Energy and Environment

Environmental Impacts of
Nuclear Energy
K.L. Ramakumar

(these slides were adopted, with modification, from Ms. Paulina Bohdanowicz , KTH Institute, Sweden)
 The Trinity explosion, 16
milliseconds after Rare color photograph of
detonation. The fireball the first nuclear test at
J. Robert Oppenheimer is about 600 feet (200 m) Trinity site, July 16, 1945
wide
If hundreds of thousands of
suns rise in the sky at once,
they might slightly resemble the
effulgence of that Mighty Form,
Viswa-Rupa.

I am time, that destroys the world and

which is made manifest to destroy these enormous multitude of men. Except
you (the Pandavas) all the warriors present here will be slain.
 The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: a review

Edward Broughton, Columbia University, Mailman School of

Public Health, New York, NY 10032 USA
Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 2005, 4:6

On December 3 1984, more than 40 tons of methyl isocyanate

gas leaked from a pesticide plant in Bhopal, India,
immediately killing at least 3,800 people and causing
significant morbidity and premature death for many
thousands more.
The company paid $470 million in compensation, a relatively
small amount of based on significant underestimations of the
long-term health consequences of exposure and the number
of people exposed.

The disaster indicated a need for enforceable international

standards for environmental safety, preventative strategies to
avoid similar accidents and industrial disaster preparedness.
 Impact of Bhopal tragedy

It changed views and practices among the entire U.S. chemical

industry.
It provided impetus to the development and enactment of federal
laws requiring companies to notify government and the public about
toxic substances they make or use.
The EPA's Federal Superfund Reauthorization, spurred by the
Bhopal tragedy, helped bring about a network of local emergency
planning councils, in which corporate specialists work with their
neighboring communities to safely deal with
unthinkable environmental disasters.

The Chemical Manufacturers Association has established

Community Action Emergency Response (CAER), a program to
prevent or respond to industrial emergencies. Responsible Care is
an industry initiative designed to establish basic standards for safe,
healthy, and environmentally sound operations. It is being
established in some 22 countries around the world.
 EFFECTS OF THERMAL POWER PLANT ON ENVIRONMENT
W. K. POKALE
Sci. Revs. Chem. Commun.: 2(3), 2012, 212-215

Thermal Power Plants have been found to affect Environmental segments of the
surrounding region very badly.

Large amount of SOx, NOx & SPM are generated which damage the environment
and are highly responsible for deterioration of health of human beings, animal
kingdom as well as plants.
Emission of SPM & RSPM disperse over 25 Kms radius land and cause respiratory
and related aliments to human beings and animal kingdom.
SPM gets deposited on the plants which affect photosynthesis. Due to penetration
of pollutants inside the plants through leaves & branches, imbalance of minerals,
micro and major nutrients in the plants take place which affect the plant growth
severely.
Spreading & deposition of SPM on soil, disturb the soil strata thereby the fertile and
forest land becomes less productive.
Because of continuous & long lasting emission of SOx & NOx, which are the
principal pollutants emitted from a coal based power plant, structures & buildings get
affected due to corrosive reactions.
 Nuclear power plants in the world

Source: International Nuclear Satefy Center Argonne National Laboratory, www.insc.anl.gov

Potential causes of concern associated
with the nuclear power
• Misuse of fissile and other radioactive
material by terrorists
• Radioactivity (routine release, risk of
accident, waste disposal)
• Proliferation of nuclear weapons
• Land pollution by mine tailings
• Health effects on uranium miners

