Aug 24, 2021

Throughout my years studying and learning about energy, I could never get past how spent fuel was managed to be a nuclear energy advocate. However, the urgency for decarbonization in addressing climate change has me scratching my chin. Nuclear energy is carbon free. Does this mean nuclear energy is a vital component for decarbonization or are we kicking a serious nuclear waste issue down the road? 

I was never a nuclear power proponent. To me, its implementation did not take into account the full lifecycle of the product - specifically, its waste. Spent fuel has components that stay radioactive for tens of years to tens of thousands of years. It is first put in what looks like a swimming pool - actually called "spent fuel pools".  Oversimplifying, radiation from the fuel is absorbed by the water. When there is no more room in the pool, they are transferred to dry casks which look like short grain silos made of steel and concrete.

This is documented in the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) site - the organization that states it focuses on reactor safety oversight.  The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) states on their website that there is over 80,000 metric tons of high level nuclear waste and it is growing by 2,000 metric tons per year.

On the other hand, nuclear energy is carbon free. Those cooling towers that are prominent at a nuclear facility spewing white "smoke" is not smoke at all. It is water vapor - aka steam.  Since the water producing the steam is not in contact with the radioactive material, the steam itself is not radioactive. In addition, nuclear power plants take up much less land for the energy they produce compared to solar and wind farms.

Carbon free, pollution free, and low land use all create a powerful argument favoring nuclear power - at least for now.  So, is nuclear power a vital component in decarbonization or are we kicking a serious nuclear waste issue down the road?

I think in the end, it is both. Current nuclear power does contribute to decarbonization as it is carbon free. Substituting nuclear power's current electricity generating capacity would mostly be with fossil fuel plants. On other hand, we are kicking a can down the road since the waste currently in place and what will continue to be produced still needs to be dealt with beyond current waste management practices. And as far as nuclear power's future contributions goes, the estimated 7 years to build the plants means nuclear power is not going to be contributing to decarbonization for our short term urgency.