and technology improves, we should discuss the risks of nuclear energy not as unique dangers, but in comparison to other energy forms.
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Forum
    ​Conservianum

    This is a collaborative space for all HCCS members--read on to see what our organization is talking about!

Copyright © 2019