Benefits:

First and foremost, nuclear energy is clean and provides pollution-free power with no
greenhouse gas emissions. Contrary to what many believe, cooling towers in nuclear plants only
emit water vapour and are thus not releasing any pollutant or radioactive substance into the
atmosphere. Compared to all the energy alternatives we currently have on hand, nuclear is indeed
one of the cleanest sources. Nuclear energy supporters also argue that nuclear power is responsible
for the fastest decarbonisation effort in history, with big nuclear players like France, Saudi Arabia,
Canada, and South Korea being among the countries that recorded the fastest decline in carbon
intensity and experienced a clean energy transition by building nuclear reactors.
A rather important advantage of nuclear energy is that it is much safer than fossil fuels
from a public health perspective. In nearly 70 years since the beginning of nuclear power, only three
accidents have raised public alarm: the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, the 1986 Chernobyl
disaster and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. Of these, only the accident at the Chernobyl
nuclear plant in Ukraine directly caused any deaths.
Finally, nuclear energy has some advantages compared to some of the most popular
renewable energy sources. According to the US Office of Nuclear Energy, nuclear power has by far
the highest capacity factor, with plants requiring less maintenance, capable to operate for up to
two years before refuelling and able to produce maximum power more than 93% of the time during
the year, making them three times more reliable than wind and solar plants.

Comparison:
More Reliable in All Climates
Hydroelectric depends on rainfall and water levels, which can be unreliable during droughts or
seasonal changes. Nuclear provides constant output, regardless of weather, making it more
dependable.

Suitable for More Locations

Hydroelectric plants require specific geography: large rivers, mountains, and valleys. Nuclear plants
can be built almost anywhere, offering more flexibility for countries without major rivers or suitable
terrain.

Smaller Environmental Impact on Ecosystems

Hydroelectric dams flood large areas, disrupt wildlife habitats, and affect fish migration. Nuclear
plants have a smaller land footprint and don’t drastically alter natural water systems.

Higher Energy Output Per Unit

A single nuclear reactor can power a whole city, while hydro usually needs massive infrastructure to
produce the same energy. This means more efficient land and resource use with nuclear.

Better for Meeting Long-Term Global Energy Demand

As electricity demand grows, nuclear energy can scale more effectively without depending on
natural water flow or new dam locations.

Less Vulnerable to Climate Change Effects

Climate change causes melting glaciers, droughts, and altered rainfall, which threaten hydroelectric
sources. Nuclear energy is more climate-resilient, ensuring long-term stability.
Drawbacks:
As mentioned in the previous section, nuclear energy is clean. However, radioactive
nuclear waste contains highly poisonous chemicals like plutonium and the uranium pellets used
as fuel. These materials can be extremely toxic for tens of thousands of years and for this reason,
they need to be meticulously and permanently disposed of. Since the 1950s, a stockpile of 250,000
tonnes of highly radioactive nuclear waste has been accumulated and distributed across the world,
with 90,000 metric tons stored in the US alone. Knowing the dangers of nuclear waste, many
oppose nuclear energy for fears of accidents, despite these being extremely unlikely to happen.
Indeed, opposers know that when nuclear does fail, it can fail spectacularly. They were reminded of
this in 2011, when the Fukushima disaster, despite not killing anyone directly, led to the
displacement of more than 150,000 people, thousands of evacuation/related deaths and billions of
dollars in cleanup costs.
Lastly, if compared to other sources of energy, nuclear power is one of the most expensive
and time-consuming forms of energy. Nuclear plants cost billions of dollars to build and they take
much longer than any other infrastructure for renewable energy, sometimes even more than a
decade. However, while nuclear power plants are expensive to build, they are relatively cheap to
run, a factor that improves its competitiveness. Still, the long building process is considered a
significant obstacle in the run to net-zero emissions that countries around the world have committed
to. If they hope to meet their emission reduction targets in time, they cannot afford to rely on new
nuclear plants.

Comparison:
Radioactive Waste
Unlike hydro, nuclear energy produces waste that remains dangerous for thousands of years and
requires secure long-term storage.

Accident Risks
Nuclear plants carry the risk of rare but devastating disasters (e.g. Fukushima), while hydro plants
are generally safer.

High Construction Cost and Time

Nuclear plants take longer to build and cost more than most hydroelectric projects (unless terrain is
very challenging).

Public Resistance and Fear

Nuclear energy often faces strong opposition due to fear of radiation, while hydro usually has more
public support (except where people are displaced).

Non-Renewable Fuel Source

Nuclear energy depends on uranium, a limited resource, while hydro relies on renewable water
flow.
Environmental impacts:

Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Nuclear power plants do not emit CO2 during operation, making them climate-friendly compared to
fossil fuels.

Minimal Air and Water Pollution

No air pollutants like sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides are released, unlike coal or natural gas
plants. Cooling systems can affect nearby water bodies (thermal pollution), but it’s manageable.

Small Land Use

Nuclear plants take up much less land than hydro dams or solar/wind farms with equivalent output.

Radioactive Waste Generation

Used fuel remains radioactive and hazardous for thousands of years. Waste must be carefully stored
in secure facilities (deep geological storage), which is a major long-term concern.

Uranium Mining Impact

Mining uranium can damage local environments, contaminate water, and affect the health of nearby
communities.

