Nuclear Energy Thickness

Executive summary:

This report discusses the realities of Nuclear Energy as a viable energy source. It provides a high-level summary of commercial reactors, how they work, those most commonly occurring in the United States, and the future development of reactor technology. We then discussed the three stages in the lifecycle of nuclear power generation where we believed accidents could occur: operation, transportation, and storage and disposal. We summarize these stages, including the existing safeguards in place and the potential risks to the environment and the public. We then discuss the context, causes, and lasting impacts of the only two nuclear accidents to have occurred to provide better insight to the actual likelihood and outcomes of nuclear accidents. The report concludes with how the industry has continued to improve to avoid future risks and accidents, and a comprehensive summary of the risks associated with different energy sources to offer readers a comparison to Nuclear.

Methodology:

We reviewed the literature of nuclear energy in order to create an impartial summary of the nuclear industry with a comprehensive narrative for our investment purposes. The analysis includes (a) the operation, transportation, disposal, and storage of nuclear energy and material, (b) the probability of adverse outcomes, (c) the reality of adverse outcomes, and (d) comparisons of how risks compare to other energy industries. We will use the quantitative and qualitative data in the report to inform our investment thesis on the “thickness” of nuclear energy as a power source.

Thickness:

Nuclear energy is “thick” as it relates to two sources of natural capital: energy and atmosphere. Additionally, nuclear one of the most efficient source of energy and creates no emissions during its generation. We analyzed the risks of nuclear accidents that pose risk to both the public and the environment and found that all historical accidents have occurred because of human error. Proper safeguards and continued updates to existing technology could make accidents entirely avoidable, both of which are already occurring. The likelihood of nuclear energy causing harm to humans is akin to that of wind and solar, and will likely decrease with continued research and development. We believe that nuclear generation will have long-term utility as a source of energy and will be key in the energy transition.

Nuclear Literature & Resources

Nuclear energy can provide clean energy, meeting the needs of the public and aiding in the energy transition. The public stigmatizes nuclear energy and its potential impacts.This report addresses those impacts and provides information to reference regarding risks and opportunities present in the industry. This report includes context on types of reactors used for nuclear generation, describes how they work, how accidents or incidents have occurred, and how the industry has responded.  This report also compares the risks of nuclear generation to other sources of generation, including fossil fuels and renewables. For context throughout the report, we draw a distinction between nuclear accidents and incidents, which the International Atomic Energy Agency defines as “an event that has led to significant consequences to people, the environment, or the facility.”^[1] We include the scale used by this Agency in the Appendix so that the reader can read it as needed.  

Commercial reactors in the U.S. and how they work ^[2][3]

There are 440 commercial reactors worldwide, 93 in the U.S. (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission),^[4] approximately 100 power reactors planned, and over 300 proposed (World Nuclear Association).^[5] Most of the proposed projects will be located in Asian countries where the demand for electricity is growing rapidly.

Nuclear reactors produce heat through a process called fission where atoms split and release energy. Nuclear reactors are designed to contain and control the heat that the process generates. The process uses uranium as the fuel, which is divided into small ceramic pellets and stacked together in sealed metal tubes called fuel rods. Typically, 200 rods are bundled together to form a fuel assembly, and a reactor core is usually composed of a couple hundred assemblies. The rods are submerged in water, which serves as a coolant to slow the speed of neutrons and produce a sustainable chain reaction that produces consistent heat. Control rods are inserted or withdrawn to reduce or increase the reaction rate, respectively.

All commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S. are called “light-water reactors” and use normal water as coolant. Light-water reactors are of two types: pressurized-water reactors (PWRs) and boiling-water reactors (BWRs).  Just over sixty-five percent of U.S. commercial reactors are pressurized-water reactors.  PWRs pump water into the reactor core under high pressures to prevent boiling, then pump it into tubes inside a heat exchanger. The tubes heat a separate source of water source to create steam to turn an electric generator. The core water cycles back and the process repeats in a closed loop. This process keeps the water used to cool the reactor separate from the water that drives the turbine. Around one-third of commercial U.S. reactors are boiling water reactors. BWRs heat water to produce steam in the reactor vessel by pumping water through the core and feeding the resulting steam directly to a turbine. The Appendix includes: (1) graphics of both processes; and (2) a chart with other kinds of reactors around the world.

PWR and BWR comparison^[6][7]

PWR: Because this reactor uses a different source of water to cool the reactor core than to drive the turbine, a fuel leak in the core would not pass any radioactive contaminants to the turbine and condenser. In addition, the PWR can also operate at higher pressures and temperatures, but the reactor is more complicated and expensive to construct.

BWR: Because this reactor uses the same source of water to both cool the reactor drive the turbine, a leak in the core could possibly expose the water to radiation, contaminating the water in the loop and the steam that drives the generator, which could be released into the atmosphere if it were to leak. BWR is also less efficient to operate than a PWR.

