As the future of sustainability begins to be a hotter topic, many countries are looking for new ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. This has renewed the interest in nuclear power as a sustainable energy option.
In the United States, President Joe Biden and his administration have attempted aggressive steps in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This has led to the administration’s belief that nuclear power is a necessary agent. In fact, nuclear power already provides about 20% of the country’s electricity and accounts for nearly half of the carbon-free energy in the US.
A survey done by the Associated Press showed that about two-thirds of the 50 states (and the District of Columbia) believe that nuclear will, in some way, help take the place of fossil fuels.
The state of Florida has been working toward efficient nuclear power since the 1960s when the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station was built. In 2016, Florida had contributed around $903.6 million to the federal Nuclear Waste Fund. 88% of Florida’s carbon-free electricity comes from its nuclear power reactors, which complement the state’s wind and solar power efforts.
While states are again looking into (and implementing) nuclear power, it has left both scientists and the general public worried about safety measures. Nuclear power produces hazardous waste that still does not have a long-term solution for disposal.
Florida nuclear facilities store used fuel on-site. As of 2020, there were 3,528 metric tons of used nuclear fuel stored at plant sites in the state; the Nuclear Energy Institute said they are working with the federal government to find a solution for the permanent storage of nuclear fuel rods.
Edwin Lyman, the director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said he is concerned about the cutting of corners when it comes to nuclear, safety and the government. Certain waste disposal measures may increase cost, which the government and industry may decide is not worth it in order to compete in the market. While the Union is not in opposition to nuclear power, its main goal is to guarantee that it is safe.
"We are what we eat: our health as a global community depends on the health of the environment, and a contaminated ocean knows no geographical or political borders." - Awadhesh Jha, Professor of Genetic Toxicology and Ecotoxicology at the University of Plymouth
The concern has stretched across many fields from doctors to environmentalists. A major environmental concern is the production of said radioactive waste. This waste includes uranium mill tailings, used reactor fuel and other radioactive wastes.
These types of waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years and threaten the health of humans and the environment. While nuclear power plants do not contribute to greenhouse gasses, the process that is used to construct new plants and mine the uranium fuel comes with its own set of environmental impacts.
We’ll look at the Japanese nuclear power plant disaster in Fukushima - a disaster that was caused by a tsunami in 2011 that resulted in the flooding of the plant. As time has gone on, the Japanese government is looking to release wastewater into the ocean off the coast. This is not as unusual as it may sound.
Water is vital for nuclear power plants to operate. It is used to cool heat-generating radioactive cores; however, the water becomes contaminated with unstable atoms with excess energy called radionuclides during that cooling process. Thus, the water must be filtered after the cooling process to remove as many radionuclides as possible.
The water that is filtered is stored in steel tanks or released into the nearby body of water, which is why most nuclear power plants are constructed on ocean coastlines (or around huge lakes like in the case of Chernobyl). This construction strategy allows for wastewater to be discharged into the ocean or lake once it has been confirmed safe by the appropriate authorities.
While discharging wastewater into nearby bodies of water is not uncommon, there has been research that shows negative impacts on the environment. A study published in Radiation Research shows DNA damage in several species in the marine environments near nuclear power plants.
While this is a critical thing to understand, most of the research being done is conducted in a lab, not in the real world. This is because biological assessment usually takes place long after the original nuclear disasters due to human safety as a priority. So there is still a lot that is unknown in the world of environmental impacts caused by radioactive wastewater.
We can still see some of the impacts of nuclear even with a variety of unknowns. In 2016, a Miami-Dade county study in Biscayne Bay found high levels of tritium, a radioactive isotope, linked to water from canals at Florida Power & Light's Turkey Point power plant. The study’s water sampling found tritium levels up to 215 times higher than normal in ocean water.
Exposure to radionuclides (such as tritium) may drive the alteration of macromolecules in marine species - this is when DNA becomes a major target for ionizing radiations as mentioned above.
If DNA damage is not correctly repaired, it may induce mutations, teratogenesis (malformations in an embryo or fetus) and reproductive effects. According to a review by the National Library of Medicine, this type of damage at the molecular level may have consequences at the population level; however, they also say that many knowledge gaps are remaining that are “relative to the biological effects produced from exposure to tritium” and other radionuclides.
An important thing to note when discussing nuclear power is that serious accidents - those involving death or severe damage to ecosystems - are extremely rare. Considering nuclear power has been around since the 1950s, this is an optimistic baseline.
The data that has been gathered from the handful of disasters that have happened has allowed huge advancements in nuclear security, which leads most researchers to believe that future accidents are even less likely.
This is good to understand when it comes to nuclear power; especially considering former U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s opinion that the nation is not positioned to go to 100% renewable energy any time soon.
“They’ll be times when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine,” he said about solar and hydropower. “And we will need some power that we can actually turn on and dispatch at will. That leaves two choices: either fossil fuel or nuclear.”
The reliance on nuclear power leaves one urgent priority: to set internationally accepted regulations for radiation exposure levels across different species. As Awadhesh Jha, Professor of Genetic Toxicology and Ecotoxicology at the University of Plymouth said, “we are what we eat: our health as a global community depends on the health of the environment, and a contaminated ocean knows no geographical or political borders.”
Let me know your thoughts on nuclear power by interacting with this short poll: Nuclear Power Poll (bottom right of the page)!
Comentarios