View of a nuclear power plant. Credit: Pexels/Kyle Miller (Creative Commons)
Tina Landis is the author of the book Climate Solutions Beyond Capitalism.
There has recently been a renewed push for an expansion of nuclear energy capacity as a means to address climate change and provide for the increasing energy needs of Big Tech’s data centers and AI applications. But is nuclear really the answer? Reliant on government subsidies to survive, the nuclear industry lobby is strong and has a history of glossing over the risks and inefficiencies of nuclear while covering up the environmental and health impacts. This article outlines some of the myths about nuclear and demonstrates the need for truly clean energy alternatives.
Myth #1: Nuclear power is a zero-emission form of energy
Life cycle carbon emissions from nuclear energy are third highest after scrubbed coal fired plants and natural gas. The energy intensity of nuclear energy production from cradle to grave – from mining, milling and enrichment of uranium, to transport of materials, to the construction and operation of the plant, to decommissioning and waste removal – makes it a very carbon intensive form of energy. The immense volume of freshwater – up to one million gallons a minute – needed to run a plant is unsustainable, even more so in a warming world with an increasing scarcity of freshwater resources. Nuclear plants also require large amounts of concrete, which globally accounts for approximately 8% of greenhouse gas emissions, higher than those from air travel. (Source)
Myth #2: We need nuclear energy in order to meet emission reduction goals
Recently the World Nuclear Association proposed constructing 1,000 new nuclear reactors by 2050 as a means to address climate change and meet emission reduction goals. First, nuclear plants take 10 to 20 years to build from planning to full operation. With the rapidly destabilizing climate, we don’t have that time. Second, even if 1,000 new reactors were built, this would only achieve ten percent of the needed reduction in carbon emissions and would cost at minimum $8.2 trillion. In contrast, wind and solar are by far the lowest cost form of energy and can be deployed in just a few years. A study out of Stanford University by Mark Jacobsen demonstrated that we currently have the technology to meet the world’s energy needs through wind, water and solar energy production.
Another crucial issue of sustainability that is rarely discussed is the need to reduce energy use, and subsequently the amount of energy we need to produce. Energy consumption in the United States is ninth highest on the global list of per capita energy consumption and twice the per capita energy consumption of China. Much energy is wasted through aging energy infrastructure and long-distance transmission lines, but much is also lost in inefficient buildings and appliances. These inefficiencies could easily be overcome in the wealthy Global North and made equitable through subsidized programs to retrofit all housing and upgrade appliances in working-class communities. As part of socialist Cuba’s 2004 “Energy Revolution,” the country greatly reduced energy use by providing energy efficient appliances and light bulbs to the entire population. Under a socialist planned economy, energy-hungry data centers and AI would be limited to what is needed by society rather than its expansion being driven for the profits of Big Tech as it is under capitalism.
Myth #3: Nuclear power is safe
At every step, from mining to transport of fuel to reactor operation to waste containment and decommissioning, catastrophe looms for humans, the environment and all life. We may know of the major accidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, but there is a constant environmental impact and regular releases of radiation throughout the process.
Opposition to nuclear energy is an environmental justice, anti-colonial struggle. Low-income and Indigenous communities and “downwinders” have been treated as collateral damage in the pursuit of profits since the birth of the atomic age in the 1940s. At least 70% of uranium in circulation globally is mined on Indigenous lands. Up to 99.9% of uranium ore is left behind in above-ground tailing ponds after mining operations have ceased. Called “National Sacrifice Zones” and largely located on Indigenous lands, these sites will be radioactive long into the future. (Source)
For every pound of reactor fuel created, 3,500 pounds of highly radioactive waste is left behind at mining sites. There are over 15,000 abandoned uranium mines in the Western U.S., mainly on Indigenous lands, which continue to cause an epidemic of cancer and other diseases in the population. Fuel processing and uranium enrichment facilities across the country are located in Black, Indigenous and other communities of color. (Source)
Extreme weather events that are increasing with climate change add to the already high risk of nuclear energy facilities and waste storage sites. During extreme droughts and heatwaves, nuclear plants power down for safety reasons and to remain efficient. Most nuclear plants are sited on coastlines with sea level rise and storm surge increasing the likelihood of radioactive releases into the ocean. Hurricanes and tornadoes create a heightened risk of meltdown. Severe weather can force reactors to power down for safety reasons leaving populations without power when they need it most – as occurred when Hurricane Katrina triggered reactors to power down in Louisiana and Mississippi. (Source)
A 2024 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office showed that every nuclear plant in the country is located in an area at risk from worsening wildfires, flooding, storms, extreme cold and heat, or a combination of these factors. But the body tasked with nuclear safety – the Nuclear Regulatory Commission – has yet to conduct analyses on whether or not nuclear facilities have prepared for these heightened risks. (Source)
Myth #4: There is a “safe dose” of radiation
Nuclear plants regularly release radioactive contaminants during daily operation and refueling. Radiation exposure levels are based on the “Reference Man” – a healthy, white male in the prime of their life. But the impact of radiation exposure on a fetus, children, women, elders and those with other health conditions is not reflected in the “Reference Man.” According to the National Academy of Sciences there is no safe dose of radiation, and women are up to 60% more vulnerable to the effects of radiation than adult men. (Source)
These regular radioactive releases into the air and water contain different isotopes that attack the body in different ways, such as the thyroid, bones and bone marrow, or the heart. Multiple studies show a 37% increase in childhood leukemia within 3 miles of a nuclear plant. “Background” levels of radiation can cause childhood cancers and hinder early brain development. No one even knows how much radiation is released into the air, water and soil during regular plant operations due to the current lack of accurate monitoring of radiation releases. (Source)
There are few studies on the impacts of radiation releases on other species, but evidence shows the presence of tumors, reduced fertility, genetic and neurological damage in birds and mammals after long term exposure to “low” levels of radiation. Water intake systems at reactors kill untold numbers of marine life, as well as the discharge of heated water back into the marine environment. (Source)
Bioaccumulation of radioactive contaminants is also a factor in our environment and increases within species higher on the food chain, like in humans and other predator species. For instance, studies showed a 10-fold increase in radioactive cesium directly linked to the Fukushima Dia-chi disaster in bluefin tuna caught off the coast of California, which migrate annually from spawning grounds off the coast of Japan. (Source)
Myth #5: Nuclear waste has been resolved
As of 2020, there were 350,000 tons of highly radioactive waste worldwide awaiting safe storage – not including the waste left in tailing ponds at mining sites. No country has yet opened a safe storage site. The Yucca Mountain waste depository – built on stolen Western Shoshone land in Nevada – has since been cancelled due to mass opposition from the tribe and others.
The irony of environmental protection under the capitalist system cannot be starker in this case. While the Yucca Mountain site was under construction, the Environmental Protection Agency founded a task force to devise a “marker system” to communicate the dangers of the site to future generations who may not understand currently-used languages 10,000 years or more from now. Yucca Mountain sits on an earthquake zone, and if filled to capacity and then breached by seismic activity, would release the radiological equivalent of two million nuclear detonations, enough to kill everyone on the planet 350 times over! We must immediately stop creating radioactive waste rather than wasting billions on creating a life-threatening problem that currently has no solution.
Myth #6: Small modular reactors (SMRs) are viable and safe
The nuclear industry has a long history of underestimating costs. SMRs, if ever ramped up to the level of mass production, still do not have the benefit of economies of scale that larger reactors do in costs of construction versus energy output – with a SMR producing only 10 MW to 300 MW. Although the risk is smaller per reactor, SMRs still have the risk of radioactivity and the number of SMRs needed to replace large reactors increases that risk. SMR proponents are attempting to skirt safety requirements that apply to larger facilities as a cost-cutting measure, despite the fact that they produce all levels of radioactive waste. Dismantling an SMR at the end of its life is dangerous for workers due to the high rates of gamma and neutron radiation in the core that must be extracted and transported off site. SMRs are small and do little to offset greenhouse gas emissions and are decades away from being a reality. In the short time we have left to stem climate change, the research and costs involved in developing SMRs would be better spent on implementing a safe and clean energy system powered by solar and wind. (Source)
Myth #7: Nuclear energy is economically viable
Construction of nuclear plants have always run way over budget. The 2005 “Nuclear Renaissance” – led by the industry’s false claims that more affordable, safer reactors could be built in less time – fell flat. By 2018, ballooning costs caused the majority of projects to be cancelled and led to the bankruptcy of some of the largest nuclear corporations, including Westinghouse and Areva. (Source)
The nuclear industry has survived from its inception through today solely due to billions of dollars in government subsidies that channel taxpayer funds for every step of the process from research and development to mining and construction to operation and decommissioning. Through the 1957 Price-Anderson Act, taxpayers cover any damages from a nuclear accident that exceed $13 billion. This lack of accountability for industry puts everyone at greater risk. (Source)
Myth #8: The risk from a nuclear power plant ends when its decommissioned
Nuclear reactors have a lifespan of approximately 40 years. Nuclear plants are being decommissioned at an accelerating rate with 20 reactors in the United States currently being decommissioned or scheduled to be soon. Two-thirds of reactors globally are over 30 years old and 20 percent are over 40 years old and many reactors’ lives – like Diablo Canyon in California – are being extended despite high maintenance costs and increasing risks as plants age. (Source)
Decommissioning is meant to restore the site to “greenfield” status, meaning it can be redeveloped with no radiological contaminants remaining. But this is not the case. Decommissioning companies have no accountability for the end state of the sites they remediate under the lax oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, so instead these sites are simply converted to storage sites for the highly radioactive waste left behind. There’s little incentive for them to do otherwise. With the hundreds of millions to billions of ratepayer dollars they receive, they do as little as possible as quickly as possible to remediate sites and keep the rest as profit. This is a chilling example of the corrupt nature of the capitalist system that prioritizes profits over environmental and health protections. (Source)
