1. The document discusses concerns about increasing energy demands and emissions as well as the need for sustainable energy sources. 2. It argues that nuclear power is a safe and low-emissions energy source based on industry safety standards and comparisons to the impacts of coal. International organizations like the IAEA have helped improve nuclear safety over time. 3. Coal power plants emit more radiation than nuclear plants and produce deadly emissions like sulfur dioxide, while nuclear accidents have caused relatively few deaths compared to other energy sources like coal mining. Transitioning away from nuclear could increase emissions and costs of lives.

1. 1. Sustainable energy
2. Sustainable environment
3. Emissions concerns
4. Risks to health and deaths
Increase in industrialization simply implies an increase in the demands for sustainable energy to drive
these industries to supply the basic human needs (food, shelter clothes). Electricity demand is
expected to increase by 43% over the next 20 years [6]. This substantial increase will require the
construction of many new power generating facilities and offers the opportunity to construct these
new facilities in a way to limit GHG emissions. The questions however, are, how can we seek
sustainable energy and environment at the same time, and which energy source can deliver both?
Can we obtain parallel sustainable energy and quality environment? What is the best possible way to
exploit our natural resources with minimal risk and danger to the entire ecosystem? These indeed are
perplexing questions interest to not only policy makers and the energy industries but also members of
the general public.
The nuclear issue:
Whenever the issue of nuclear power crops up anywhere in the world, the media, ‘Friends of the
Earth’, ‘Green Organizations’ etc. raise storms of opposition without recourse to the facts and figures
on the ground. Most often, lame arguments are made to situate nuclear power on the ‘red line’ when
in fact (and figures) it stands tall against all the major sustainable energy sources.
There is no industrial activity that can be represented as entirely risk-free, and nuclear power is no
exception. Incidents and accidents may happen, and like in all other industries, they lead to
progressive improvement in safety. Those improvements are manifestations in new designs and
upgrading of existing plants. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was set up by the
United Nations with the core functions of acting as an auditor of world nuclear safety (and security)

2. has done a tremendous job in the area of safety and security, provision of up-t-date skills and
techniques at all nuclear facilities. Their function makes nuclear facilities around the world the most
supervised and standardized industrial facility. It is interesting to know that, due to their intervention
and cooperation of member states, there have been only 3 nuclear incidents (and/or accidents) in
over 16,000 reactor-years of civil operation across the globe:
 Three Mile Island (USA 1979) where the reactor was severely damaged but radiation was
contained and there were no adverse health or environmental consequences
 Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986) where the destruction of the reactor by steam explosion and fire
killed 31 people and had significant health and environmental consequences. The death toll
has since increased to about 56.
 Fukushima (Japan 2011) where three old reactors (together with a fourth) were written off and
the effects of loss of cooling due to a huge tsunami were inadequately contained.
It is instructive to note that, apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have
ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident. It is also
worth emphasizing that a commercial-type power reactor simply cannot under any circumstances
explode like a nuclear bomb in that the fuel is not enriched beyond even 5%, while much higher
enrichment is needed for explosives.
The case of coal and other sources:
Coal remains the chief source of quotidian problems such as mining accidents, acid rain
and greenhouse gas emissions. Sulfur dioxide gas, nitrogen dioxide gas and tropospheric (ground
level) ozone are well associated with combustion. These emissions do not only affect health of
humans and national budgets but also the entire ecosystem - climaxing in climate change.
Series of studies suggest the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that
generated by their nuclear counterparts [2]. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a coal-fueled power plant
carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant
producing the same amount of energy. When coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are
concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels. Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil
and water in the vicinity of a coal plant, thereby affecting cropland and food. In a 1978 paper
for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the
uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. In
their take on just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around

3. the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-
water nuclear power plants. The result indicated that estimated radiation doses ingested by people
living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear
facilities [2]. McBride and his co-authors emphasized that other products of coal power, like emissions
of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than
radiation. Burning of lignite emits nearly 100 % more carbon dioxide with respect to the energy
content than burning of natural gas. Even natural fuels such as wood or peat have high specific
emissions, if they are not used sustainably.
Climate change
Obviously it is the biggest problem grappling mankind today. Every continent, in every country, the
people are feeling the brunt of this phenomenon spearheaded by greenhouse gases. According to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world emits approximately 27 gigatonnes of
CO2 from multiple sources, with electrical production emitting 10 gigatonnes, or approximately 37%
of global emissions [5]. And if the current emission rates persist, in 20 years the consequence will be
gravely dire than we see today, (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: observed and modeled temperature variations due to climate change
The figures at glance:
Nuclear power provides 40% of Sweden’s electricity, same as hydropower. Nuclear has avoided over
2 billion tons of CO2 emissions since 1980, same as hydro. Replacing nuclear with fossil fuel would
kill an additional 50,000 people or so over the next 20 years and would triple carbon emissions [3].

4. The evidence over six decades shows that nuclear power is a safe means of generating electricity.
The risk of accidents in nuclear power plants is low and declining. The consequences of an accident
or terrorist attack are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks [1].
In contrast to the recurring fatality at coal mines and power plants involving several hundreds of lives
around the world, only 3 accidents have occurred in over 16,000 cumulative reactor-years of
commercial nuclear power operation with not more than 60 deaths (see fig.1). For each unit of
electricity produced, nuclear power is nowhere near as deadly as coal [1]. Deaths from radiation in
the worst possible event conceivable for a reactor with a containment system are estimated at zero
while anticipated cancers (above normal rates) in the event of radiological incident are negligible.
Lifecycle emissions of coal and natural gas generation are respectively 30 and 15 times greater than
nuclear [5].
Coal fired power plants have the highest GHG emission intensities on a lifecycle basis. Although
natural gas, and to some degree oil, had noticeably lower GHG emissions, biomass, nuclear,
hydroelectric, wind, and solar photovoltaic all had lifecycle GHG emission intensities that are
significantly lower than fossil fuel based generation [5].
Despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced, nuclear power prevented an
average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971and 2009. This amounts to at least
hundreds and more likely thousands of times more deaths than it caused. An average of 76,000
deaths per year was avoided annually between 2000 and 2009 [7].

5. Figure 2: death rates of the major source of electricity
Figure 3: greenhouse/CO2 gas emissions by major energy sources
Populated and developing economies like India and China continue to unveil new coal-fired power
plants, at the rate of one every 7 to 10 days in China. The U.S. still draws around half of its electricity
from coal. This should be a matter of concern for all. With the world now focused on addressing the
problem of climate change, the United Nations and governments must enforce regulations on
installations and operations of coal power plants. Lastly, I recommend there should be an
international auditory and regulatory body like the IAEA to oversee the activities of coal mining and its
power plants.
Reference:
[1]. WNA, May 2016 publications: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-
security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
[2]. Mara Hvistendahl on December 13, 2007: www.scientificamerican.com
[3]. James Conca, Forbes, August 2015 online publication:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/08/17/sweden-better-not-close-its-nuclear-power-plants-it-gets-really-
cold-there/#6a7a407572ca
[4]. Martin Nicholson: https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/12/07/nuclear-power-to-do-the-heavy-lifting-
in-reducing-chinas-greenhouse-gas-emissions/

6. [5]. WNA Report, Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Electricity
Generation Sources
[6]. International Atomic Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2009 – GLOBAL ENERGY TRENDS
TO 2030 [Online], 2009 [cited August 1, 2010]; http://www.iea.org/W/bookshop/add.aspx?id=388
[7]. Markandya, A., and P. Wilkinson, 2007: Electricity generation and health. Lancet, 370, 979-990,
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61253-7.