Article
Nuclear Shutdowns Lead to Emission Spikes and Health Risks
As older nuclear power plants are shut down due to concerns over aging infrastructure, they can be replaced with renewable energy sources. But is that happening? History shows that nuclear shutdowns are often followed by an increased reliance on fossil fuels and, consequently, increased emissions and thousands of deaths. The existing nuclear power fleet contributes to a significant portion of clean energy worldwide, so they should be replaced by other clean energy sources when they are taken out of commission.
Photo by Tim van der Kuip via Unsplash.com
Nuclear reactor designs are advancing. While new and safer technologies like the AP1000 are ready for deployment, when older reactors are shut down due to expiring operating licenses and concerns over aging infrastructure, they are not replaced by newer ones, and often the consequence is an upshoot in energy-related carbon emissions.
This has occurred in multiple places around the world. You have probably heard about the issues surrounding Energiwende in Germany, where, since 2015, as much as 230 million tons of CO2 emissions as well as 5,800 lives and 3.29 million cases of minor illness due to air pollution could have been avoided if no nuclear power plants were shut down. Similar stories can be observed in California and Vermont. In Taiwan, the shutdown of nuclear power, motivated by its association with the previous military dictatorship, has increased emissions while making the country more reliant on imported fuel.
The increased reliance on fossil fuels can be traced back to energy security. When nuclear power plants are shut down, the energy grid loses a steady and reliable energy source (in technical terms known as baseload energy), which is hard to replace through renewable energy generation. Governments resorted to fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas to prevent instabilities in their energy grids or spikes in electricity prices, causing increased emissions as a direct cause of nuclear power shutdowns.
A clear-cut example of this is New York. In a recent move, the state shut down the long-criticized Indian Point plant. This led to a rapid increase in the use of natural gas, and while the New York government has ambitious plans for renewable energy, they weren’t in place in time to balance the energy lost.
This is why many climate activists are adopting the position that “if you have an existing nuke, keep it open if you can.” When no clean alternatives for baseload energy or sufficient renewables with energy storage solutions are available, fossil fuels will be brought in to cover the shutdown of nuclear power plants.
As more nuclear reactors are slated to be shut down in the coming years, failure to compensate for the loss of clean energy can significantly roll back progress on climate action. Nuclear shutdowns already contribute to annual emissions equal to that of 37 African countries today. If the trend continues it can contribute to millions of tons more, even dwarfing the emissions from the airline industry.
It is important that governments recognize the crucial role that nuclear energy has played in displacing fossil fuels, and that it should be allowed to continue doing so, at least when no viable alternatives are available.
Write a comment...
•
•
6 w
The government should replace the old nuclear plants with other clean energy alternatives.
•
•
7 w
Fossil fuels are the problem, and every transition plan needs to be set up to phase them out as fast as possible. Aging infrastructure on some clean energy technologies only exacerbate that problem.