Advanced reactors

Nuclear reactors have advanced through several generations of design:^[8]

• Generation I were developed in the 1950s and 1960s and mostly used natural uranium fuel with graphite as a moderator. The last Generation I reactor was shuttered in 2015.
• Generation II is the design that is currently in use in the U.S. system and the design most commonly operating globally, utilizing enriched uranium as fuel and water as a coolant.
• Generation III, known as “advanced reactors,” have evolved from the Generation II design. This design is currently operating in Japan, China, Russa, and the UAE.  According to the World Nuclear Association, there is currently no clear distinction between generation II and III other than enhanced safety.
• Generation IV, still in development, will be designed for closed fuel cycles and will ‘burn the long-lived actinides now forming part of spent fuel,’ which will minimize the levels of high-level waste to just fission products. Of those under development, four or five will be “fast neutron reactors,” four will use fluoride or liquid metal coolants and operate at low pressure, two will be gas-cooled, and most will run at much higher temperatures, improving their operating efficiency.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. Department of Energy supports the design, certification, and commercialization of small modular reactors (SMRs). SMRs will be approximately one-third the size of current reactors operating in the U.S.   The can be manufactured in factories, transported by truck, and assembled on site.  By standardizing the design and reducing size, the EIA believes that design can significantly reduce both the time and cost of construction.^[9]

Stages of potential nuclear incidents

Operation

Types of incidents

Every serious nuclear accident that has occurred during operation has been a result of overheating the core. “Meltdown occurs when the heat in the core of the rector rises high enough that the fuel rods begin to melt.”^[10] When this occurs, the rods that encase the fuel (fuel cladding) are breached and highly radioactive materials leak. Three scenarios can cause a meltdown:

1. ‍The reactor goes super critical: The chain reaction process of fission creates neutrons faster than they are absorbed by control rods. If the control rods are not adequately inserted in the fuel, the chain reaction produces progressively more energy and becomes uncontrollable.
   • Chernobyl: the control rods were fully removed when plant operators conducted tests. The fission process went supercritical, the rods weren’t re-inserted quickly enough, and the reactor jumped to 10x-100x its normal output, causing two explosions in the core.  
2. Coolant failure: If coolant fails, heat builds and creates a dangerously high temperature in the reactor core. Heat can still build when the fission reaction stops because fission produces radioactivity, the heat from which can be enough to melt the fuel rods.
   • Three Mile Island: partial meltdown because of a small valve mistakenly failed to close and coolant escaped. In this case, it took operators a while to understand the situation and took actions that made matters worse (releasing more coolant). The rise in temperature wasn’t as severe as Chernobyl, but the delayed response led to exposed fuel elements within 2 hours of the initial malfunction. Due to damaged cladding, a small amount of radioactive isotope material leaked into the remaining coolant and surrounding environment.
   • Fukushima Daiichi: described in further detail in a later section.
3. Fire within a reactor: collective studies create the impression that fires can occur more regularly at nuclear power plants, and the International Atomic Energy Agency states that fires are  typically caused by (1) deficiencies in design, (2) operation (rules and procedures for plant operation), (3) construction, (4) quality assurance, and (5) in lack of emergency procedures chosen. Operator and design errors are major contributors to the reactor fire events. It is uncommon, but not unheard of, for external factors such as natural events to cause fires at nuclear projects. Fires occur during operation and shutdown states, with a high number occurring during outage phases.^[11]

   	Plant status	Deficiencies in design	Deficiencies in operation	Deficiencies in construction	Deficiencies in QA	Lack of procedures
   66 events	18	46	52	17	29	21

   Most fire events have multiple causes.

   • Windscale Fire (UK): carbon graphite was the moderator in this plant design. The start-up process, known as “Wigner energy,” allowed for an acceleration of energy that needed to be released. In 1957, the process failed to release enough heat, the moderator caught fire and spread to the fuel elements. The plant was air-cooled and radioactive material escaped through the chimney and into the surrounding environment.
   • Chernobyl: after the rector explosions, graphite became incandescent and started several fires. These fires caused the release of radioactivity in the environment - 14 EBq (14 x 10¹⁸ Bq).^[12] The fire burned for 10 days.^[13]
   Then, after the plants are modified during outages, unchecked safety needs a typically the cause of fires. Below is the breakdown of how participating facilities reported causes of 66 different fire events:

Transportation^[14]

Radioactive substances account for less than .5% of all dangerous material shipped each year in the United States. This breaks down to three million packages containing nuclear fuel shipped per year in the United States, 250,000 of which contain wastes from nuclear power plants and only 25-100 contain used fuel.^[15] More than 95% of radioactive material transported (roads, railways, and/or ships) is not related to nuclear power, and the Department of Transportation estimates that radioactive material only travels 34.18 miles on average compared to an average of 114.95 miles of all hazardous materials. Regulations exist to keep the public and environment safe and include: (1) containment of radioactive contents, (2) control of external radiation levels, (3) prevention of criticality, and (4) prevention of damage caused by heat. Radioactive material is mostly transported by truck in the U.S., and its criticality is prevented by package design and number of packages per shipment. Package design is created to withstand fire, impact, wetting, pressure, heat, and cold.

Radioactive substances are transported in 125-ton ‘Type B’^[16] casks and contain about 20 tons of used fuel, photo included in Appendix. The transportation of commercially spent nuclear fuel in the U.S. hasn’t caused radiological releases during the last 40 years and shipments are typically occurring between different plants owned by the same utilities to store spent fuel, and most transport happens on the plant’s grounds. Transportation happens several times during the fuel cycle, and sometimes over large distances; 80% of uranium is mined in just 5 countries. The Appendix includes a table detailing stages of nuclear transportation.

A Type B cask containing radioactive materials has never leaked or been breached. Automobile or train accidents have occurred while transporting fuels reinforcing their durability. Examples in the U.S. including:^[17]

• 1971: A truck carrying a loaded cask veered off the road to avoid a collision. The driver was killed, and the cask was thrown from the trailer. The cask had damage to two bolts, the paint, and the thermal insulation. No radioactive material was released, and the cask was repaired and reused shortly thereafter.
• 1978: No damage to cask when a trailer carrying fuel buckled under the cask’s weight.
• 1983: No damage to the cask when a truck’s tractor separated from its intermediate axles.
• 1987: A train carrying debris struck a car at a crossing. The casks were not damaged and didn’t release any contents.
• 2007: The caboose and buffer car of a train carrying a cask derailed while moving at 4-5 mph, no mention of damage or contamination.

