Nuclear Power FAQ  

Here are answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about nuclear power:

Why this FAQ?

Nuclear power is extremely controversial. It is increasingly being promoted as a replacement for fossil fuel electric power generation, which is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, the main cause of global warming. Fossil fuel power plants are also a major source of emissions of other substances that are harmful to the environment and human health, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, mercury and other heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds.

However, opponents of nuclear power claim that it not only has severe disadvantages, and is potentially extremely dangerous, but also that it is a distraction from implementing much quicker, more effective, and far safer solutions to protect the environment and the quality of life.

What is nuclear power?

Nuclear power is the use of nuclear reactions to generate electricity. A nuclear reaction is a process in which the atoms of one element are transformed into atoms of other elements, thereby releasing tremendous amounts of energy. This contrasts with the combustion of fossil fuels or other substances, in which the atoms themselves remain intact but recombine with other atoms to form different compounds and, in the process, release much smaller amounts of energy.

What is the difference between nuclear power and nuclear energy?

Nuclear energy is the energy that is released from the nucleus of atoms during a nuclear reaction. Nuclear power refers to the use of nuclear energy to generate electricity.

How much of the world's electric power is currently supplied by nuclear energy?

It is roughly ten percent. The largest producer of nuclear power is the United States, at about 30 percent of the world's total, followed by China and then France. France produces the largest share of its electric power with nuclear energy, at about 70 percent of the total. This is followed by Slovakia at 53 percent and Ukraine at 51 percent.

Why is nuclear power so controversial?

It is extremely controversial because its proponents claim that not only is it far better for the environment than fossil fuel power because it does not emit carbon dioxide or other harmful substances into the atmosphere while in operation but also that it can provide extremely large amounts of electricity with very high reliability and safety and at very low cost.

However, nuclear power's opponents point out that it is not necessarily cheap or reliable and that there are much better ways to provide adequate electricity that does not generate harmful emissions. They claim that (1) nuclear power is not cheap when all of the costs are considered, including the massive costs of construction of the plants, of providing upgrades and constant security during operation, and then of demolition after their relatively short life spans of just a few decades. These costs are often hidden and are paid for by massive government subsidies. They also point out that (2) nuclear power is not necessarily reliable because of the need for prolonged shutdowns for maintenance and repairs.

Even more important is the fact that (3) nuclear power plants are vulnerable to errors in operation and to natural disasters, such as those seen at Chernobyl and Fukushima, as well as to terrorism and armed conflict, that can have consequences vastly more severe and long-lasting than those at other types of power facilities. Moreover, (4) the occurrence of such incidents could increase rapidly as the number of nuclear power plants grows, especially with plants in countries that have lower standards for construction, maintenance and security or that may become involved in armed conflict.

Yet another major unsolved problem is that of (5) how to safely dispose of the huge and ever-growing amounts of long-lived, highly-radioactive waste that is produced by such power plants.

Is nuclear power really better for the environment than alternative power sources?

Nuclear power proponents claim that it is far superior to other energy sources because when a plant is operating it has virtually no emissions of greenhouse gasses and other pollutants. Nuclear power plants also require substantially less land than wind and solar power facilities for an equal level of electricity output.

However, this does not take into consideration the emissions involved in mining, producing and transporting the massive amounts of steel, concrete and other raw materials necessary to construct such power plants. It also fails to consider that a large amount of land is required around nuclear power plants as a buffer in case of accidents as well as the environmental damage that can occur from the mining of uranium.

Why do some businesses and prominent individuals keep advocating nuclear power if there are such serious problems with it?

One reason is that it can be extremely profitable for plant operators, construction companies, materials suppliers and others if there are large government subsidies. Another is that some people and businesses place more emphasis on the short term benefits and may either not understand the risks or think that they are worth taking. This is similar to the fact that some businesses, organizations and prominent political leaders are still advocating the increased use of fossil fuels because such fuels can likewise be extremely profitable, or because they believe that the predictions of climate change are exaggerations or even just a hoax.

How many people have died from nuclear power plant accidents?

Estimates vary greatly according to the methodologies used and the populations considered. The Chernobyl accident resulted in about 30 immediate deaths from radiation exposure, and some sources suggesting that about 4,000 deaths could eventually result in the most heavily exposed populations while others project this figure at 90,000 or more.

What are some of the main safety measures in place for nuclear power plants?