Source: Boyle G., Everett B., Ramage J., Energy systems and sustainability, Oxford 2003
 Environmental impact of nuclear power
Nuclear industry is perhaps the only industry to have
openly and in a transparent manner addressed this
issue.
All the necessary steps are undertaken to protect the
environment at all stages of nuclear fuel cycle.
Uranium ore exploration The routine health risks and
greenhouse gas emissions from
Conversion plants nuclear fission power are small
relative to those associated with coal,
Fuel fabrication plants but there are "catastrophic risks"
such as the possibility of over-heated
Nuclear reactors fuel releasing massive quantities of
fission products to the environment.
Reprocessing plants The public is sensitive to these risks
and there has been considerable
Nuclear waste management public opposition to nuclear power.
 Environmental impacts of
nuclear power
Uranium mining
large amounts of rock have to be mined to obtain the
required uranium - average ore grades at operating
uranium mines range from 0.03 % to as high as 10 %
uranium, but are most frequently less than 1 %
radioactive contamination of the environment (radon and
other gases)
noise, dust, sulphur dioxide fumes
overall relatively low polluting
In-situ leaching - a leaching liquid solution - liquid ammonium carbonate,
sodium carbonate, or sulphuric acid - forced through the underground ore
body to dissolve the uranium

Effects of the leaching liquid on the host rock of the deposit are
unpredictable
Impossible to restore the natural condition in the leaching zone after
finishing the leaching operation
 Tailings

• up to 1000 tonnes of slurry residues per tonne of

uranium extracted
• contain chemically and biologically harmful materials
and radioactivity (20 times that of uranium)

• the tails are covered permanently with enough water,

clay and soil to reduce both gamma radiation levels
and radon emanation rates to levels near those
naturally occurring in the region. A vegetation cover
can then be established
 1000 Mwe-yr Power Plant Emissions

COAL GAS NUCLEAR

Sulfur-oxide ~ 1000 mt
Nitrous-oxide ~ 5000 mt 400 mt
Particulates ~ 1400 mt
Ash (solids) ~ 1million mt
CO2 > 7million mt 3.5mill. mt
Trace elements ~ 1mt** ~ 1 kg
** Volatilized heavy metals: e.g., Mercury, Lead, Cadmium,
Arsenic
Spent Fuel 20-30 mt
Fission Products ~1 mt
 Environmental impacts of
nuclear power

• Facility operation
– Thermal pollution into the environment
(comparable with fossil fuel-fired plant) –
sometimes utilised by district heating and
agriculture
• Thermal efficiency: coal 20-40%, average for newer
32%; nuclear 29-38%, light water reactors – 34%
• A 8-10o C increase in the temperature of the water -
observed in the vicinity of the power plant
 Environmental impacts of
nuclear power

• Facility operation
– Low level waste (~600m3 – from a 1000MW
PWR/annum)
• laboratory equipment, clothing, dust swept from
laboratories, gases from fuel cladding stripping & other
low irradiated bodies from plants and laboratories
• weak emitters of alpha, beta, and gamma particles, &
generate little heat
• the disposal policy differs with the type of waste
– gaseous products - released to the atmosphere
– low activity liquids - piped out to sea
– solid products - buried
 Environmental impacts of
nuclear power

• Facility operation
– Intermediate level waste (40m3)
• low level, long half-life wastes -fuel cladding, stream
liquids, materials from decomissioning
• repositories – usually located around 300 meters
underground
 Environmental impacts of
nuclear power
• Facility operation
– high level waste (25m3) - spent fuel with long
half-life (4m3), waste from reprocessing
– 1000 MWe reactor - ~30 tonnes of spent fuel =>
1 tonne high-level waste
– isotopes of high activity and high heat generation
(the fission products and actinides)
– 99.9% of the uranium and plutonium can be
recovered

Source: Ristinen, Kraushaar, 1999; Boyle et al. 2002

 Environmental impacts of
nuclear power
• Facility operation – high level waste
– stored on-site until radioactivity decays to below 1% of
original level (50yrs), placed in containers made of
stainless steel or copper, then buried in special storages
• A 1000 MWe reactor –total radioactivity in its spent fuel
• ~70MCi - a year after discharge
• ~14MCi – 10 years
• ~1.4MCi – 100 years
• ~2000Ci – 100 000 years

– high-level waste from reprocessing - incorporated into

solid blocks of borosilicate glass - vitrification
– risk of accident and excessive radiation
 Environmental impacts of
nuclear power
• Reactor shutdown
– Heat pollution
– Immediately after shutdown, after the fission
reactions have ceased, about 7% of normal
thermal power generation remains,
– 1 hour after shutdown, about 1% of the normal
reactor heat output – may be sufficient to melt the
core.

