With the pressing need to find carbon-free sources of electricity to address climate change, some environmental groups that once opposed nuclear power now see it as essential. While policymakers have dismissed nuclear facilities for safety reasons, the new calculus is that the risk from nuclear power plants is far smaller than generally perceived. Policymakers who write-off nuclear as being too dangerous are doing a major disservice to the public by warding off a safe, effective carbon-free technology.
Severe nuclear accidents are rare and extremely unlikely to cause any near-term off-site radiation fatalities or radiation sicknesses. A review of four major nuclear power plant accidents—the fire at Browns Ferry plant, the Three Mile Island accident, the Fukushima accident, and the Chernobyl accident—confirms that no off-site, near-term fatalities or radiation sicknesses occurred. In Chernobyl, the worst nuclear power plant accident in history, there were cases of thyroid cancers in children who consumed radioactive, iodine-contaminated milk from the surrounding area. This would not happen in the United States because there is a food interdiction plan as part of the overall emergency response plan, which includes a 50 mile zone around each nuclear plant to deal with preventing the ingestion of contaminated food stuffs, should there be a release of radioactive material into the environment.
Even if hit by a weather disaster or act of terrorism, nuclear power plants do not pose a significant threat to society. Sandia National Laboratories performed studies where scenarios revealed that in these cases, even if all active safety equipment failed and no protective actions were taken by plant personnel, nuclear accidents release far less radioactive material into the environment than previously thought. When this radioactive material is released, it enters the environment much later and more gradually than thought before. While it is very unlikely that all safety equipment would fail, the scenarios prove that even if they did, the radioactive material would not represent a serious threat to public safety.
Nuclear energy is safe, clean, and ripe for innovation. If policymakers continue to leave it out of the carbon-free equation, they will make it far more difficult to address climate change.
Nuclear power plants today are probably 100~1000 times safer than a coal power plant using about any safety metric you can come up with (deaths per MWh, etc. – but… Read more »
Response # 1 for Dan Miller: Dan: I know that you are very concerned about climate change, as you should be, and whether or not we are reducing GHG releases… Read more »
Herschel: I’m all-in with you on the dangers of climate change. And except for my more recent concern about #4 above, I’m not against nuclear power. It’s generally safe compared… Read more »
Response #3 to Dan Miller “Nuclear is expensive. Nuclear takes a long time to deploy.” With regard to nuclear power being expensive, I partially agree with you. However, both you… Read more »
Your comments do not dispute my contention that nuclear costs more and takes longer to deploy, therefore, from a climate point of view we should put most of our resources… Read more »
There is a very wide misconception about the potential dangers of nuclear power. The data make it absolutely clear that nuclear is by far the safest, in terms of lives… Read more »
In the hay day of nuclear power I worked as a researcher in the field of nuclear reactor materials science. In my research I discovered a mistake in one of… Read more »
While this may not be the case outside of the US, public perception of nuclear risk is simply not an issue or a barrier to nuclear deployment. All one needs… Read more »
I agree with Dan Miller and others that nuclear has serious cost problems. However, I am not sure that I agree with Gerry Runte that public perceptions of safety do… Read more »
The issue of greatly expanding nuclear power deployment in the United States and other countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a conundrum that has not been resolved. As I… Read more »
Safety is only a small part of why nuclear won’t work for the future. I agree with much that Dan has written but I would like to put a few… Read more »
I don’t think that we will be able to safely scale the nuclear industry to make a significant dent in the mitigation of the impending climate crisis. Acknowledging the cost… Read more »
Response #2 to Dan Miller Dear Dan, You said ” People have an irrational fear of nuclear power, while it may be irrational, it is still real, so policymakers will… Read more »
Response#4 for Dan Miller 1. Nuclear is expensive and takes a long time to deploy. A. ” China and South Korea can build reactors at one-sixth the current cost in… Read more »
Herschel: We are not as far apart as it might appear. When it comes to the choice between fossil fuels and nuclear, I chose nuclear. I don’t think we should… Read more »
Response #5 to Dan Miller Dear Dan, I’m pleased that you think that we are not as far apart as it might appear. We both agree that climate change represents… Read more »
The data are clear and unambiguous. Nuclear power is by far the safest of all the major sources of electricity, far safer, for example, than hydro, which kills when dams… Read more »
Dear Professor Berry and Dan Miller, I have just heard that the South Koreans are now producing new nuclear plants at about $3000 per kilowatt. I am trying to track… Read more »
Nuclear is by far the safest of all the major sources of elecricity, the three accidents notwithstanding. If we were to derive a major fraction of our electricity now from… Read more »