Judith Stegeman
Last week I wrote my column about unsustainable disasters. In this column I described how these catastrophes happen in and because of an unsustainable world. The column concluded with the remark that if we would live in a sustainable world with renewable energy sources such catastrophes are less likely to happen. In the text I mentioned a few examples of what these renewable energy sources could be, like geothermal energy, wind power and solar power.
Actually, later, after discussing my previous column, a new question arose in my mind. It was about nuclear energy or atomic power. As far as I know, nuclear energy is renewable as the process can happen over and over again. This would make atomic power sustainable, in such a way that sustainable is considered to be renewable. But nuclear power plants are always associated with negativity as the effects can be catastrophic when something goes wrong.
I do wonder, how sustainable is nuclear energy actually?
What is nuclear energy and why is it used?
Atomic power is a way of producing energy from uranium. This energy is produced by splitting the atomic nucleus of uranium. By splitting the atomic nucleus of uranium heat is produced which absorbed by water. The water drives turbines, which produce the energy in the end.
In the Netherlands 10% of the used electricity is produced by atomic power.[i] The production of nuclear energy is cheap. But it is expensive to build the power plants and to dismantle them. Also the resource of uranium is cheap and available all over the world. It makes countries less dependent on other countries as is the case with fossil fuels.[i] So, if nuclear power plants are already there, countries are in favour of making use of them. While Germany is about to close down the nuclear power plants in 2022, the Netherlands are still about to keep using nuclear energy.[ii]
Sustainability?
Atomic power is regarded both positively and negatively. People that are in favour of nuclear energy consider it as sustainable and appreciate its inexpensiveness. People against nuclear energy show the dangerous risks it contains.
The amount of CO2 that is emitted during the process of atomic power is 10 to 100 times less than with fossil fuels. This is comparable to the amount of CO2 emitted by the production of energy from wind power, sun power and water power.[i] Actually, the process of building the power plant, producing the energy and transport the resources is dependant of fossil fuels and is therefore responsible for the emittance of CO2.[i] But this is also the case with building wind turbines and producing solar panels. In this way atomic power is more sustainable than fossil fuels.
Uranium itself is not renewable, but the amount of uranium is that big that this would provide us energy for another thousands of years.[i] Making use of nuclear energy does not deplete the natural resources as fast as is the case with fossil fuels.
But the disadvantages of atomic power are enormous. On the one hand there is radio-active waste, that is dangerous for both human beings and the environment because of its radiation. This radiation keeps going on for thousands of years and involves our next generations.[iii] The radio-active waste can also be used negatively for political reasons as means of nuclear weapons. On the other hand there is the risk of the dangerous catastrophes, described in my previous column[i]. So if something goes wrong, the consequences are huge. After the earthquake and tsunami in 2011 in Fukushima, Japan, a melt-down happened, which means that the nucleus melts fully and this is paired with a lot of heat. Cooling water would be necessary then, but this was not the case, which had dramatic consequences we all know of. This was what also happened in Tsjernobyl in 1986.
Commissie Brundtland
According to the Commission Brundtland sustainable development means: "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".[iv]
On the one hand nuclear energy can be considered sustainable as the amount of uranium is that big that it can be used by our future generations. Moreover, it is available all over the world and can be used by every country, which makes that specific country less dependent on others.
But on the other hand the likely catastrophes and the so damaging consequences affect the life of people now but also the life of future generations. This is the same for the radio-active waste that causes damage during thousands of years.
Future
New technologies are being produced to create less radio-active waste and more safety. Another process that is being experimented with is nuclear fusion, which contains the fusion of elements instead of splitting them.[i]
The ‘Rijksoverheid’, the Dutch government, sees nuclear energy as a means for the transition towards sustainable, renewable energy sources as it is more sustainable than fossil fuels[ii]. In this way it is important to still develop a better process of creating nuclear energy.
Thus nuclear energy can be considered a good means in the transition towards a sustainable world but will not be part of the final sustainable world.
[i] http://www.milieucentraal.nl/klimaat-en-aarde/energiebronnen/kernenergie/
[ii] https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/kernenergie/inhoud/waarom-kernenergie
[iii] http://www.greenpeace.nl/campaigns/schone-energie/het-probleem/Kernenergie-onnodig-onveilig-en-duur/?gclid=CKzTheiB4MkCFVQaGwod2mgAJQ
[iv] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brundtland_Commission