Storage and Disposal

Used fuel is composed of 96% uranium, 3% fission products, and 1% plutonium (and small amounts of other transuranics), emitting high levels of radiation and heat. Nuclear material and waste storage is designed to prevent people and the environment from exposure risk. Nuclear plants operators initially store waste in water pools onsite next to the reactor to allow initial radiation levels to decrease for 5 months; waste is then transported to an interim storage or a reprocessing plant.^[18] Materials are separated and the highly radioactive wastes are recovered, incorporated in a glass matrix by a process known as ‘vitrification’ that stabilizes radioactive material, poured into a stainless-steel canister to cool and solidify, and then a lid is welded in place to seal the canister. Disposal of low-level waste produced during this process is straight forward and has less limitations.

Using one disposal site for multiple facilities typically reduces environmental impacts and costs, but requires more transportation of the material. The World Nuclear Association states that, prior to disposal, high-level waste should be stored for approximately 50 years to allow for decay. Industry and nuclear experts agree that ‘deep geological disposal’ is the best solution for final disposal of radioactive waste material, after the initial decay period.^[19] Most countries are still in the preliminary stages of developing the final disposal of high and intermediate level nuclear waste material. There are currently no deep geological repository’s licensed for the disposal of used fuel from civil reactors in the world. However, Finland is far along in the development process with their Onkalo repository (expected to start operating in 2024) and France has a nuclear re-processing plant.^[20]

Low-level waste is easier to dispose of and is packaged for ‘long-term management.’ Low-level waste accounts for approximately 90% of nuclear wastes by volume.^[21] Intermediate-level radioactive waste should be stored in a deep geological repository but seems to be pending final disposal. The waste Isolation Pilot Plant deep geological repository in New Mexico currently stores U.S. defense-related transuranic waste (similar radioactivity to intermediate level radioactive waste). Currently, a few countries are storing intermediate waste in new-surface disposal facilities, which is what’s used for low level waste. We included explored and accepted disposal options in the Appendix.  

Important note: “a solution to the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel in the United States is currently stalled.”^[22] Near-surface facilities for low-level waste are currently in operation in Texas, South Carolina, Utah, Tennessee, and Washington.

Global accidents and incidents and immediate/lasting impacts

The International Atomic Energy Agency has created a logarithmic scale to rank nuclear accidents and incidents – “that is, the severity of an event is about ten times greater for each increase in level of the scale.”^[23] Nuclear accidents take three different factors into account: (1) the impact on people and the environment; (2) the impact on radiological barriers and control; and (3) the impact on defense in depth. The breakdown of the scale is included in the Appendix. The Agency has recognized only two nuclear events as major accidents: Chernobyl and Fukushima. The following section details the impacts of Chernobyl and Fukushima.

“These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 18,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 36 countries.”^[24] And, at least in the case of Chernobyl, “differences in the U.S. reactor design, regulation and emergency preparedness mean that an accident like the one that took place at Chernobyl could not occur in the United States.”^[25] 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. Radiological effects on people of any radioactive releases can be avoided.”^[26]

Chernobyl
Plant status: undergoing decommissioning (2015)

Context

Starting in 1977, Soviet scientists installed four RBNK nuclear reactors at the plant. During routine maintenance on April 25, 1986, workers wanted to use downtime to test a scenario for cooling the reactor during aa power outage, but they violated safety protocols during the test. Power surged, leading to an eventual chain reaction of explosions despite attempts to shut down the reactor. The explosions exposed the core, releasing radioactive material into the atmosphere. The meltdown spread detectable radiation as far as Sweeden. As much as 30% of Chernobyl’s 190 metric tons of uranium was released into the atmosphere.

A few months after the 1986 accident, the area surrounding the plant was enclosed in a steel “sarcophagus” to contain radioactive material; it had to be replaced in 2016. Today, more than 30 years after the accident, scientists still estimate that the zone around the plant will not be habitable for up to 20,000 years; containment and monitoring are continuous with cleanup expected to last until at least 2065.

The Appendix includes a map of radiation in the days immediately after the accident.

Human impacts & environmental impacts

In total, 335,000 people were evacuated from the 19-mile-wide exclusion zone. At least 28 people initially died and more than 100 were injured. The long-term effects are largely debated, but “international researchers have predicted that ultimately, around 4,000 people exposed to high levels of radiation could succumb to radiation-related cancer, while about 5,000 people exposed to lower levels of radiation may suffer the same fate.”^[27] The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation reported that until 2005, there had been over 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported in children and adolescents exposed at time of accident - and that more were expected. Other than some indication in increasing leukemia rates from recovery operation workers, there is no evidence of other major public health impacts that can be attributed to radiation exposure (this was as of two decades following the incident).^[28] “Radionuclides from Chernobyl release were measurable in all countries of the northern hemisphere.”^[29]

There were considerable political and economic consequences, including the quickened end of the USSR and an anti-nuclear movement. The estimated cost was $235 billion in damages.  Twenty-three percent of what is now Belarus was contaminated and lost about twenty percent of its agricultural land. Belarus had to spend 22% of its budget on disaster response efforts in 1991.^[30]

In the four years after the accident, a forested area of approximately four square miles turned reddish-brown and died from radiation absorption, becoming known as the “Red Forest.” Trees have since regrown, but wildlife in the area experience high levels of cataracts and albinism, and lower rates of beneficial bacteria. However, due to human absence, some wildlife populations have increased (ex. Lynxes, elk and wolves)^[31] but in ‘hotter’ radioactive areas, there’s a 50% decrease in the level of biodiversity compared to where levels should be.^[32] Levels of radiation were recently recorded and reported by the IAEA: “Grossi said that the background level of radiation in Vienna was 1 mSv, or millisievert, compared to Chernobyl levels of 1.6 mSv on the road near the trenches Russian soldiers had dug and 6.5 inside the trenches themselves.”^[33]