Environmental risk:

Accidents and Disasters

Though rare, nuclear accidents like Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011) caused massive
environmental contamination and human health issues. Radioactive fallout can render land
uninhabitable for decades.

Radioactive Leaks and Exposure

Leaks or equipment failure may expose workers or the environment to radiation if not properly
managed.

Terrorism or Sabotage Risk

Nuclear facilities are potential targets for terrorist attacks due to the severe consequences of
damage.

Long-Term Waste Management

No country has yet implemented a permanent, widely accepted solution for high-level radioactive
waste disposal.

High Decommissioning Costs and Pollution Risk

Shutting down old reactors is expensive and complex; improper decommissioning can cause future
contamination.
Compare to non-green energy sources(like fossil fuels):
Nuclear energy offers a cleaner, more efficient, and more sustainable alternative to fossil
fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. While fossil fuels are the largest contributors to global
warming due to their high carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear power generates electricity with near-
zero greenhouse gas emissions during operation. This makes nuclear a key solution for reducing
climate change impacts.

In terms of energy output, nuclear power has an extremely high energy density, meaning a
small amount of uranium can generate a massive amount of energy—far more than burning coal or
gas. This allows nuclear plants to provide large-scale, consistent electricity (called baseload
power), which fossil fuel plants can also do but at the cost of environmental damage.

From a health and environmental perspective, fossil fuels are responsible for air pollution
that causes asthma, cancer, heart disease, and premature deaths worldwide. Coal mining, oil
drilling, and fracking also destroy landscapes, contaminate water supplies, and cause oil spills. In
contrast, nuclear plants do not produce air pollutants, and their waste is contained and managed,
not released into the environment like fossil fuel emissions.

While nuclear energy does come with risks such as radioactive waste and rare accidents,
modern reactor designs and strict regulations have made nuclear safer than ever. In comparison,
fossil fuel use causes daily, long-term harm to the environment and public health. Additionally,
fossil fuels are running out, while nuclear fuel, especially with emerging technologies like thorium
and breeder reactors, has the potential to last much longer.
Media Coverage of Nuclear Energy

Focus on disasters - Fukushima (2011)

The Great East Japan Earthquake of magnitude 9.0 at 2.46 pm on Friday 11 March 2011 did
considerable damage in the region, and the large tsunami it created caused very much more. The
earthquake was centred 130 km offshore the city of Sendai in Miyagi prefecture on the eastern coast
of Honshu Island (the main part of Japan), and was a rare and complex double quake giving a
severe duration of about 3 minutes. An area of the seafloor extending 650 km north-south moved
typically 10-20 metres horizontally. Japan moved a few metres east and the local coastline subsided
half a metre. The tsunami inundated about 560 km2 and resulted in a human death toll of about
19,500 and much damage to coastal ports and towns, with over a million buildings destroyed or
partly collapsed.

Eleven reactors at four nuclear power plants in the region were operating at the time and all
shut down automatically when the earthquake hit. Subsequent inspection showed no significant
damage to any from the earthquake. The operating units which shut down were Tokyo Electric
Power Company's (Tepco's) Fukushima Daiichi 1, 2, 3, and Fukushima Daini 1, 2, 3, 4, Tohoku's
Onagawa 1, 2, 3, and Japco's Tokai, total 9377 MWe net. Fukushima Daiichi units 4, 5&6 were not
operating at the time, but were affected. The main problem initially centred on Fukushima Daiichi
1-3. Unit 4 became a problem on day five.

The reactors proved robust seismically, but vulnerable to the tsunami. Power, from grid or
backup generators, was available to run the residual heat removal (RHR) system cooling pumps at
eight of the eleven units, and despite some problems they achieved 'cold shutdown' within about
four days. The other three, at Fukushima Daiichi, lost power at 3.42 pm, almost an hour after the
earthquake, when the entire site was flooded by the 15-metre tsunami. This disabled 12 of 13
backup generators onsite and also the heat exchangers for dumping reactor waste heat and decay
heat to the sea. The three units lost the ability to maintain proper reactor cooling and water
circulation functions. Electrical switchgear was also disabled. Thereafter, many weeks of focused
work centred on restoring heat removal from the reactors and coping with overheated spent fuel
ponds. This was undertaken by hundreds of Tepco employees as well as some contractors,
supported by firefighting and military personnel. Some of the Tepco staff had lost homes, and even
families, in the tsunami, and were initially living in temporary accommodation under great
difficulty and privation, with some personal risk. A hardened onsite emergency response centre was
unable to be used in grappling with the situation, due to radioactive contamination.

Three Tepco employees at the Daiichi and Daini plants were killed directly by the
earthquake and tsunami, but there have been no fatalities from the nuclear accident.

Among hundreds of aftershocks, an earthquake with magnitude 7.1, closer to Fukushima

than the 11 March one, was experienced on 7 April, but without further damage to the plant. On 11
April a magnitude 7.1 earthquake and on 12 April a magnitude 6.3 earthquake, both with the
epicentre at Fukushima-Hamadori, caused no further problems.

Underreporting of Benefits
Positive aspects—like low emissions, reliability, and role in fighting climate change—receive less
attention. Scientific advances (e.g., small modular reactors, waste recycling) are covered less
frequently and with less depth.