Nuclear power plants incorporate numerous and sophisticated safety measures in an attempt to protect their workers, the public and the environment. They can be categorized into design safety features, operational safety protocols, emergency preparedness, regulatory oversight and public communication.

For example, the newest design safety features include the use of reactor containment structures that are intended to withstand extreme events, including earthquakes, explosions and even direct hits by large aircraft, and to prevent the release of radioactive materials were any extreme events to occur. They also include the building in of automated and redundant control, cooling and other systems designed to provide safe operation should one such system fail.

Has there been progress on increasing the safety of nuclear power plants in recent years?

Yes, there have been a number of advances, mainly through regulatory improvements and technological innovation. Particularly important has been the development of passive systems that can operate in the absence of external power sources for cooling the reactor and containing molten core materials. Also important have been the the development of advanced monitoring systems and more robust cybersecurity measures.

However, these advances don't fully solve the fundamental safety issues. Moreover, they are being offset by having additional nuclear power plants to protect and by the ever-growing volumes of highly radioactive nuclear waste for which few, if any, truly safe and economical long-term storage facilities exist.

What are the health risks associated with living near a nuclear power plant?

They are mainly from radiation leaking from the plant, from radioactive material stored near it and from possible catastrophic events at the plant. Some studies have shown a relationship between living near nuclear power plants and increased cancer risk, particularly for leukemia and solid tumors in children, possibly as a result of low level radiation releases or contamination of water or food. However, the findings are not consistent among different studies and regions.

How far away should nuclear power plants be located from human habitation?

There are no fixed distances. However, some studies indicate increased cancer rates for populations living near nuclear power plants. Also, nearby residents always have to live with the fear that they might have to evacuate suddenly, and perhaps permanently, in the event of a radiation leakage or other event at a nuclear plant.

What is the fuel used in nuclear power plants?

Nuclear power plants primarily use uranium as fuel. It is in the form of pellets of uranium dioxide, which are typically enriched to increase the proportion of the isotope uranium-235, which is crucial for sustaining a nuclear reaction. The pellets are housed in long zirconium alloy tubes that become fuel rods that are inserted into the reactor cores.

Will there be a shortage of uranium for nuclear power plants?

A shortage could emerge if a large increase in demand resulting from a rapid growth in the number of nuclear power plants were to occur. This is because of the existence of a variety of supply constraints in major uranium mining and enrichment countries.

How severe are the environmental effects from mining uranium?

Uranium mining often has substantial and long-lasting effects on the environment. Among them are contamination of the air, soil and groundwater with heavy metals, including radioactive metals, that can be absorbed into plants and then enter the food chain.

Moreover, such mining often requires clearing of large areas of land, thus damaging or destroying local ecosystems and possibly resulting in a loss of biodiversity. Restoration of such areas has proven difficult.

Will it become increasingly difficult to recruit and retain high quality staff if the number of nuclear power plants proliferates?

Yes, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recruit and retain high quality personnel for nuclear power plants, and it will become even more so as the number of such plants continues to grow. This is due to due to (1) growing competition for specialized talent from other industries, (2) the strict requirements including with regard to alcohol and drug use and (3) the unfavorable public perception of the nuclear power industry. Also important is (4) the aging of the workforce, with many of the most experienced professionals nearing or reaching retirement age.

How serious a problem is drug and alcohol use by nuclear power plant staff?

Drug and alcohol use among staff at nuclear power plants can increase the risks of operator error, resulting not only in the interruption of service but also possibly in costly damage to the facilities and radiation leakage. It is a growing problem despite attempts to rigorously screen employees, contractors and other personnel because of the trend towards greater tolerance of drug use, including the legalization of marijuana in some countries and U.S. states. The risks are also increasing because of the growing use, or abuse, of prescription medicines, many of which can have subtle psychological effects.

Can't nuclear power plants be protected from terrorists with high security fences and armed guards?

The construction of high security fences, the constant presence of armed guards and other security measures can certainly make it more difficult for terrorists to attack nuclear facilities. However, they do not make it impossible. Lapses can occur even with the best of security systems, and dedicated terrorists will relentlessly search for ways to disable or bypass such systems.

What would be the possible effects of a successful terrorist intrusion in or attack on a nuclear power plant?

The consequences of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant could be severe. One could be the release of radioactive materials, resulting in acute radiation poisoning for persons in proximity to the plant. This could lead to thousands of immediate fatalities and long-term health issues, including possibly hundreds of thousands of eventual cancer deaths. Mass evacuations would be required, leading to major disruptions in daily life, to healthcare services and to the economy.

