Amongst the world of science and the energy industry, nuclear fission is often amiss with controversy, plagued by a history of meltdowns, yet boasted as the key to ultimate green energy (especially with the advent of nuclear fission). However, a recent publication from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) details a study conducted by MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences that was released in the journal Nature Energy. The study examines the impacts of shutting down nuclear power plants, and how that leads to significantly higher releases of greenhouse gasses and other negative environmental issues.
As of April 2023, almost 20% of America’s energy comes from nuclear power plants, of which there are only 92 scattered around the nation, the largest number per country in the world. However, most of the plants were built during the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) creation era, around the 1970s, and are approaching the end of the safe-use lifetime. With this dilemma, lawmakers and politicians from different states and federal agencies are grappling with the question of whether to renovate these plants to extend their lifespan, replace them completely, or simply shut them down.
With the need for decisions to solve this problem growing increasingly near, Ph.D. student Lyssa Freese at MIT investigated the impacts of air pollution following different possible life-ends of nuclear power plants. One scenario they simulate is “removing nuclear power results in compensation by coal, gas and oil” and the other is “increased penetration of renewables [energy sources].”
The study consisted of collecting emissions data from locations across the country. The team observed and analyzed the levels of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide — all greenhouse gasses that, when released into the atmosphere, increase the negative effects of global warming and climate change. The study then analyzed the data to determine the effects on fine particle release and destruction of ozone. Additionally, the study examines the mortality rates due to the release of air pollution due to the two scenarios and the costs of these emissions.
Their study found that the rate of air pollution increases when nuclear power plants are replaced with coal, gas, and oil sources. While this is not overly surprising, as these sources (known as dirty energy) have a history of having negative impacts on the world when released, the study uncovered a more disturbing fact: this transition from nuclear to dirty energy instead of renewable ones can lead to up to “an additional 5,200 pollution-related deaths over a single year.”
The study then compared this data to that of the scenario when nuclear power plants are replaced by renewable energy sources. Freese’s team did find that there are still some pollution-related deaths, but it is drastically reduced compared to the dirty energy replacements: 20 times less.
One interesting aspect of the study was the analysis of the effects of the two scenarios on communities of different cultural backgrounds and compositions. The MIT team found that Black and African-American communities experience a greater proportion of air pollution and related deaths than others. Freese says “This adds one more layer to the environmental health and social impacts equation when you’re thinking about nuclear shutdowns, where the conversation often focuses on local risks due to accidents and mining or long-term climate impacts.”
While the outcome of the nuclear energy industry is still unclear, it is important to keep an open mind about the impacts, both positive and negative, that replacing old plants can cause. As technology grows, it can only be hoped the energy industry of the future will be greener for a better world.
