Nuclear Power Is Not Clean and Not Safe Enough
People who argue nuclear power is essential to combat climate change stress that wind and solar power are variable resources, dismissing the potential for energy storage, transmission, and grid management improvements that could bridge gaps between renewable energy supply and demand. Yet they are bullish on nuclear energy’s ability to quickly overcome the problems that caused it to lose support and stagnate in recent decades, including high cost, construction delays, inflexibility, safety risks, nuclear weapons proliferation, and the never-ending waste-disposal stalemate. This way of thinking is rooted more in technological bias than in logical analysis.
Our low-carbon energy future is not set in stone (or uranium). But the nuclear industry hopes to make itself look indispensable while struggling to stay relevant in the face of rapidly increasing deployment of renewable energy—as costs plummet (by about 70 and 80 percent for land-based wind and utility-scale solar power since 2010, respectively). In contrast, recent nuclear projects are losing against renewables because they have not realized the dramatic cost and schedule reductions promoters promised. The $35 billion twin-unit AP1000 plant at Plant Vogtle in Georgia has famously ended up costing more than twice as much and taking about twice as long to build as initially projected.
Westinghouse’s main rationale for the AP1000, an evolutionary variant of previous light-water reactors, was to slash capital cost by significantly reducing materials, components, and the volume of buildings that must meet the highest safety and seismic standards. It didn’t work. Vogtle’s cost per megawatt dwarfs that of another budget-busting nuclear project, the Olkiluoto EPR in Finland, even though the EPR’s design offers enhanced safety over cutting cost.
Undaunted, nuclear boosters brush off the Vogtle fiasco, claiming the future lies in cheaper “small modular reactors” or even tinier “micro-reactors” that can be deployed in locations not feasible for large plants. But a lower price tag doesn’t guarantee small reactors will be more economical: Diseconomies of scale dictate they will generate more expensive electricity unless capital and operating expenses can be slashed well below any reductions obtained by simply scaling down.
And while reactor design standardization may reduce cost and speed up deployment, the Department of Energy is pursuing the opposite approach, spreading development dollars among a vast menagerie of exotic reactor concepts. Many would use specialized fuels, materials, and components that need unique supply chains and manufacturing facilities. While no one wants the government to be in the business of picking winners and losers, this scattershot policy risks adding up to a whole lot of nothing.
To cut costs and speed up deployment of these first-of-a-kind reactors, developers are irresponsibly seeking many exemptions from fundamental safety requirements, such as robust, leak-tight containments; materials and construction of the highest quality; and full complements of trained operators and security personnel. And to facilitate reactor siting near densely populated areas or hazardous industrial facilities, the industry wants to forego the emergency planning critical to protect communities from a major accident or terrorist attack. Even so, after cutting numerous safety corners, NuScale, the most mature U.S. small modular reactor project, experienced a 50 percent increase in its projected power cost and was dumped by its only viable customer in November 2023.
Developers justify their push for weakened regulations by claiming their reactors are safer than current-generation plants. But a 2021 Union of Concerned Scientists review found these experimental reactors pose novel and poorly understood risks—which will be aggravated if there is a rush to license technically immature designs under less stringent rules that do not require the same safety margins and redundant layers of protection as operating reactors have.
Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is significantly easing its licensing rules, pro-nuclear organizations unfairly scapegoat it for the largely self-inflicted problems that are causing nuclear to lose the race with renewables, urging the agency to even more drastically gut the regulations that have helped U.S. reactors remain meltdown-free since the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. These groups claim nuclear power is “clean” and that its safety risks have been exaggerated, downplaying the disasters that the world witnessed with horror at Chernobyl and Fukushima. While they say they act in the public interest, their anti-regulatory stance and denial of the dangers of ionizing radiation are totally in synch with the nuclear industry’s bottom line. Rigorous studies show that low exposures to radioactive materials can cause cancer and even cardiovascular disease. It is simply false advertising to label as “clean” a power source that generates copious quantities of long-lived poisons with the potential to severely damage the environment.
Nuclear safety should not be traded away to give the industry a leg up in its competition with rapidly advancing renewables. Nuclear power will succeed only if it can achieve a safety level high enough to effectively preclude another Fukushima-scale accident—or worse—that could send public support of the technology to the basement for another generation.
Edwin Lyman is the director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists.