A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing #1: Nuclear power isn't the cleanest, greenest form of energy

There have been many op-eds published recently concerning nuclear power, which once a plant starts generating electricity, doesn't produce greenhouse gases.  The articles put forward the argument that because ongoing nuclear power production doesn't generate greenhouse gases, especially compared to power produced by coal, oil, and gas, that it should be prioritized.

My point about a little knowledge being dangerous comes across in this letter to the editor in the Washington Post, which lauds the Dilbert comic strip "for telling the truth about nuclear power."  Which the comic strips don't do.



People put forth the arguments that because there is zero GHG emission, it's the greenest form of energy, and should be subsidized if necessary, for its environmental effect as well as that it can provide base level power generation in the face of wind and solar sources, which are intermittent.

Definitely, I think it's worth continuing to extend production of nuclear power in those places that are already producing, to generate greater economic return which lowers utility rates, etc.

But it's a fallacy to argue that nuclear power is emissions free.

That's only the case if you don't take into account life cycle costing, which looks more broadly at the cost of mining and processing uranium, waste storage and processing, constructing and then decommissioning the plant, etc.

And even beyond life cycle costing, the fact is that building a plant is hyper high risk, driving many companies, such as Westinghouse and now Toshiba into bankruptcy ("How two cutting edge U.S. nuclear projects bankrupted Westinghouse," Reuters).

Let alone the high risk of mistakes, as is evidenced by Chernobyl in the Ukraine and now the Fukishima plant in Japan.  And because nuclear power production requires access to large amounts of water, plants have been located near major water sources like lakes and oceans, which are increasingly vulnerable locations in the face of extreme weather events and sea level rise.

The cost to reduce plant vulnerability to weather risk will be considerable.

According to reasonably definitive analysis ("Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: A review," Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 2178–2199), hydroelectric and wind power produce less GHG per unit of electricity generated than nuclear power, and nuclear power is roughly equivalent, a little worse, or a little better than solar power.

Granted compared to solar power, nuclear power takes up a lot less land which is a bonus, but this comes at great risk of environmental degradation and having to manage waste, alongside the economic risk that comes with building a nuclear power generation facility.