Table of Contents
It is becoming clear the ‘clean’ energy we have been using is insufficient to power New Zealand. While there are calls to reexamine the use of fossil fuels, I would propose there is another energy source to consider: nuclear energy.
Yes, I can already hear the screams from environmentalists about New Zealand being nuclear-free. But nuclear energy has already shown itself to be a much more effective and cost-efficient energy source than wind or solar. Developments have also prevented nuclear accidents or leaks from occurring and, contrary to popular belief, there is actually not that much nuclear waste.
The reason nuclear is such a taboo subject is due to its weaponisation. Unfortunately, that is the reality for all technology. Computers are something we use for everyday use but now cyberwarfare could become the future of conflicts; drones are used to film things and kill people and even communication technologies are used to coordinate attacks.
It is because of this focus on nuclear weapons that we missed out on the innovations in nuclear energy and how it is slowly becoming an energy source that is both cheap to run and produces much more energy than solar and wind. Our fear over nuclear accidents also meant we didn’t see the increasing safety protocols and technological developments to prevent them occurring again.
So how much does a nuclear power plant cost? Well there are a number of costs to consider but the two most important ones are the costs to build and run the plant. The cost to build a power plant is actually uncertain and is quite debatable, as it depends on the costs of material, regulatory costs and whatever taxes and levies have been applied. However, the best estimated cost to build is about $5000 to $8000 per kilowatt capacity. The same variables affect the cost of running a plant, as it depends on the cost of the source. According to the World Nuclear Association, to process a pound of uranium costs about 0.5-0.62 cents per kilowatt hour. While data have suggested an increase in these costs, this has been attributed to increasing health and safety measures and regulations. One study found that out of all countries using nuclear power, South Korea was the only country that has experienced a decline in costs for nuclear power. The low cost could also be the reason why the average energy bill in the US is 16.68 cents per kWh, which is half the New Zealand average of 33 cents per kWh.
However, despite the cost, what is important is the amount of energy it produces which can vary based on its size and capabilities, but it produces much more than wind and solar. According to the European Nuclear Society, the average nuclear power plant can produce 24GWh from 1kg of uranium-235. In contrast, a solar panel produces 550kWh per year while a wind turbine averages six million kWh per year. To be able to keep up with the 13.7 thousand GWh needed each year to power New Zealand would require about 616 wind turbines. Conversely a nuclear power plant would only need 570kg each year. Nuclear also has the guarantee of producing energy constantly because the sources will always be available to process, while wind and solar do not have the same certainty as they are weather dependent.
A major concern for running a nuclear power plant is waste management. Contrary to popular belief, there actually isn’t that much nuclear waste to be concerned about. An average reactor produces about 23–30 tonnes of waste each year. And of that waste, one third of it can be reprocessed, while the rest of it is safe enough to be deposited into geological repositories. While there is still some nuclear waste that is radioactive enough to be harmful, that is less than one per cent of the total amount. To manage this, this high-risk waste can be stored for about 40 years in a facility before the radioactivity has worn off to the point that it can be placed into repositories. We also need to be open to the possibility of innovations for recycling the waste, just as we are doing with plastic and glass.
The ultimate concern is the risk of nuclear accident. Opponents will often point to Chernobyl and Fukushima as examples of why we shouldn’t build a nuclear reactor. And yes, I do understand those concerns. But the reason they happened is because proper safety procedures were not followed. A UN report into Chernobyl found that the Soviet scientists broke 16 health and safety regulations that could have prevented the explosion. And a review of Fukushima found that the plant’s components and infrastructure had not been replaced since the 1960s. It should be said that the nuclear industry is just as concerned about preventing accidents as its critics, which is why there have been increasing safety regulations and technological developments.
We are at risk of our lowest income families going into energy poverty to keep up with the cost of living. We need energy for everything, from cooking to keeping our homes warm to keeping the lights on. And, in an increasingly technologically dependent society, it has become apparent that we need energy to work and to live. If we really want to make energy more affordable, perhaps it is time to look at alternatives like nuclear energy.
