We strove to answer the the question: While nuclear power plants are significantly cleaner and more environmentally friendly than coal or natural gas plants, are they worth the time, money, and energy to build even as they are not sustainable?

This was a very difficult question to answer, as there are so many different variables involved. To start off with, there are some facts that must be addressed:

1.) The use of coal and natural gas power plants directly contributes to climate change, as well as adverse health affects due to pollutants.

2.) The population of the United States is growing rapidly, and will continue to do so (source). As the population increases, the energy demand in the country will also increase.

3.) Americans use more electricity per capita than any other nation in the world (source).

4.) Nuclear power already provides nearly a fifth of the energy demands in the United States.

With those points clearly outlined, now we can begin to look at the various factors of nuclear power, and how they may be perceived as net positives or negatives.

Nuclear Power plants have the potential for both positive and negative impacts on the environment:

Positive Environmental Impact:

Nuclear power plants do not emit any particulate or gaseous pollution. This makes them far cleaner in the short term than either coal or natural gas power plants. Coal and gas plants produce carbon dioxide and methane, which act as greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, actively trapping heat and contributing to global climate change. Since nuclear power plants do not emit this kind of pollution, they are a definite improvement in this area.

Nuclear power plants are also capable of producing huge quantities of electricity, further reducing the need for additional coal or gas power plants. Since nuclear plants can produce so much energy, far fewer are needed in order to meet demands than are coal or gas plants. Thus, the more nuclear power plants in the country, the lesser the need for coal or gas plants that contribute to climate change.

Negative Environmental Impact:

 

As exemplified in Chernobyl, Ukraine, Fukushima, Japan, and Three  Mile Island, Pennsylvania; Nuclear disasters have massive environmental impacts. Although some may argue that they are few and far between, it is vital to understand the enormous global consequences of even just one disaster. After the Fukushima Diiachi disaster, radiation reached all the way to the North American coast in just 10 days.  Radiation came by both sea and air, and at least one salmon in British Columbia was found with low levels of Cesium-134, an isotope released from the disaster.

However, even at sites that did not have meltdowns, there are issues. In south central Washington state, along the Columbia river sits a 586 square mile expanse that is home to the most contaminated site in the western hemisphere: the Hanford Nuclear Site (hanfordchallenge.org).  This site is known to have leaked over 1 million gallons of radioactive waste. While many would like to forget this disaster in our backyard, the Hanford site is so far up the Columbia river that it pollutes the river for several hundred miles until it is released into the Pacific Ocean.

Earlier in May, a tunnel containing radioactive waste collapsed, potentially leaking more radioactive waste into the environment we live in. It is now being declared an emergency situation (NPR).  Hanford is an excellent example of even a decommissioned nuclear power plant becoming an environmental disaster.

Not worried about the environment? No problem!

There are plenty of human health hazards to be concerned about as well: For example, in an article published June 6th, 2017 by The Japan Times, seven more residents who were 18 years or younger at the time of the 2011 disaster at Fukushima, were just diagnosed with thyroid cancer, a cancer correlated with radiation exposure in children and young adults. This brings the number of Fukushima prefecture residents suffering from Thyroid cancer to 152 people (japantimes). There will never be any positive health benefits from Nuclear Power.

Economics:

While there is no doubt that new Nuclear Power plants will bring jobs and economic growth to a region, the costs of building and maintaining new plants are so prohibitively expensive, that potential investors are shying away. Of the four planned new plants in the United States, two have already been canceled. It it likely that the other two will be abandoned as well due to alternative opportunities for investors. Some plants around the country (like Three Mile Island) are already in danger of closing just due to market pressures.

The renewable and green energy markets are expanding so rapidly, that new investors are more likely to choose them over nuclear power. Not only do renewables offer energy at with a much better Return on Investment (ROI), but they also offer great PR opportunities for energy companies. In the United States right now, solar, wind, and now wave power are growing so quickly, that it just does not make economic sense to build any new plants. If we as a country invest and subsidize renewable and green energy, the number jobs that would be created by new nuclear plants would be eclipsed by the available jobs working to create the production and installation methods for renewables.

Final Words:

Although there are some significant advantages to Nuclear Power over Coal and Natural Gas, those advantages disappear when compared to renewable energy technologies, and the potential for environmental disaster is huge, and long lasting.

It is of our firm belief, that there is no reason to continue building new Nuclear Power plants, and that investment should be made into wind, solar, hydro, wave, and other renewable and green energy resources, that will not harm the planet.

 

 

SOURCES (including images):

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/09/527605496/emergency-declared-at-nuclear-contaminated-site-in-washington-state

http://totalrehash.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/img_5915a79807e38.jpeghttp://totalrehash.com/for-west-coast-nuclear-hanford-threat-dwarfs-fukushima/

http://www.snopes.com/radioactive-salmon-fukushima/

http://www.hanfordchallenge.org

https://www.cancer.gov/types/thyroid/hp/thyroid-treatment-pdq

https://southeastenergy.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/tell-congress-we-want-renewable-solutions-not-nuclear-problems/

Seven more Fukushima residents diagnosed with thyroid cancer