Can nuclear energy reduce global warming?
You may or may not like nuclear power, but there’s little denying that nuclear power produces pretty low life-cycle carbon emissions compared to fossil fuel sources. That is, nuclear power’s carbon footprint is quite low.
Indeed, here’s some solid evidence: the speediest drop in greenhouse gas pollution on record occurred in France in the 1970s and ‘80s, when that country transitioned from burning fossil fuels to nuclear fission for electricity, lowering its greenhouse emissions by roughly 2 percent per year.
But is nuclear power a zero emission source?
Not really, even though some might claim so. This is why. While the generation of nuclear power does not directly emit any CO2, the value chain of nuclear power requires emissions of greenhouse gases for construction, including steel and cement as well as the enrichment of uranium ore required to make nuclear fuel.
But even with all these accounted for, over the full lifetime of a nuclear power plant, greenhouse gas emissions are in the range 25-30 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced, of the same order of magnitude as wind turbines and possibly less than solar photovoltaic (Source). Coal based power plants on the other hand emit 1 Kg of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, or 1000 grams of CO2, and natural gas power plants about 500 grams.
Thus, nuclear power emits only about 3% of CO2 as a coal power plant and just 6% of CO2 as a natural gas power plant!
Thus, nuclear power plants are cleaner than coal and natural gas power plants. Even the staunch opponents of nuclear power do not deny its low carbon credentials.
The only problem: the world is not building so many nuclear reactors owing to the perceived safety challenges that nuclear power plants pose.
China leads the world in new nuclear reactors, with 29 currently under construction and another 59 proposed (2017 data). Yet, even if every planned reactor in China were to be built, the country would still rely on burning coal for more than 50% of its electric power
The reason for nuclear power’s slow adoption has to do predominantly with the substantial safety and security risks, and to a relatively smaller extent, waste disposal challenges. These risks also make nuclear power vulnerable to public rejection (as seen in Japan and Germany following the Fukushima disaster of 2011).
Owing to the challenges outlined above, in many parts of the world nuclear has begun to dwindle. Japan, Germany, USA are prominent examples. At the same time, interestingly, nuclear reactors are beginning to get the kind of scientific attention not seen since at least the end of the cold war from private investors and businesses. Novel designs with alternative cooling fluids other than water, such as Transatomic Power’s molten salt–cooled reactor or the liquid lead–bismuth design from Hyperion Power, are in development. Alternative concepts (using nuclear fusion instead of fission) have attracted funding from billionaires like Bill Gates.
All in all, nuclear power promises a tantalizing clean energy solution, but its attendant risks make significantly decrease the attractiveness of nuclear power plants.
