5 Myths About Nuclear Energy, Debunked

For decades, what has stopped the adoption of the most environmentally feasible energy source has been fear, born from decades of misinformation and misunderstanding. Headlines from sources sponsored by gas lobbies have portrayed nuclear energy as a technology fraught with danger, but beneath that narrative lies an irony: the very energy source that has the potential to save our planet is the one that the public fears the most.

As climate change is only accelerating and global energy demand is surging, the world stands at an important time in choosing an energy source to adopt. Unless misconceptions about nuclear power are addressed, its adoption will be slowed, despite overwhelming scientific evidence of its benefits. Below are the 5 most common lies stopping nuclear energy from adoption, and why they are inaccurate.

Myth #1 - "Nuclear energy is unsafe."

Many people have been led to believe that nuclear energy is high-risk because of past accidents like Chernobyl or Fukushima. But, looking at empirical evidence, the long-term record of nuclear power plants shows a strong performance in safety. Nuclear energy results in 99.8% fewer deaths than coal, 99.7% fewer than oil, 97.6% fewer than gas, and the same amount as wind and solar are just as safe. At the same time, the risk of accidents is only declining. Unless Soviet systems with low standards, modern safety systems are engineered with multiple robust safety layers, including reactors designed to withstand earthquakes and other extreme conditions. While concerns arising from the toll from accidents like Fukushima are understandable, these events are rare and only decreasing, and their impact is near-zero compared to the ongoing toll of fossil fuel pollution.

Myth #2 - "Nuclear plants emit dangerous levels of radiation to the public."

Some fear that living anywhere near a nuclear facility is equivalent to shortening your own life span. But, as the Duke Energy Center explains, someone standing outside the perimeter of a nuclear power plant for a full year would receive less than one millirem of extra radiation. For context, a typical X-ray delivers around 10 millirems of radiation. Further, the average American receives about 620 millirem of radiation exposure yearly, mostly from natural sources. Living near a nuclear plant is roughly equal to eating a few bananas. Contrary to public perception, the engineering of plants ensures that members of the public aren't exposed to radiation. Even after crisis, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) concluded that the resulting radiation exposure posed "no discernible increase in cancer rates."

Myth #3 – "Nuclear waste is unmanageable and unsolvable"

There has been a persistent notion that using nuclear energy generates a vast, untamable amount of toxic waste. Yet, the reality is far more reassuring. The volume of used fuel is very different, and the volume of waste is very small relative to other sources. All the nuclear waste produced by the U.S. over the past 60 years could fit on a single football field stacked less than 10 yards high. Far from "unmanageable," the waste is stored safely in sealed casks made of steel that are constantly monitored. In countries like Finland and Sweden, there are deep repositories where waste can be stored in stable rock formations. Furthermore, around 90% of what we now consider nuclear waste can be reprocessed into new fuel, a technique already used in France.

Myth #4 - "Nuclear power is too expensive and economically impractical."

There is some truth to the notion that nuclear plants have upfront capital costs, but that is only part of the story. New technologies for nuclear energy, such as SMRs(Small Modular Reactors), have greatly decreased the costs of adoption. In the long run, nuclear energy lowers costs, having the lowest levelized cost of electricity among all sources over its lifespan, producing far more electricity per unit of installed capacity than wind or solar. The problem is one of favorable regulations, not costs. In nations with favorable climates to nuclear energy, like China and South Korea, new reactors are built within years at competitive costs. The problem isn't economics, it's political will.

Myth #5 - "Renewables alone can replace the need for nuclear power."

Given the aforementioned myths, another notion has arisen that wind and solar can solve our climate crisis, leaving nuclear energy unnecessary. However, this simply isn't the case. These renewable sources are intermittent, depending on weather conditions, daylight, and geography. Without massive energy sources from other sources, they can not sustain society. Grids that try to maintain energy using only nuclear sources face not only soaring costs but also storage challenges. Adding nuclear to the mix greatly reduces both the cost and emissions from a grid. Achieving net-zero emissions will require renewables to be greatly complemented by nuclear energy.