(12ai) Radioactivity, I still think it is not the solution for our future energy production

When I was younger I thought nuclear energy power stations are the way forward: impressive and even beautiful buildings (I like the material concrete in buildings) whereby an amassing technique produces from quite a small place energy for many. 

During the recent Cop28 climate top in the United Arab Emirates (where a general agreement was reached such as to face out fossil fuel use although it was to be expected some would search for loopholes), many countries advocated to use nuclear energy as a clean solution to counter climate change. However, evidence showed me that the energy is too powerful and dangerous, too dirty and too expensive while we remain dependent from others for our energy to justify its further use on our planet. So, I continue to think we should try to find better ways to generate energy, just as I wrote a year ago although this reactors can help to bridge the time towards clean energy. Here my reasoning against continuing the use of radioactivity to generate energy. 

Figure 1. The main nuclear decay scheme of the naturally occurring isotope uranium-238. Nuclear decay occurs when the nucleus of an atom is unstable and spontaneously emits energy in the form of radiation. As a result, the nucleus changes into the nucleus of one or more other elements with nuclei that have a lower mass and are more stable, until after a sequence of alpha and beta decay, the nucleus reaches a steady state in the form of lead-206. The half-life of decay varies according the nuclei, from short (48 days) to very long (41.6x10(9) years).

Countries remain dependent from others

Although supporters claim the opposite when they compare energy produced from fossil fuels with that produced from radioactivity, and although radioactivity can be found everywhere, countries remain dependent from countries that have sufficient amounts of uranium to yield for industrial production. According this article, about 85% of all uranium comes from only six countries, that includes Russia from whom Europe wants to become independent for its energy. Indeed, Belgium and other European countries don't have their own uranium, and thus need to import it from somewhere else; therefore countries remain dependent from others. 

In addition, when nuclear power stations are owned by local but certainly foreign companies, than these companies can do as they wish although within laws of the countries where the stations are located, such as close the power stations when the ratio profits/costs become too low or laws too strict, while society, thus customers but also society as a whole pay money to those companies, and thus the country depends on others for its energy production. In Belgium, money is paid to a French company. 

History of (near) disasters

In 1957, a fire at Windscale, today known as Sellafield (more on this below), was for decades the worst nuclear disaster. However, it seems that the resulting radiation was not too bad, but now there seems to be leaks in the storage of used radioactivity. 

In 1986, the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl whereby nearly 40 years later the surrounding areas are still contaminated, although reports suggest the situation is less dramatic than originally thought, at least when we look only to the numbers of animals and plants that increased as they no longer live in competition with humans. But, although genetic changes due to the radiation may result in an increased biodiversity, what about the quality of life, certainly for animals? Further, how many people want to live there, unless they are attached emotionally to the region?

In 2011, a powerful earthquake near Japan triggered a tsunami and the meltdown of the nuclear reactor in Fukushima. Water is still needed to continue to cool down the reactor, and this resulted in so much contaminated water that it is now released in the ocean. Days later, Japan's PM eat fish captured in the ocean to show he is not afraid of radioactive fish. Still, what will he do in case radioactive water is released for decades? In general, pollution manifests itself after a longer period. Can we continue to take risks by assuming there will be no effect on wildlife, and thus humans?

There have been more (near) disasters. 

Maintenance, and building new nuclear power stations to replace the old is very expensive

Further, everything ages. In Belgium, about every nuclear power stations has been closed one or another moment for maintenance as cracks were seen in the buildings. Also in France, a number of its nuclear power stations were closed for maintenance due to ageing buildings. Nothing last for ever. And ageing buildings are more likely to leak. We should not minimise these leaks as companies don't easily close their production units, unless there is a reason to do so. 

Further, a recent unexpected problem was that, due to climate change, water in rivers became too warm to effectively cool the nuclear reactor so they couldn't work at full power. Thus, they cannot be used everywhere, unless maybe at a greater cost because first the water needs to be cooled. And releasing warm water back in rivers can be a disaster for aquatic life.

A solution may be to build new modern nuclear power stations. However, this has become nearly impossible to do as the cost is very high, at least in the West as the new nuclear power station in Hinkley Point C, UK shows that costs billions of pounds over the originally estimated cost. 

Nuclear energy is very polluting for decades, even centuries, and handling this pollution costs money

Nuclear energy is not a clean energy. First, it takes energy to yield and transport uranium to the users while it needs upscaling before it can be used. Further, between 1946 and 1993, radioactive waste was dumped in oceans as countries didn't know what to do with the waste. This became forbidden, and now countries discuss with communities to find places to bury the waste in certain underground that prevents that radioactivity can leak in the ground and reach drinking water. Very expensive, while this meets lots of resistance as people fear this is only a temporary solution as over time storage environments can change so radioactivity, and chemicals will still be able to leak in the ground and drinking water. 

An example is Greenland where a nuclear reactor and its radioactivity were stored in the ice. But, climate change changed the storage conditions as the ice melts and within decades the radioactive material and waste will become visible. 