Source: Ristinen & Kraushaar 1999

 Environmental effects of radiation
• Agricultural areas
– Long-lived isotopes (Cs-137)
• Water
– Nucleides settle down with time
• Forest
– Reproductive functions
• Animals
– Mutations
 Health impacts of nuclear power
• Natural radiation:
– Canada 0.5-1.1 mSv/yr,
– Sydney 0.16-0.9 mSv/yr,
– Perth 3.0mSv/yr,
– Cornwall, UK 7mSv/yr,
– India, Brazil, Sudan – up to 40mSv/yr,
– Iran many times more
• Average individual annual dose from natural and medical sources –
1.6mSv
• Aircrew and frequent flyers – up to 5mSv/yr,
• From nuclear power plants: UK citizens – 0.0003 mSv/yr

• International Comission for Radiological Protection acceptable radiation

levels:
– 1 mSv/yr for members of the public
– 20 mSv/yr averaged over 5 yrs for radiation workers who are
required to work under closely monitored conditionsSource: Boyle et al. 2003
 Health impacts of nuclear power
• Single large doses in a short period
– >10 Sv – death within hours or days
– 1-10 Sv – radiation sickness and disability for weeks/months, ev.
fatal
– >1 Sv – symptoms decrease
– 0.1 Sv – no immediately obvious effects
• Long-term effects of lower doses
– 1-2 cancers per 100 person-sieverts
– Total no of genetic effects down to about the 10th generation – of
the same order
• Scientific evidence – no cancer risk or immediate effects at doses
below 50 mSv in a short time, and about 100 mSv/yr
• Beta particles, gamma rays and X-rays deliver a radiation dose of 1 Sv
(sievert) in depositing 1J of energy per kg of tissue.
• Alpha particles and neutrons deliver a radiation dose of 1 Sv in
depositing 0.1 J of energy per kg of tissue.
Source: Boyle et al. 2003
 Occupational hazards of electricity production by fuel,
no of deaths and diseases per GW-yr of output
(including entire fuel cycle, excluding severe accidents)

Fuel cycle Occupational hazards per Public (off-site) hazards per

GWyr GWyr
Fatal Non-fatal Fatal Non-fatal

Nuclear 0.1-0.9 15 0.006-0.2 16

(LWR)
Gas 0.1-1.0 15 0.2-0.4 15

Oil 0.2-1.4 30 2.0-6.1 2000

Coal 0.2-4.3 63 2.1-7.0 2018

Source: Boyle et al. 2003

Estimated deaths from power generation per GW-
year output

Occupational Occupational Public Total

accidents disease
Nuclear 0.14-0.6 0-0.9 0.067-0.2 0.4-1.7
(LWR)
Gas 0.21

Oil 1.63 1.3-130 3-130

Coal 0.46-0.93 0.13-93 0-320 1-330

Source: Boyle et al. 2003

 Environmental impacts of fossil fuels
and nuclear energy
Fossil fuels Nuclear energy
• Air emissions • Thermal pollution
• Water pollution • Waste generation
• Thermal pollution • Risk of radioactivity
• Waste generation release
• Impacts on human
health
Thank you very much for
your attention
 Comparison to coal-fired generation station (US figures)

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) estimated the

average radioactivity emitted is 0.6319 TBq per year for a single plant. (There are 154
coal gasification plants!)

In terms of dose to a human living nearby, NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95 estimated
the dose to the population from 1000 MWe coal and nuclear plants at 4.9 man-Sv/year
and 0.048 man-Sv/year respectively.
(a typical Chest x-ray gives a dose of about 0.06 mSv for comparison).

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates an added dose of 0.3 µSv per year for
living within 80 km of a coal plant and 0.009 milli-rem for a nuclear plant for yearly
radiation dose estimation.
Nuclear power plants in normal operation emit less radioactivity than coal power plants.

Unlike coal-fired or oil-fired generation, nuclear power generation does not directly
produce any sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, or mercury.

