Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power Plants
Whether you view nuclear power as the promise for a better tomorrow or a whopping down payment on a mutant-filled apocalypse, there's a good chance you won't be easily converted to the other side. After all, nuclear power boasts a number of advantages, as well as its share of downright depressing negatives.
Sergei Supinsky /AFP/Getty Images
This storage facility near the site of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant currently houses nuclear waste.
As far as positives go, nuclear power's biggest advantages are tied to the simple fact that it doesn't depend on fossil fuels. Coal and natural gas power plants emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change. With nuclear power plants, CO2 emissions are minimal.
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the power produced by the world's nuclear plants would normally produce 2 billon metric tons of CO2 per year if they depended on fossil fuels. In fact, a properly functioning nuclear power plant actually releases less radioactivity into the atmosphere than a coal-fired power plant [source: Hvistendahl]. By not depending on fossil fuels, the cost of nuclear power also isn't affected by fluctuations in oil and gas prices.
As for negatives, nuclear fuel may not produce CO2, but it does provide its share of problems. Historically, mining and purifying uranium hasn't been a very clean process. Even transporting nuclear fuel to and from plants poses a contamination risk. And once the fuel is spent, you can't just throw it in the city dump. It's still radioactive and potentially deadly.
On average, a nuclear power plant annually generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel, classified as high-level radioactive waste. When you take into account every nuclear plant on Earth, the combined total climbs to roughly 2,000 metric tons yearly [source: NEI]. All of this waste emits radiation and heat, meaning that it will eventually corrode any container and can prove lethal to nearby life forms. As if this weren't bad enough, nuclear power plants produce a great deal of low-level radioactive waste in the form of radiated parts and equipment.
Eventually spent nuclear fuel will decay to safe radioactive levels, but it takes tens of thousands of years. Even low-level radioactive waste requires centuries to reach acceptable levels. Currently, the nuclear industry lets waste cool for years before mixing it with glass and storing it in massive cooled, concrete structures. In the future, much of this waste may be transported deep underground. In the meantime, however, this waste has to be maintained, monitored and guarded to prevent the materials from falling into the wrong hands. All of these services and added materials cost money -- on top of the high costs required to build a plant.
Nuclear waste can pose a problem, and it's the result of properly functioning nuclear power plants. When something goes wrong, the situation can turn catastrophic. The Chernobyl disaster is a good recent example. In 1986, the Ukrainian nuclear reactor exploded, spewing 50 tons of radioactive material into the surrounding area, contaminating millions of acres of forest. The disaster forced the evacuation of at least 30,000 people, and eventually caused thousands to die from cancer and other illnesses [source: History Channel].
Chernobyl was poorly designed and improperly operated. While the plant required constant human attention to keep the reactor from malfunctioning, modern plants require constant supervision to keep from shutting down. Still, Chernobyl is a black eye for the nuclear power industry, often overshadowing some of the environmental advantages the technology has to offer.
Explore the links on the next page to learn more about nuclear energy.
