When we talk about all the types of energy that exist, we debate which are the most efficient, the easiest to extract, which have the greatest energy output, and, of course, which is the safest. Although it may contradict what is currently believed, the safest energy source available today is nuclear power.
How can this be true? After the Chernobyl incident in 1986, known as the largest nuclear catastrophe in history, and the recent accident in Fukushima in 2011, both related to nuclear energy, it is hard to believe that this energy is the safest of all existing on our planet. However, we are going to present empirical evidence that this is so. Do you want to know why nuclear energy is the safest of all?
Energy production and economic development
In a country's economic development, energy production and consumption are fundamental components for improving overall living standards. However, energy production is not only linked to positive effects; it can also lead to negative health outcomes. For example, energy production can be attributed to both mortality and serious illness , especially in energy sources that involve polluting emissions.
The goal set by the scientific community is to produce energy with the least possible impact on health and the environment. To achieve this, what type of energy should we harness? We compare the most widely used energy sources worldwide, such as coal, oil, natural gas, biomass, and nuclear power. In 2014, these energy sources accounted for almost 96% of global energy production.
Economic development also implies a greater demand for electricity and energy in general. This is where nuclear energy stands out due to its efficiency in generating large amounts of energy with less dependence on fossil fuels. In addition, the stability in the electricity supply provided by nuclear power plants is vital for the economic growth of highly industrialized or developing countries.
Energy security
To better understand how nuclear energy can be the safest, there are two fundamental time frames when analyzing deaths or potential danger in energy production. Based on these variables, the degree of danger that each type of energy poses to both humans and the environment can be established.
The first timeframe is short-term or generational . This encompasses deaths related to accidents during the extraction, processing, or production phases of energy sources. Regarding the environment, the impacts of air pollution during production, transportation, and combustion are analyzed. This is where sources like coal and oil cause the most damage due to their high emissions.
On the other hand, the second framework is the long-term or intergenerational impact , which can include disasters like Chernobyl or, in another vein, the consequences of climate change resulting from greenhouse gas emissions. Although Chernobyl and Fukushima have had a significant impact, the deaths attributable to nuclear power are considerably lower compared to fossil fuels.
Nuclear waste management
One of the main concerns of nuclear energy is its waste, especially high-level waste. Its hazardous life is estimated to range from 10.000 to 1 million years, depending on its type. Here, the safe management of this waste is the great challenge, but the nuclear industry has developed effective and safe methods for its storage in deep geological repositories.
In comparison, fossil fuels produce air pollutants with immediate and large-scale effects, directly impacting health. Nuclear power plants, on the other hand, do not generate polluting emissions during operation , helping to combat climate change and air pollution, factors that cause millions of deaths each year.
One of the solutions being investigated for high-level nuclear waste is the reuse of spent fuel. Although this technology is still in development, there are already experimental projects that seek to reduce the half-life of waste and make the most of the uranium used.
Deaths caused by climate change
Global warming and climate change are two of the most pernicious effects resulting from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Some of the most notable consequences are rising temperatures, extreme weather events, deglaciation and rising sea levels. This, in turn, is directly related to increased mortality from natural disasters, heat waves and food problems due to reduced crop yields.
On the other hand, nuclear power production helps mitigate the effects of climate change by not emitting CO2 during its operation. Nuclear power emits up to 83 times less carbon dioxide than coal, and this includes the entire life cycle of the plant or reactor, from construction to decommissioning.
Final thoughts on nuclear energy
The social perception of nuclear energy often differs from the facts. While disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima are remembered for their media impacts, the number of attributable deaths is extremely low compared to deaths related to air pollution from fossil fuels. Furthermore, nuclear energy has one of the lowest mortality rates per unit of energy produced.
Evidence shows that nuclear energy is one of the safest and least environmentally impactful energy sources, especially when we consider both direct and indirect deaths caused by carbon emissions.