Recent developments – War in Ukraine

An important takeaway from this past year was the war in Ukraine. Chernobyl still needs consistent monitoring, and Liudmyla Kozak was one of the engineers whose job it was to “monitor the closed-circuit television feeds for safety risks” - which included “Russian troops entering the Chernobyl facilities on February 24^th of 2022.”^[34] Kozak shared that, at the start of march, there was damage to the electricity line and the plant went dark. Workers had to convince Russian forces to bring the fuel needed for the emergency generators and if they hadn’t provided the fuel the impact could’ve been disastrous. Nuclear reactors (in general) and current containment infrastructure in Chernobyl are resilient but they’re not war proof.^[35]

Fukushima
Plant status: being decommissioned (2011)

Context

On March 11, 2011, Japan was hit with the strongest earthquake ever recorded and the tsunami that followed resulted in the death of 19,729 people.^[36] The reactors at Fukushima shut down as designed, but the backup generators were destroyed as a result of the tsunami’s flooding. The three cores largely melted in the following days, several hydrogen explosions occurred and nuclear material was released in the environment.^[37] The accident was rated as a Major Accident on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale.

The energy company (TEPCO) was held liable for failing to meet safety standards or planning for the earthquake’s severity following an independent investigation that claimed that the accident was “a profoundly man-made disaster.”^[38] The Japanese government later cleared the company executives. However, studies state that “The pre-event tsunami hazards study, if done properly, would have identified the diesel generators as the linchpin of a future disaster. Fukushima Daiichi was a sitting duck waiting to be flooded.”^[39]

Human impacts

More than 150,000 people had to evacuate, and the exclusion zone remains in place today; it’s important to note that evacuation was inevitable as a result of the tsunami and it’s hard to fully distinguish human impacts of the different disasters that occurred.

Authorities believe it could take up to 40 years to finish cleanup work, but restrictions have been lifted in many areas. There were no immediate casualties, at least 16 workers were injured in the explosions and dozens more were exposed to radiation while attempting to stabilize the plant – three of which were reportedly taken to the hospital after high level exposure. In 2018, the Japanese government announced that one worker exposed to radiation had died. The largest source of fatalities after the accident was related to people who died in the evacuation.^[40]  

That said, sources have chosen different methodologies to identify the number of deaths from the Fukushima accident. The Japanese government estimated that “573 people died indirectly as a result of the physical and mental stress of evacuation.”^[41] More rigorous assessments have since revised that figure to 2,313 deaths. Indirect deaths being “attributed to the overall physical and mental stress of evacuation; being moved out of care settings; and the disruption to healthcare facilities.”^[42]

There are differing perspectives regarding the long-term effect of radiation. The WHO released a report in 2013 claiming that there will not be an observable cancer increase. In 2021, a UN report claimed “no adverse health effects” had been documented. However, residents remain wary, and many have not returned to their homes.^[43]

Environmental impacts

Fuel rods and more than one million tons of radioactive water are still at the site.^[44] As of March 9, 2023, Japan is “preparing to release a massive amount of treated radioactive wastewater into the sea” claiming that it’s unavoidable and needs to be done to finally de-commission the plant, according to the Associated Press.^[45] Until the plant is de-commissioned, water will continue to be contaminated. TEPCO has had to install new storage tanks due to the ongoing creation of contaminated water caused by (1) seeping in ground water and (2) continued need to cool the destroyed reactors.^[46] There are 130 tons of contaminated water is created daily, then “collected, treated, and then stored in tanks.”^[47] There are now approximately 1,000 tanks, and levels of radionuclides exceed releasable limits in approximately 70% of them. Tanks are expected to reach their 1.37 million ton capacity by fall of 2023 and the space is needed to decommission the plant (storage for melted fuel debris/other contaminated waste).

The high quantities of wastewater in the current quantities pose a risk in the case of a future earthquake or natural disaster. Impacted stakeholders are concerned about the water and the impending release, primarily local fishing communities and neighboring countries. The government has set aside the equivalent of $580 million to address reputation damage of Fukushima fisheries. Authorities have tested flounder and abalone to reassure the public – radioactivity levels rose in the fish while kept in the treated water but fell to normal levels within days of returning them to normal seawater. Monitoring of humans, the environment, and marine life will be continuous throughout the 40-year decommissioning process.

Socioeconomic and psychological impacts of nuclear accidents

The public stigmatizes radiation exposure, leading to the mistreatment of exposed and evacuated populations. Exposed and evacuated populations experience higher rates of alcoholism, depression, anxiety, bullying, and suicides as a result. Some doctors in Europe advised women to get abortions unnecessarily if they were in Chernobyl, even though radiation levels were well below those likely to cause negative health effects.^[48] Increase psychological pressures also led to increase death tolls in the days following Fukushima, as mentioned in the human impacts section.

Safety, lessons learned, and preventative measures

It’s important to note that no industrial activity can be entirely risk free, and the industry is working to manage that through constant safety improvements, new designs, and the upgrading of existing plants. Staff safety and minimizing radiation exposure is a key concern and achieved through remote handling of equipment for most operations in the reactor core. Otherwise, physical shielding, time limitations, and continuous monitoring of doses are used to protect workers. It’s been accepted through testing and following the Three Mile Island incident that “even the worst possible accident in a conventional western nuclear power plant or its fuel would not be likely to cause dramatic public harm”^[49] and the industry still works to minimize the likelihood of accidents/meltdowns. Approximately ten core melt accidents have occurred (not including those discussed in this report) and they have typically been in military or experimental reactors.

