The term “nuclear energy” often entails an unsettling feeling—or in some cases, pure existential dread. TV shows like Chernobyl and movies like Mad Max have done their fair share in cultivating a doom-and-gloom narrative around all things nuclear. The devastation of Hiroshima in World War II still casts a dark shadow over our collective consciousness. If that’s not somber enough, there’s the recency of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident, which became a source of great distress for the international community.
Yet, one must wonder how realistic humanity’s anxiety is towards nuclear energy. Are these preconceptions grounded in reality? Or fiction?
Nuclear Disasters in History
There have been three major accidents at nuclear power plants since their inception in 1951. These accidents are:
- Three Mile Island in the U.S.
- Chernobyl in Ukraine
- Fukushima in Japan
The Three Mile Island nuclear accident occurred in Middletown, Pennsylvania in 1979. The accident was the result of a cooling circuit malfunction that eventually caused coolant to overheat and release as steam. As it escaped, the steam mingled with radioactive elements within the tower, resulting in radioactive contaminants polluting the area.
In the case of the Chernobyl accident in 1986, a test was conducted to measure how long generators would continue producing electricity after reactors were shut down or the plant lost power. (Ironically, the test was conducted as a safety measure.) Unfortunately, the Chernobyl plant had critical design flaws. Typically, control rods are made of boron, silver, cadmium or indium—elements that absorb the neutrons produced from fission and are thus used to control the rate of fission taking place. The more control rods are inserted in the nuclear core, the less nuclear reaction is occurring.
In Chernobyl, however, the boron control rods were tipped with graphite, which increased the rate of fission initially until the rods were fully inserted in the core. To make matters worse, the test was conducted by an ill-prepared staff that did not follow safety protocols. At the start of the test, out of inexperience and sheer negligence, all the control rods were removed from the core—causing an uncontrolled chain reaction. Realizing their mistake, the staff reinserted all the control rods, but the graphite tips caused the fission rate to spike even worse. Temperatures rose to uncontrollable levels and a series of explosions released catastrophic levels of radiation into the surrounding area.
The Fukushima accident was a three-pronged disaster—a rare occasion where three separate crises converged on Japan. In 2011, a massive 9.1-magnitude earthquake hit Japan’s Pacific coast, rattling the country for six excruciating minutes. The violent seismic activity gave rise to several tsunamis—one of which reached as high as 15m (49ft) —and ravaged the coastal city of Fukushima. Three of the six reactors at Fukushima’s Daiichi nuclear plant stopped the moment the seismic activity was detected. Unfortunately, despite shutting down, nuclear reactors continue to generate considerable heat (decay heat) and require coolants to lower their temperature. With the tsunami completely flooding the facility, the coolants could not be deployed—causing the radioactive fuel to melt. The result was radioactive materials leaking into the air and sea to devastating effect.
How many lives were lost in these accidents? Before we begin discussing the deaths caused by nuclear energy, let’s first explore other energy sectors—i.e., solar, wind, hydroelectric power and fossil fuels.
Loss of Life Associated with Non-Nuclear Energy Sources
In 2019, solar energy made up a paltry two percent of the global energy produced. Solar energy has the lowest capacity factor of 24.5 in all energy sectors, since solar panels can only operate for half the day—and that too if there’s enough sun. The number of deaths for every 1000TWh of energy generated by rooftop solar panels is 440. Put simply, this means that for every 1000TWh of energy produced via rooftop solar power, 440 people lose their lives. Other estimates place this number to be around 150. These deaths are mostly the result of electrocution and other hazards that occur during rooftop solar panel installation (such as falling).
At 34.8 percent, wind energy has one of the lowest capacity factors of all energy sources. Roughly five percent of global energy comes from wind—but even then, for every 1000TWh of energy generated, 150 people end up losing their lives. The vast majority of these deaths arise as a result of blade malfunction and fires. Deaths also occur during construction of the wind turbines.
Hydroelectric power is the most prevalent form of renewable energy produced in the world, and produces seven percent of global energy. With a capacity factor of 39.1 percent, hydropower employs the downstream flow of water bodies to spin turbines. While generally considered safe, its main drawback is the amount of damage that can ensue if dams or turbines do break. The 1975 Banqiao Dam failure in China alone led to the demise of 26,000 people. Similar accidents in India, Italy, Russia and the U.S. have led to severe loss of human life. As such, for every 1000TWh of energy produced via hydroelectric power, 1500 people are estimated to pay the ultimate price.
When it comes to the global energy mix, fossil fuels still make up the lion’s share. In 2020, oil supplied 31.6 percent of total energy, coal supplied 26.9 percent, and natural gas made up 22.8 percent. The toll that fossil fuels have taken on the environment has been well-documented. Climate change from air and water pollution is speculated to cause countless deaths annually. Considerable deaths also occur during mining, drilling and construction. Despite capacity factors ranging from 47.5 to 56.8 percent, the loss of life from fossil fuels has been astronomical—with 100,000 deaths for every 1000TWh of energy supplied by burning coal, 36,000 deaths for oil, and 4000 deaths for natural gas.
This begs the question: How do these statistics compare to those from nuclear energy?
Loss of Life in Nuclear Accidents
With the caveat that no loss of human life should be considered acceptable, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) states that 31 people died in the three months following the Chernobyl accident. Two of these deaths were due to the initial explosion, while the remaining 29 were first responders who succumbed to acute radiation sickness (ARS).
As for the Fukushima accident—while the flood and earthquake claimed 20,000 lives, only one person is officially recognized to have died because of radiation exposure. That said, an additional 573 indirect deaths are attributed to the disaster, mostly due to evacuation stress.
And what about the deaths at Three Mile Island? Zero.
Since 1951, 667 nuclear power plants have been built across the world. Today, 440 nuclear power plants are operating across 32 countries, and account for more than 10 percent of total electricity produced.
To put these numbers into perspective, in 70 years and with a total of 667 nuclear power plants that have ever operated, only three major accidents have taken place. Using the official internationally-recognized death statistics for Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, the combined loss of lives from the three major nuclear accidents is 32 people. In fact, estimates on the number of deaths caused by the nuclear energy sector overall is 90 per 1000TWh—the least of any energy sector!
Given the considerable disparity in the deaths caused by other forms of energy versus nuclear energy, one would be hard pressed not to conclude that nuclear energy is the safest and most energy-dense resource in the world. At 93.5 percent, nuclear energy has the highest capacity ratio of all energy sources in the world today, and produces negligible waste when compared to its energy output.
Detractors of nuclear energy may argue that despite the low loss of life, the cost of cleanup from nuclear accidents is too large. While that may be true, there are two major counterarguments. Firstly, the environmental cost of fossil fuels is staggering and considerably larger than any damage caused by nuclear accidents. Secondly (and more importantly), nuclear energy stands to save thousands of lives. The 140,000 total lives that would be lost due to fossil fuels (see above chart) can be saved by switching instead to nuclear energy. When offset against the loss of lives from fossil fuels and the inordinate environmental cost, the cost of cleaning up nuclear accidents becomes relatively negligible.
In my opinion, we need to step out of the shadow cast by our apprehension towards nuclear energy, and embrace the light that comes from harnessing the most reliable source of energy at our disposal.
Do you agree/disagree strongly with the evidence I’ve presented—or are you still on the fence? I invite you to a healthy debate in the comments section below.