Further, chemical reactions mostly require other molecules, thus increasing waste. 

Closing and dismantling nuclear power stations is expensive to prevent nuclear pollution

One year or another the building will become too old and needs to be closed and dismantled, something that costs billions of euros as much of the buildings and equipment are radioactive and thus need to be dismantled carefully, while afterwards this needs to be stored in a safe place. Ask Germany about the cost to dismantle its nuclear power stations. 

Belgium reached an agreement with the owners of the nuclear power plants to keep two open for another ten years whereby up to 60 billion euros will be kept outside the reach of both the government and company to be sure it will be available when they close. In the meanwhile, the article mentions that already one billion euro is needed to continue the storage of the current radioactive waste. Indeed, the cost is so high that I think not only the industry, but also societies will have to pay for this when they decide they want to use nuclear energy. Thus, even when people produce their own clean energy, and even when their society decides to stop nuclear energy, people will have to continue to pay as the cost to store radioactivity and dismantle nuclear power stations will be high. 

Sellafield, current problems from the past

I decided to write this article after reading the Guardian articles about Sellafield as an example of the many problems storage of radioactive waste can bring, and this decades after the radioactivity was used.

Radioactive waste was stored under water where it corroded to break down into a radioactive slug. The storage place became old and leaky so radioactivity and chemicals leak in the ground, and eventually may reach the ground water, resulting in polluted drinking water. Thus, the waste needs to be moved to another storage place. Now discussions are ongoing with communities about storage of the waste in the underground where they live. Those people understand that things can go wrong, or Sellafield doesn't need to search for new storage places, and so they hesitate.

Can be used for nuclear weapons

Countries can use uranium for peaceful reasons, ie the production of energy. But, some people may come, and in certain countries are in power who may enrich the uranium further so it can be used as nuclear weapons. Countries we need to fear at this moment are North Korea and Iran that, if needed, threaten to use nuclear weapons. Also other countries such as enemies India and Pakistan, but likely also Israel have nuclear weapons, even though they shouldn't as officially only the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, ie the USA, Russia, France, United Kingdom and China, are allowed to have nuclear weapons. But, although these permanent members should set an example by not using, or threatening to use these weapons, Russia already mentioned a few times it may use them when it may lose the war in Ukraine. Even in the USA, it is possible that someone becomes president who may consider the use of nuclear weapons against enemies, or to stay in power. We also know that the use of this kind of weapons is terrible, while today's atomic bombs are even more powerful than those used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan where allies hoped it would fasten the end of WWII as Japan continued to fight, and  they did stop the war. 

But, it is not only about the fabrication of a big nuclear weapon, radioactivity can also be used on a smaller scale to poison people such as political opponents. 

Terrorism is possible

In the past, governments knew security is important to check who can enter and leave the nuclear power stations to prevent people steal radioactive product. This didn't only concern visitors, also staff needed a serious security check. Further, buildings were built to withstand possible attacks by bombs, cars and trucks, even by planes, and thus buildings were built to cope with both the extreme powers of what happen in the nuclear reactors, and by outside threats. But, can they withstand earthquakes as the disaster in Japan showed not always. 

However, today dangers may come from outside to sabotage the equipment. This may have happened already in Iran whereby Iran accuses Israel of sabotage to slow the nuclear enrichment that is needed to produce nuclear weapons. Whether this was via a physical or cyber attack seems not clear yet. But, countries and terrorist organisations may not only want to stop illegal enrichment of uranium, but also try to get access to create disaster via cyber attacks. And thus more people who can prevent such attacks need to be found, with added risks that one of them may help sabotage the energy station. 

Future energy equals clean energy that benefits society

Now other cleaner energy forms exist, such as solar, wind and water power, that should be connected to a larger power net to transport away excess energy while receive energy during scarcity from other regions with clean energy production. 

We should not only think big, but also consider smaller energy production units (solar panels on houses, small windmills within towns, and use of moving water in rivers, seas and oceans - see figure 2) that produce for local use such as among neighbours although can be connected to the power grid to sell excess energy elsewhere (possibly via local companies in which locals have shares), instead of mainly large power stations that are controlled by energy companies that benefits mainly faraway shareholders. This can be creative such as in this video whereby wind created by moving cars along highways is used to move wind turbines and produce electricity. And other solutions whereby cars generate energy. The future has never been with those who refuse to acknowledge progress in science. Small is also more able to adjust to the local situation such as Alpine villages produce their own energy.

Sometimes, clean energy production can be low, and then incinerators that burn waste and biological materials in a controlled way can be used. However, I have never understood the green lobby that favoured building new gas burners for times when green energy production is low, instead of using existing waste incinerators as certain waste can't be recycled, or burners of green waste such as death wood, thus biofuels whereby the burned biological material can return to enrich the ground as if a natural fire burned. As a result, the anti-green lobby had an easy target to oppose the closure of nuclear power plants to replace them with gas burners. 