Most accidents and incidents can be attributed to human error, and measuring and reporting systems are in place to reduce that risk – nuclear plants in "the western world” operate with the 'defense in depth'^[50] approach, including:

• High-quality design and construction.
• Equipment which prevents operational disturbances or human failures and errors developing into problems.
• Comprehensive monitoring and regular testing to detect equipment or operator failures.
• Redundant and diverse systems to control damage to the fuel and prevent significant radioactive releases.
• Provisions to confine the effects of severe fuel damage (or any other problem) to the plant itself.
  • Typically summed up as “prevention, monitoring, and action (to mitigate consequences of failures)”.^[51]

Plant operators are constantly testing preventative and protective measures to ensure functionality, and the industry has developed advancements from lessons learned from past accidents and incidents. For example, plant operators retrofitted ventilation systems to all reactors to ensure release of pressured flow of coolant in the event of a power outage following Fukushima. Safety measures and guidelines are built to plan for likely earthquake outcomes, including effective generator placement. After Three Mile Island, “controls and instrumentation were improved, and operator training was overhauled.”^[52]

Ageing

The operating lives of nuclear plants were originally intended to be 30- or 40-years. Ageing reactors and nuclear facilities can be cause for concern because:^[53]

(1)   Systems wear out with age. Whether economically inefficient (the need to replace steam generators) or safety related;

(2)   Older reactors risk becoming obsolete. Old reactors have analogue instruments and control systems – questions about whether they should be overhauled, replaced, or maintained need to be considered;

(3)   Properties of materials can degrade with age, notably with heat and neutron irradiation.

Periodic safety reviews occur at most older plants (IAEA and WANO). All plant operators do preventative maintenance and continuously monitor equipment. In the USA, a majority of the approximately 95 reactors are expected to get license extension from 40 to 60 or 80 years.^[54] The U.S. Department of Energy and the Electric Power Research Institute conducted research to gather the necessary data to evaluate reactors, providing insight on normal signs of degrading and aging, as well as materials that need to be maintained over time.^[55] License extensions are granted given continuous plant maintenance and updates; extending a plant’s operating life is preferred because of the high upfront cost of constructing new nuclear power plants. For example, two South Carolina utilities abandoned construction of two reactors because their original cost estimate ($14 billion) rose to $23 billion. Retiring a plant would take a considerable amount of energy out of the market and open the window for increased fossil fuel infrastructure demand.^[56]

Human risks of different sources of energy

Electricity is primarily generated from fossil fuels (60.2%), nuclear (18.2%), and renewables (21.5%), with the parentheses being the breakdown of each in the United States – the Appendix has a full, detailed breakdown.^[57] This section will include risks and some statistics from different forms of energy production. A graph measuring total deaths per unit of electricity (terawatt-hour), including air pollution, accidents, and the supply chain can be found in the Appendix.

Fossil Fuels

Deaths attributed to the use of fossil fuels can only really be made in estimates, but studies claim astronomical numbers. According to the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, “fuel consuming stationary sources in 2016 were responsible for 47,000-69,000 premature deaths, 33,000-53,000 of which were due to fuel sources other than coal” - this study focuses on the United States.^[58] The study also claims that they were also responsible for approximately $524-$777 billion in health impacts.^[59] Washington University St. Louis found that, worldwide, “more than one million deaths were attributable to the burning of fossil fuels in 2017. More than half of those deaths were attributable to coal”^[60] and another Harvard Study (in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London) found that global death rates from fossil fuels were much higher that what previous research suggested, claiming “more than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution…meaning that air pollution from burning fossil fuels like coal and diesel was responsible for about 1 in 5 deaths worldwide.”^[61] In relation to the physical extraction of the materials, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations found that mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction are recognized as one of the most dangerous industries with 10.5 deaths per 100,000 workers.^[62]

Natural Gas

Fracking extracts natural gas, and in recent years studies have been increasingly indicated health risks related to fracking, and over 17.6 million people in the United States “live within a mile of a fracked oil or gas well.”^[63] “A paper by the Yale School of Public Health this summer showed that children living near Pennsylvania wells that use fracking to harvest natural gas are two to three times more likely to contract a form of childhood leukemia than their peers who live farther away. That followed a Harvard study in January that found elderly people living near or downwind from gas pads have a higher risk of premature death than seniors who don’t live in that proximity.”^[64] Additional health effects linked to the chemicals used in the fracking process include cancers, low birth weight, disruptions to the endocrine system, nosebleeds, headaches, nausea, and weight gain. This is all contested by the industry, but evidence is starting to become irrefutable.

When it comes to the production of electricity, “burning natural gas, biomass, and wood now have more negative health impacts than burning coal in many states,” a trend that is expected to continue.^[65] There are health benefits from reducing coal, according to these studies. However, they also stated that a healthy energy system can’t be created from swapping one emitting energy source for another.