The release of radioactive material would also contaminate land, water and vegetation and could result long-term ecological damage and render areas uninhabitable for decades or more. Depending on weather conditions, the radioactive material could spread over large areas, affecting communities far beyond the immediate vicinity of the power plant.

The economic effects could be immense, with the costs for healthcare, property loss and agricultural damage within a hundred kilometer radius possibly in the hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars. Adding to this cost could be a disruption energy supplies, leading to higher energy prices and possible economic instability.

Have there ever been any successful terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants?

No, but there have been, and continue to be, many attempts. Fortunately, none of these have yet resulted in a breach of the reactor containment structure or a release of radioactive material.

Are nuclear power plants vulnerable to cyber security threats?

They are highly vulnerable because (1) so many of the internal functions and processes are electronically controlled, (2) many of the older plants lack the most up-to-date security measures and (3) the number and sophistication of threats has been increasing rapidly. Among the types of damage that cyber attacks can cause are operational disruption, data breaches, disabling of safety monitoring systems and an erosion of public confidence. A cyber attack in combination with a physical attack could be particularly devastating.

Although regulatory agencies and others continue to take steps to enhance cybersecurity, including isolating critical systems from external networks and requiring mandatory cyber safety plans, these can be insufficient largely because of the continuously evolving nature of cyber attacks. Moreover, the introduction of small modular reactors could create additional challenges for cyber security, in part because of the proposed large numbers and because many of them might be operated remotely and thus have to use less secure communications lines.

How serious a problem is insider threats to nuclear power facilities?

Insider threats remain a serious and persistent problem despite rigorous and comprehensive security measures and have the potential for producing severe damage to nuclear facilities and catastrophic leaks of radioactive material. Malicious activity has occurred, and continues to occur, by employees, contractors, and other personnel with access to nuclear facilities for a variety of reasons. They include personal grievances, such as feelings of unfair treatment and lack of recognition, political or ideological motivation, and bribery by outsiders.

Among the ways in which nuclear facilities have been damaged by insiders include tampering with or disabling safety systems, inserting malware into computer systems, planting of explosives, stealing of equipment and even of nuclear material, and arson and other physical damage. Detecting insider threats can be extremely difficult because the legitimate access to sensitive areas and the knowledge of security protocols can facilitate bypassing security systems without raising suspicion.

Is nuclear power suitable for use in developing countries?

Nuclear power is often even less suitable for use in developing countries than it is for use in the developed countries. One reason is (1) the extremely high costs of constructing, operating and maintaining such facilities safely. Another is that (2) many developing countries lack the expertise to build, operate and maintain such complex systems. In addition, (3) many developing countries lack sufficient political stability, including the ability to protect such facilities from terrorism and armed conflict. Also, (4) lower wage levels in developing countries could make it easier for outsiders with bad intentions to bribe employees, contractors and others with access to nuclear facilities. Typically, renewable energy sources such as solar or wind will be more cost-effective, quicker and safer to deploy than nuclear power.

Are the safety risks of nuclear power greater in developing countries?

They can be. One reason is that (1) regulatory bodies in developing countries may lack sufficient expertise and resources to effectively monitor and enforce safety standards during the construction, operation and maintenance of nuclear facilities. (2) Such countries also often have inadequate infrastructure to ensure the safe operation of plants, including an unreliable electric power supply, insufficient emergency response capability, and limited access to advanced technology and experts to deal with technical issues that may arise.

(3) Financial constraints can also negatively affect power plant safety. In particular, they can result in decisions that prioritize cost savings over safety, such as the use of less expensive materials and reactors, older technologies, and technologies that do not meet international safety standards. They can also lead to economizing on maintenance, security and upgrades. (4) Low wages can also make plant personnel more susceptible to bribing or blackmailing by terrorists and others.

Can corruption in developing countries significantly affect nuclear power plant safety?

Very often corruption is greater in developing countries than in the developed nations. Corruption can adversely affect nuclear power plant security in a number of ways, including (1) the establishment of weak regulatory agencies that lack sufficient independence and resources to effectively enforce safety standards. (2) It can also encourage unsafe shortcuts during construction, operation and maintenance, including the use of substandard materials and counterfeit parts, the bypassing safety checks and the falsification of safety reports. (3) Moreover, corruption can lead to financial mismanagement, with funds intended for security, maintenance and upgrades being diverted for personal gain.

Why is nuclear waste such a big problem?

Nuclear waste is a huge problem (1) because it can remain extremely dangerous for thousands, or even tens of thousands, of years, (2) because the volume of such waste is large and continues to increase rapidly and (3) because it is extremely difficult to find safe locations to store it for such long periods. For example, the U.S. alone has accumulated more than 88,000 metric tons of spent (used up) nuclear fuel, with the amount is increasing by about 2,000 tons per year.

Although much research has been conducted on developing permanent storage facilities for the waste, proposed solutions are technologically difficult and costly. Thus, nuclear waste is commonly stored next to the power plants, a practice that is not sustainable in the long run because of risks of leakage into the soil and groundwater and because it creates temptations for terrorists.

How is climate change affecting the reliability of existing nuclear power plants?

Climate change is increasingly affecting the reliability of existing nuclear power plants because many of them were designed based on the assumption that historical weather patterns would continue. The increased frequency of extreme weather events, including heat waves, hurricanes, wildfires, extreme cold and flooding, are making the operation of existing plants increasingly challenging and also adding to the complexity and cost of constructing new ones.

For example, rising temperatures can lead to challenges for the reactor core cooling systems. This is because nuclear power plants rely on rivers and other waterbodies for cooling, and higher water temperatures reduce power production efficiency, which can result in decreased electricity output and require temporary shutdowns during heat waves.

How long do nuclear power plants last?

In sharp contrast to the extremely long life span of nuclear waste, the typical planned operational lifespan of nuclear power plants, with proper maintenance and upgrades, has usually been about 30 years. However, some plants can be made to operate longer, but at substantial cost.

What are the difficulties of extending the operating life of older nuclear power plants?

Extension is a complex, time-consuming and extremely expensive process. It can include (1) studying whether it would be more profitable or beneficial to instead invest in alternative power sources, (2) dealing with public opposition, (3) extensive upgrading of materials and components, (4) evaluating and testing to ensure compliance with the newest regulatory standards, (5) retraining of staff to deal with the changed equipment and procedures and (6) losing revenue from the prolonged downtime during upgrading.

What is the procedure at the life of a nuclear power plant expires?

The decommissioning of a nuclear power plant is a complex, lengthy, and costly process that involves careful planning and execution in order to ensure safety and compliance with regulatory standards. (1) A first step is creation and submission for approval to the relevant regulatory agencies of a detailed plan that shows how the facility will be decommissioned, including including safety measures, waste management plans and timelines. (2) A next step is the removal of the nuclear fuel from the reactor and placing it into special cooling pools or dry storage containers, thereby greatly reducing radiation levels within the facility.

(3) Then the facility itself is dismantled by removing or decontaminating the contaminated structures and equipment. This phase can vary in duration depending on the processes used but typically requires 15 to 30 years. The radioactive waste is managed according to strict regulatory requirements and might be stored temporarily onsite or may be transported to a specialized disposal location.

(4) Once decontamination has been completed, steps are taken to restore the site so that it can be reused safely for other purposes, such as a nature preserve, agriculture or even housing. (5) After all decommissioning activities have been completed and verified, the operating license is terminated by the regulatory authority, allowing for potential future use of the site without restrictions regarding nuclear safety. (6) In some cases, continued monitoring of the site may be required to ensure that any remaining radioactive materials do not present a risk to public health or safety.

Should existing nuclear power plants be phased out, and, if so, how?

All existing nuclear power plants will have to be phased out eventually because of their limited lifetimes of just a few decades. However, the decision process for the timing of the decommissioning of any specific nuclear power plant is complex and depends on a number of factors including its age and condition, its vulnerability to terrorism and armed conflict, the availability of alternative power sources, and public sentiment. Although, on the one hand, techniques have been developed for extending the lifespans of nuclear power plants, on the other hand, as the plants age, they become more difficult and more costly to maintain and, at the same time, technologies for alternative energy sources continue to improve and their costs continue to decrease.

Are alternative nuclear power technologies currently in use or being developed?

Several are currently being studied. However, none of them are yet in use and it might be a long time, if ever, before they can become available on a commercial basis. They include molten salt nuclear power, thorium nuclear power, small modular reactors and nuclear fusion.

What is the current status of molten salt nuclear power?