Figure 2. Clean energy made by solar panels, windmills and water mills can produce energy, not only by companies, but also by towns and individuals.

Further, I don't like negative energy prices whereby energy companies pay industries to use more energy during overproduction to prevent overload of the power grid. I think that, as a result, ordinary people and smaller companies will have to pay more to compensate for these additional expenses for energy companies. Instead, windmills can be inactivated to prevent too much production of energy. Of course, first excess energy can be transported to sell to area with energy shortage. This way, fewer people may oppose clean energy as it generates money, instead that it is only a cost. 

Two examples show that clean energy can produce sufficient amounts of energy

Portugal (published on FB 26/12/2016)

Proof it can be done: running a country on renewables as Portugal managed to do. During summer, solar panels even generate more energy, while even wind can be strong in southern Europe to generate wind energy. 

Of course, it were only 4.5 days and thus skeptics will claim that's only a small part of the year. But imagine more houses (all) had solar panels, the combination of sun, wind and water energy would have produced even more energy. Add to this farms that produce their own energy and the country no longer needs to waste money buying oil and gas in foreign countries with questionable human right records. In addition, no enormous amounts of money need to be spend to replace old power stations with new ones. It would be a combination of private (homes) and industrial (windmills and water) energy so everyone would benefit.

Scotland - Published on FB 24/07/2019

The Independent article described it can be done: clean energy can produce sufficient amounts of energy as Scotland showed. Of course, a landscape should not be littered by wind mills and thus it should be combined with other renewables such as sun and water energy. And in Europe, one area that produces too much energy can sell to another as not each region needs to produce throughout the year all the energy it needs when regions work together. Collaborations will prevent shortages while bioenergy can provide backups during shortages. Otherwise, why do we need the EU if not to combine forces.

And as long as sufficient amounts of renewable energy can be produced, the cleanest power stations can continue generating electricity so investments can be spread over time (also to prevent everything will need replacement at the same time).

Storage of energy

But, it is not only about producing energy, also its storage is important. Electric batteries can be important such as in electrical cars and bicycles. The trouble is the slow charging time, although this can be useful to have a break from driving such as during a holiday, although the queue to reach a charging station may be stressful. Still, this kind of batteries may be preferable for shorter distances.

However, we also need to open up for other forms of storage of energy such as hydrogen that cost energy such as from clean energy to produce via hydrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen, and Belgium is acting on this. But, even bolder, certain scientists are trying to use photosynthesis to produce clean energy as plants do, such as in smaller batteries. Even our own body may be considered as a potential energy source for smaller electrical products such as to charge smartwatches while we wear them. 

We shouldn't also forget that any equipment may have batteries so large storage are not always needed. An example are tablets and smartphones. However, I once saw a table with solar panels that powered the light bulb that was connected to the table while the light bulb lighted the solar panels; the panels can also be connected to batteries for in the dark as the light bulb alone will be insufficient to recharge the table completely as more energy is used than can be given back to the table. Also TVs may have there own battery that can be charged during the day. Imaging other examples in addition to large rooms full with batteries. 

Possible use of nuclear energy

Still, nuclear energy may be used in space to fuel satellites and future space missions, for as long as they don't return to Earth after their use so the radioactive waste is lost in space. 

Nuclear use is also possible in science and medicines until safer alternatives become available that are as efficient, as is already happening. 

Nuclear fusion, a future solution as clean energy source?

In future, nuclear fusion may also be used as it seems this is a clean energy that generates lots of energy, although still insufficient amounts to compensate for the energy needed to generate the nuclear fusion. The byproduct of such nuclear fusion reactions is inert helium (He) that doesn't react with other molecules and doesn't seem to heat the planet, and thus helium is considered clean. Although, if it can't react away, the atmosphere and waters may accumulate helium, and this may change the composition of the air and waters so we may have insufficient amounts of oxygen to breath in the longer time. Needs to be investigated? Something similar happened before when bacteria changed the carbon dioxide rich atmosphere to an oxygen rich one that resulted in the explosion of lifeforms. 

In conclusion

Of course, I can be wrong. Politicians determine, and thus in democracies the majority of voters, whether energy is produced by the nuclear energy. When they favour nuclear energy, than people need to accept they will continue to pay, even when sufficient energy is produced by green energy, for the very expensive nuclear power stations, storage of radioactive waste, and ultimately dismantling of those production sites when they become too old, but also for security, and this for decades after the closure of the last nuclear power station. We know, and thus we can have a well-informed choice. 

BTW, could it be possible to get rid of radioactive waste by throwing it in lava during volcanic eruptions? First the radioactivity will spread throughout the magma before it may become embedded into the rocks that form after the eruption. Maybe not. 

Or, can smaller amounts of radioactive waste not be exported to space and send away from Earth? Smaller amounts to prevent large amounts of radioactivity are released during an accident. Maybe not.