Coal

Surface mining is seen to have greater health risks than underground mining, and studies show that individuals living near surface mines experience higher instances of “cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, respiratory disease, dental disease, and cancer.”^[66] Birth defects are more common, and self-reported quality of life and mental health are notably lower (“all of these metrics statistically account for smoking, obesity rates, poverty, education, occupational exposure, and other covariates”).^[67]

Over thirty years of studies and evidence have shown that individuals living near coal-fired power plants have higher and premature death rates and higher risk of respiratory disease, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, low birth weights, higher risk of developmental and behavioral disorders in infants and children, higher infant mortality, and other health problems – mostly attributing the health risks to air pollution. Burning coal can expose the public to contaminants in the following ways:

• Air: burning coal produces fly ash, which can cause irritation and inflammation of the lungs. Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and heavy metals are also emitted and are associated with impacted respiratory and cardiovascular health and can lead to higher death rates.
• Water and soil: fly ash can also contaminate ground and surface water, leaking mercury, arsenic, and other heavy metals. These contaminants can “damage the neurological and gastrointestinal systems, kidneys and other organs.”^[68]‍
• Radioactive: burning coal releases concentrated forms of uranium, thorium, ruthenium, and other radioactive isotopes. Even low levels can accumulate in the human body and cause life-long deposits in bones and/or teeth.^[69]

Nuclear

Perceptions regarding the safety of nuclear energy are largely influenced by Chernobyl and Fukushima, though there are safety risks throughout the supply chain. Fatalities from uranium mining are not distinguished from the extraction industry. Workers in uranium mines experience increased risks of lung cancer, lung diseases, tuberculosis, emphysema, and death from injuries.^[70] Underground mines can be particularly risky for miners and operators to take persuasions, like pumping our radon gas and/or having miners wear respirators. Uranium mines take additional safety precautions when pumping radon gas out of mines to maintain surrounding air quality.

Radioactive wastes (tailings and raffinates) from mining are left behind regardless of the extraction method.^[71] The waste is stored in ponds called impoundments and is hazardous. Risks to the public are minimal but, in the past, waste rock was piled up outside of mines. This waste remains to this day and can blow radioactive dust into populated areas, contaminating surface and ground water.^[72]

This is particularly apparent within the Navajo Nation, where “mining companies blasted 4 million tons of uranium out of Navajo land” from 1944-1966 to “make atomic weapons.”^[73] More than 500 mines were abandoned as companies left after the cold war. Though this example is not attributed to nuclear energy, uranium mining can pose a significant risk to the public. Twenty-seven percent of study participants had “high levels of uranium in their urine, compared to 5% of the U.S. population as a whole; “many Navajo people have died of kidney failure and cancer” and new CDC research shows babies being born with uranium.^[74]  

Fatalities from nuclear accidents and general incidents along the supply chain have occurred, as I discussed earlier in the report. Day-to-day operations of nuclear power plants have minimal safety and public health risks. It is a zero-emission energy source that requires a small land footprint, and produces minimal waste (as mentioned earlier, the waste is radioactive and needs to be managed intricately).^[75] Minor incidents that may occur can be controlled quickly. Water used in reactors is filtered and as much as two thirds of it can be reused.^[76]

Renewables

Cleaner forms of energy generally trend safer, which applies to nuclear as well. Renewable energy is unlikely to pose large-scale risks to the public – aside from hydropower. For example, a “small number of people die in accidents in supply chains – ranging from helicopter collisions with turbines; fires during the installation of turbines or panels; and drownings on offshore wind sites.”^[77] Risks of wind, solar, and hydro power are as follows:

Wind power  

Risks of wind turbines are largely related to maintenance and installation; “wind energy kills... 100 people... per trillion kWhs, the majority from falls during maintenance activities.”^[78] Psychological impacts of wind farms have occurred, citing “decreased quality of life, annoyance, stress, sleep disturbance, headache, anxiety, depression, and cognitive dysfunction” for those living nearby.^[79] Hypothesized causes are related to the noise, infrasound, dirty electricity, ground current, and shadow flicker. Appropriate wind farm placement can help to prevent these human impacts.

Solar power

Those that work in the solar industry experience similar risks, such as “arc flashes (which include arc flash burn and blast hazards), electric shock, falls, and thermal burn hazards that can cause injury and death.”^[80] in use, solar panels can have different metals present, some being harmful to human health at high levels. If they are “present in high enough quantities... solar panel waste could be hazardous waste” It’s also important to note that creating solar panels requires mining of precious materials, which poses a risk to extraction workers (statistics given in the fossil fuels section).

Hydroelectric power

Hydro power poses a greater risk in comparison to other forms of renewable energy because of dam failures. They can occur for a few reasons, but the main causes being (1) water spilling over the top of a dam (overtopping), (2) foundation defects, (3) natural movements causing cracking, (4) poor maintenance, and (5) improper filtration of soil particles leading to sink holes, known as piping.^[81] Natural disasters like earthquakes, landslides, extreme storms, or heavy snowmelt can also cause failures.^[82]

One example being Typhoon Nina in 1975. The storm collapsed the Banqiao Dam and 61 other dams in Henan China. The death toll was estimated from 26,000-240,000 and affected a total of 10.15 million people.^[83] Though this is the worst dam failure in history, it’s not the only one to have caused considerable fatalities and displacements; the Appendix includes a list of dam failures, cost of human life, and their causes. Aside from failures, dams have general human impacts like displacement, food security impacts, flooding, or other impacts to human livelihoods.^[84]

Energy efficiencies of different energy sources

Energy Return on Investment, also referred to as Energy Returned on Energy Invested, (EROI) “was an early concept that easily demonstrated the advantages, as well as the investment needed, to exploit... new energy sources.”^[85] Larger EROI numbers indicate greater energy effectiveness, meaning the source of energy has a larger output of energy per unit of energy invested to produce it. An EROI of “1” being an indicator of no return on the energy invested to produce the energy source, and an EROI of “7” being “the break-even number for fueling our modern society.”^[86] For a vast majority of history, society had a considerably low EROI, and it was the discovery of more efficient energy sources that allowed for excess energy production so that an excess of energy can be invested in development.