However, as with all energy sources, there is some pollution associated with support
activities such as mining, manufacturing and transportation.
Contrast of radioactive accident emissions with industrial emissions

A 2004 article from the BBC states: "The World Health Organization
(WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air
pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6
million indoors through using solid fuel.“

A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a

nuclear power plant of the same

The World Nuclear Association provides a comparison of deaths due

to accidents among different forms of energy production. In their
comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity produced from 1970 to
1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural
gas, and 8 for nuclear.
Comparisons of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions

Nuclear power plant operation emits no or negligible amounts of carbon dioxide.

However, all other stages of the nuclear fuel chain — mining, milling, transport, fuel
fabrication, enrichment, reactor construction, decommissioning and waste
management — use fossil fuels and hence emit carbon dioxide There has been a
debate on the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions from the complete nuclear fuel
chain.

Many commentators have argued that an expansion of nuclear power would help
combat climate change. Others have pointed out that it is one way to reduce
emissions, but it comes with its own problems, such as risks related to severe nuclear
accidents the challenges of more radioactive waste disposal. Other commentators
have argued that there are better ways of dealing with climate change than investing
in nuclear power, including the improved energy efficiency and greater reliance on
decentralized and renewable energy sources.[27]
Nuclear power plants produce electricity with about 66 g equivalent lifecycle carbon
dioxide emissions per kWh, while renewable power generators produce electricity with
9.5-38 g carbon dioxide per kWh.[80] A more recent, 2012 study by Yale University
however revealed this Nuclear estimate to be too high, and instead the mean value from
Nuclear power, depending on which Reactor design was analysed, produce from 11- 25
g/kW·h of total life cycle CO2 emissions[81]
Health effects on population near nuclear power plants and workers

A major concern in the nuclear debate is what the long-term effects of living near or
working in a nuclear power station are. These concerns typically center around the
potential for increased risks of cancer. However, studies conducted by non-profit, neutral
agencies have found no compelling evidence of correlation between nuclear power and risk
of cancer.

There has been considerable research done on the effect of low-level radiation on humans.
Debate on the applicability of Linear no-threshold model versus Radiation hormesis and
other competing models continues, however, the predicted low rate of cancer with low
dose means that large sample sizes are required in order to make meaningful conclusions. A
study conducted by the National Academy of Science found that carcinogenic effects of
radiation does increase with dose.[134] The largest study on nuclear industry workers in
history involved nearly a half-million individuals and concluded that a 1–2% of cancer
deaths were likely due to occupational dose. This was on the high range of what theory
predicted by LNT, but was "statistically compatible".[135]
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has a factsheet that outlines 6 different
studies. In 1990 the United States Congress requested the National Cancer Institute to
conduct a study of cancer mortality rates around nuclear plants and other facilities
covering 1950 to 1984 focusing on the change after operation started of the respective
facilities. They concluded in no link. In 2000 the University of Pittsburgh found no link to
heightened cancer deaths in people living within 5 miles of plant at the time of the Three
Mile Island accident. The same year, the Illinois Public Health Department found no
statistical abnormality of childhood cancers in counties with nuclear plants. In 2001 the
Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering confirmed that radiation emissions were
negligibly low at the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Also that year, the
American Cancer Society investigated cancer clusters around nuclear plants and
concluded no link to radiation noting that cancer clusters occur regularly due to unrelated
reasons. Again in 2001, the Florida Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology reviewed
claims of increased cancer rates in counties with nuclear plants, however, using the same
data as the claimants, they observed no abnormalities.[136]
 Most human exposure to radiation comes from natural background radiation. Natural
sources of radiation amount to an average annual radiation dose of 295 mrem. The
average person receives about 53 mrem from medical procedures and 10 mrem from
consumer products.[138] According to the National Safety Council, people living within 50
miles of a nuclear power plant receive an additional 0.01 mrem per year. Living within 50
miles of a coal plant adds 0.03 mrem per year.[139]