Molten salt nuclear reactors potentially offer several important advantages over conventional nuclear reactors, including greater safety, reduced need for refueling outages, lower construction costs, reduced output of highly radioactive waste and better suitability for hydrogen production.

However, major obstacles remain to their commercial application, including the development of metal alloys and coatings that can withstand the extremely high temperatures and highly corrosive molten salts for prolonged periods. Thus, it is not likely that such reactors will become practical until at least the next decade, if ever.

Can fuels other than uranium be used in nuclear plants?

Thorium is a promising alternative. It is more abundant than uranium and its radioactive waste is less long-lived. Several countries, especially China and India are attempting to develop thorium-based reactors.

When could thorium nuclear power plants become common?

Some major obstacles remain, including the high costs of extracting and processing thorium, challenges with regard to processing the spent thorium fuel, and corrosion and brittleness of materials in the high-radiation thorium reactors. Although China has announced plans to begin production of commercial thorium plants by 2030, it remains to be seen how practical these will be.

What about the new miniature nuclear power plants that are now being widely promoted?

There are several serious problems with these so-called "small modular reactors," including: (1) Costs appear to be substantially higher than were initially expected. (2) They may produce even more radioactive waste than conventional nuclear reactors relative to their output. (3) There are serious, unresolved safety issues, including the lack of robust radioactivity containment structures. (4) The possibility that they would be placed closer to populated areas than conventional nuclear reactors is also a cause for concern. (5) The proposed large number and widespread dispersal as well as the less robust containment structures for these power plants would create more opportunities for terrorists or for damage in the event of armed conflict.

What is the difference between fission and fusion electric power?

They are very different technologies. Put simply, nuclear fission involves splitting atoms of one element so that they become the smaller atoms of other elements, whereas nuclear fusion involves combining atoms to form the larger atoms of other elements.

Do nuclear fusion power plants also have major problems

Fusion nuclear power holds much promise for generating large amounts of power with low operating costs and with far greater safety than fission plants. However, the technology has not developed to the point where it can produce a larger output of power for prolonged periods than the input power that it requires. The consensus among experts is that it will be at least a decade until it becomes practical, and perhaps much longer.

Are there any good alternatives to nuclear power?

Rapid progress is being made on improving the performance and reducing the cost of non-fossil fuel, renewable energy sources that do not pose the extreme risks and very high costs of nuclear power. They include solar, wind, geothermal, hydrogen and wave energy. But perhaps the best alternative, although still far from its potential, is energy conservation.

Is natural gas a good alternative to nuclear power plants?

Natural gas offers some important advantages over other fossil fuels and nuclear power, and it is widely promoted for use as a "transition fuel" while the performance of other alternatives continue to improve. These advantages include (1) being the cleanest burning fossil fuel, (2) an energy efficiency nearly double that of coal, (3) availability at low cost and (4) the ability to quickly adjust the level of power output in order to compensate for the intermittent output from renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.

However, natural gas also has several serious disadvantages: (1) It still emits substantial amounts of carbon dioxide, even though much less than coal and oil. (2) Methane, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, can leak into the atmosphere during the extraction and use of natural gas. (3) The extraction process, especially if fracking is used, can contaminate the groundwater because of the the chemicals and large volumes of water required. (4) The infrastructure, such as storage facilities and pipelines, is costly. (5) There are substantial safety risks because of natural gas's high combustibility.

Could continued progress on improving nuclear power technology and rapidly increasing the number of nuclear power plants be fast enough to have a major effect on stopping climate change and other aspects of global environmental destruction.

Unfortunately, the answer is a clear "No." This is because it takes a long time, more than 14 years on average, from initially planning to the start of operations at a new nuclear power plant. And it could take decades to construct any substantial number of new nuclear power plants because of a shortage of the highly specialized personnel necessary, because of uranium supply bottlenecks, and because of continued public opposition.

Given the rapid deterioration of the earth's environment resulting from fossil fuels and the various and severe problems with nuclear power, what is the best solution?

The only realistic solution is to continue to develop alternative, renewable power sources, such as wind, solar, wave and geothermal and at the same time implement serious measures aimed at energy conservation. Fortunately, the technology for alternative power production continues to advance rapidly, its costs continue to come down, and its level of output continues to grow swiftly. Moreover, there is a tremendous potential for increasing energy conservation without reducing, and perhaps even enhancing, the quality of life.