EROI = Energy Output / Energy Input

Formula inputs can include (but are not limited to) input measurement, how far back they’re traced, and different external costs throughout energy lifecycles. Differences in input selection and measurement can lead to inconsistencies in different EROI calculations.^[87] EROI is part of a lifecycle analysis and, theoretically, sources with highest EROI should be used first since they create the highest energy offering with the least effort. The Nuclear Association states that “nuclear, hydro, coal, and natural gas power systems (in this order) are one order of magnitude more effective than photovoltaics and wind power.”^[88] Nuclear is accepted as having one of the highest EROIs, given current calculations. Nuclear EROI calculations can have significantly different results depending on whether the calculation involves (1) uranium that has already been mined being used or (2) uranium mining being incorporated into the calculation. A graph with all the ranked EROIs of different energy sources can be found in the Appendix; there are two calculations for nuclear to account for the use of already mined uranium and the need to mine uranium.

Appendix

^[96]

IRSN (French public expert in nuclear and radiological risks) map of nuclear radioactive cloud spreading across Europe.^[97]

Death rates/unit of electricity production^[98]

List of major dam failures (116) in order by year, oldest to most recent^[100]

References & Works Cited

A new way to remove contaminants from nuclear wastewater. (n.d.). MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved May 4, 2023, from https://news.mit.edu/2019/remove-contaminants-nuclear-plant-wastewater-1219#:~:text=As%20much%20as%20two%2Dthirds.

AFL-CIO. (2022, April 26). Death on the Job: The Toll of Neglect, 2022 | AFL-CIO. Aflcio.org. https://aflcio.org/reports/death-job-toll-neglect-2022.

Association of State Dam Safety Officials. (2019). Dam Failures and Incidents | Association of State Dam Safety. Damsafety.org. https://damsafety.org/dam-failures.

BBC. (2021, March 10). Fukushima disaster: What happened at the nuclear plant? BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56252695.

Chernobyl Accident and Its Consequences. (n.d.). Nuclear Energy Institute. https://www.nei.org/resources/fact-sheets/chernobyl-accident-and-its-consequences#:~:text=The%20fire%20burned%20for%2010.

Conca, J. (n.d.). EROI -- A Tool To Predict The Best Energy Mix. Forbes. Retrieved May 4, 2023, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-tool-to-predict-the-best-energy-mix/?sh=72365c56a027.

Conca, J. (n.d.). Forget Eagle Deaths, Wind Turbines Kill Humans. Forbes. Retrieved May 4, 2023, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/#:~:text=Wind%20energy%20kills%20a%20mere.

Dam failures - Energy Education. (n.d.). Energyeducation.ca. Retrieved May 4, 2023, from https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Dam_failures#:~:text=Many%20dam%20failures%20are%20also.

Duke Health News. (2018, October 12). Despite Studies, Health Effects of Coal-Burning Power Plants Remain Unknown | Duke Department of Surgery. Surgery.duke.edu. https://surgery.duke.edu/news/despite-studies-health-effects-coal-burning-power-plants-remain-unknown.

EIA. (2020, February 27). What Is U.S. Electricity Generation by Energy Source?; U.S. Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3.

Experience gained from fires in nuclear power plants: Lessons learned. (2004). https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE_1421_web.pdf.

Fendt, L. (2021, March 2). Why aren’t we looking at more hydropower? MIT Climate Portal. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-arent-we-looking-more-hydropower.

Fukushima water tanks will be full by 2022 - Nuclear Engineering International. (n.d.). www.neimagazine.com; retrieved May 4, 2023, from https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsfukushima-water-tanks-will-be-full-by-2022-7378859.

Green Job Hazards - Solar Energy | Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.). www.osha.gov. https://www.osha.gov/green-jobs/solar#:~:text=Workers%20in%20the%20solar%20energy.

Hayes, Adam., Brown, Jefreda R. (n.d.). Energy Return on Investment (EROI). Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/energy-return-on-investment.asp.

Hendryx, M., Zullig, K. J., & Luo, J. (2020). Impacts of Coal Use on Health. Annual Review of Public Health, 41(1), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094104.

A Historical Review of the Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel. (n.d.). Energy.gov. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/historical-review-safe-transport-spent-nuclear-fuel.  

Hurdle, J. (2022, November 17). As Evidence Mounts, New Concerns About Fracking and Health. Yale E360. https://e360.yale.edu/features/fracking-gas-chemicals-health-pennsylvania.

IAEA: Chernobyl radiation levels safe, but it’s no place for “a picnic.” (n.d.). Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/04/28/chernobyl-radiation-levels-grossi/.

IAEA finds normal radioactivity at Chernobyl on disaster’s anniversary. (n.d.). Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/04/26/chernobyl-nuclear-anniversary-radioactivity-inspectors/.

International Atomic Energy Agency. (2019, May 31). International Nuclear and Radiological Event
           Scale (INES) | IAEA. Iaea.org. https://www.iaea.org/resources/databases/international-nuclear-  and-radiological-event-scale.

Jefferson, B. (2021, June 14). New research finds 1M deaths in 2017 attributable to fossil fuel combustion - The Source - Washington University in St. Louis. The Source. https://source.wustl.edu/2021/06/new-research-finds-1m-deaths-in-2017-attributable-to-fossil-fuel-combustion/.

Jeffery, R. D., Krogh, C., & Horner, B. (2013). Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines. Canadian Family Physician Medecin de Famille Canadien, 59(5), 473–475. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/.

Lurshina, D., Karpov, N., Kirkegaard, M., & Semenov, E. (2019, June 21). Why nuclear power plants cost so much—and what can be done about it - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-nuclear-power-plants-cost-so-much-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/.

‌

Morales, L. (2019). NPR Choice page. Npr.org. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/04/10/473547227/for-the-navajo-nation-uranium-minings-deadly-legacy-lingers.

Negative impacts of burning natural gas and biomass have surpassed coal generation in many states. (2021, May 5). C-CHANGE | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/gas-biomass/.