A German study on childhood cancer in the vicinity of nuclear power plants, the KiKK
study[141] was published in December 2007. According to Ian Fairlie, it "resulted in a
public outcry and media debate in Germany which has received little attention elsewhere".
It has been established "partly as a result of an earlier study by Körblein and
Hoffmann[142] which had found statistically significant increases in solid cancers (54%),
and in leukemia (76%) in children aged less than 5 within 5 km of 15 German nuclear
power plant sites. It reported a 2.2-fold increase in leukemias and a 1.6-fold increase in
solid (mainly embryonal) cancers among children living within 5 km of all German nuclear
power stations."[143] In 2011 a new study of the KiKK data was incorporated into an
assessment by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment
(COMARE) of the incidence of childhood leukemia around British nuclear power plants. It
found that the control sample of population used for comparison in the German study may
have been incorrectly selected and other possible contributory factors, such as socio-
economic ranking, were not taken into consideration. The committee concluded that there
is no significant evidence of an association between risk of childhood leukemia (in under 5
year olds) and living in proximity to a nuclear power plant.[144]
Environmental Advantages of Nuclear Energy

Any alternative source of energy that helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions must be
considered as environmentally advantageous.
•The major environmental advantage of nuclear energy is its lack of greenhouse gas
emissions. Nuclear Power in a Warming World by Lisbeth Gronlund et al. and published by
the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in December 2007 states “Nuclear power plants
do not produce global warming emissions when they operate, and the emissions
associated with the nuclear fuel cycle and plant construction are quite modest. Thus an
expansion of nuclear power could help curb global warming.”

•Using nuclear energy to replace coal as a source of electricity would have definite
environmental benefits. Figures from “Key World Energy Statistics: 2008”, published by the
International Energy Agency show that nuclear energy supplies just 14.8% of world
electricity generation, while coal supplies over 40%. Coal in a Changing Climate by Daniel
Lashof et al. and published by the Natural Resources Defense Council in February 2007
says “The conventional coal fuel cycle is among the most environmentally destructive
activities on earth”.
French Nuclear Energy and Its Environmental Impact
By Maia Dimitrova

Yet compared with the size of its economy and GDP, France is a nominal CO2 emitter.
Clearly, the reduced level of CO2 is attributable to its dependence on nuclear energy.
The topic of nuclear energy is a controversial one. Many countries have shied away
from replacing coal and natural gas with nuclear energy. In spite of the
successful French example, nuclear energy does not resonate well in Germany,
Austria, Sweden, the US, etc. Nevertheless, France’s example is interesting. The
country lacked enough domestic energy resources and would have been destined to
depend on importing its energy needs, had it not been for its reliance on nuclear
energy. By combining political will and determination with public education, an effective
advertising campaign, and highly skilled human capital, France managed to escape a
precarious situation of being overly energy dependent on CO2 pollution-emitting
processes, and transformed itself into a relatively clean energy exporter.
Although it had been on the state agenda since the 1950s, nuclear energy was relatively
unpopular in France until 1973. It was the trauma of the oil shock in 1973 that compelled
the French government to look for alternative energy sources. At that time, most of the
electricity in France came from plants that burned oil, and the oil was imported mostly
from the Middle East. France has not been graced with an abundant
natural resource base. It does not have oil or gas on which to fall back and its coal fields
are already exhausted. The only way to maintain a reliable and sustainable source of
energy was by launching a large-scale nuclear energy program. It was this recourse
that forged a national consensus among major political parties towards the need to
maintain a powerful, nuclear industry which still exists today.
Since the French prefer to be fiercely independent, they were publicly given a choice
between dependency on unstable, unfriendly foreign sources and independent, reliable,
nuclear energy. The argument for a nearly inexhaustible domestic source of power was
made especially compelling by policymakers, who claimed that nuclear energy could be
hazardous only in rare occasions. France holds its researchers and engineers in high
esteem.
Nuclear energy is regarded as clean energy. Compared to coal, petroleum and natural
gas, it emits much lower levels of CO2. Since nuclear plants generate energy through the
fission of uranium, their emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SO2), dust, or
greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide) are negligible compared to the fossil-burning
methods of energy production. In a span of only 6 years from 1980 to 1986, France was
able to reduce its SO2 emissions by 56 percent and NOx by 9 percent.