Office of Nuclear Energy. (2021, March 29). NUCLEAR 101: How Does a Nuclear Reactor Work?  
           Energy.gov. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-101-how-does-nuclear-reactor-           work#:~:text=The%20water%20in%20the%20core.

Office of Nuclear Energy. (2021, March 31). 3 Reasons Why Nuclear Is Clean and Sustainable. Energy.gov; Office of Nuclear Energy. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable#:~:text=Nuclear%20is%20a%20zero%2Demission.

Office of Nuclear Energy. (2020, April 16). What’s the Lifespan for a Nuclear Reactor? Much Longer Than You Might Think. Energy.gov. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-reactor-much-longer-you-might-think.

Perkins, R. (2015, September 22). Fukushima disaster was preventable, new study finds. USC News. https://news.usc.edu/86362/fukushima-disaster-was-preventable-new-study-finds/.

Plans for New Nuclear Reactors Worldwide - World Nuclear Association. (n.d.) World-Nuclear.org.  
           Retrieved May 4, 2023, from https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-
           generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx#:~:text=Nuclear%20plant%20construction.

Ritchie, H., Roser, M., & Rosado, P. (2020). Nuclear Energy. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy.

Storage and Disposal Options for Radioactive Waste - World Nuclear Association. (2018). World-Nuclear.org. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-wastes.aspx.

The Animals of Chernobyl | The New York Times. (2014). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG-nwQBBfmc.

The science of nuclear energy. (n.d.). The Science of Nuclear Energy. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=26802&section=1.1#:~:text=A%20meltdown%20occurs%20when%20the.

Transport of Radioactive Materials - World Nuclear Association. (2017). World-Nuclear.org. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/transport-of-nuclear-materials/transport-of-radioactive-materials.aspx.

Types of Nuclear Reactors. (n.d.). Hyperphysics.phy-Astr.gsu.edu. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/reactor.html#:~:text=Another%20advantage%20is%20that%20the.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2020, April 17). Nuclear power plants - types of reactors - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Www.eia.gov. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-plants-types-of-reactors.php.

US EPA,OAR. (2019, March 29). Radioactive Waste From Uranium Mining and Milling | US EPA. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-waste-uranium-mining-and-milling.

UNSCEAR. (2008). The Chernobyl Accident. United Nations: Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html.  

Vohra, K., Vodonos, A., Schwartz, J., Marais, E., Sulprizio, M., & Mickley, L. (2021, February 9). Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide. C-CHANGE | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/.

Weißbach, D., Ruprecht, G., Huke, A., Czerski, K., Gottlieb, S., & Hussein, A. (2013). Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants. Energy, 52, 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.01.029.

What’s happening at Fukushima plant 12 years after meltdown? (2023, March 10). AP NEWS. https://apnews.com/article/japan-fukushima-daiichi-radioactive-water-release-75becaaf68b7c3faf0121c459fdd25af.  

Worker Health Study Summaries - Uranium Miners | NIOSH | CDC. (2020, June 15). www.cdc.gov. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pgms/worknotify/uranium.html#:~:text=We%20found%20strong%20evidence%20for.

World Nuclear Association. (2018). Nuclear Reactors | Nuclear Power Plant | Nuclear Reactor Technology - World Nuclear Association. World-Nuclear.org. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-power-reactors.aspx.

World Nuclear Association. (2021, March). Safety of nuclear reactors. World-Nuclear.org; World Nuclear Association. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx.

World Nuclear Association. (2022, April). Chernobyl Accident 1986. World-Nuclear.org; World Nuclear Association. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx.

World Nuclear Association. (n.d.). What are the effects of nuclear accidents? - World Nuclear Association. World-Nuclear.org. https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-are-the-effects-of-nuclear-accidents.aspx#:~:text=There%20have%20only%20been%20two.

1975 Banqiao Dam failure. (2021, January 11). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure.

@NatGeoUK. (2019, May 20). The Chernobyl disaster: what happened, and the long-term impact. National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment/2019/05/chernobyl-disaster-what-happened-and-long-term-impact#:~:text=Long%2Dterm%20impacts&text=Today%2C%20the%20exclusion%20zone%20is.

Footnotes

^[1] International Atomic Energy Agency. (2019, May 31). International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) |

IAEA. Iaea.org. https://www.iaea.org/resources/databases/international-nuclear-and-radiological-event-scale

^[2] Office of Nuclear Energy. (2021, March 29). NUCLEAR 101: How Does a Nuclear Reactor Work? Energy.gov. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-101-how-does-nuclear-reactor-work#:~:text=The%20water%20in%20the%20core.

^[4] Office of Nuclear Energy. (2021, March 29).

^[5] Plans for New Nuclear Reactors Worldwide - World Nuclear Association. (n.d.). World-Nuclear.org. Retrieved May 4, 2023, from https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx#:~:text=Nuclear%20plant%20construction.

^[6] Types of Nuclear Reactors. (n.d.). Hyperphysics.phy-Astr.gsu.edu. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/reactor.html#:~:text=Another%20advantage%20is%20that%20the.

^[8] World Nuclear Association. (2018). Nuclear Reactors | Nuclear Power Plant | Nuclear Reactor Technology - World Nuclear Association. World-Nuclear.org. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-power-reactors.aspx.

^[9] U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2020, April 17). Nuclear power plants - types of reactors - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Www.eia.gov. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/nuclear-power-plants-types-of-reactors.php

^[10]The science of nuclear energy. (n.d.). The Science of Nuclear Energy. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=26802&section=1.1#:~:text=A%20meltdown%20occurs%20when%20the

^[11] Experience gained from fires in nuclear power plants: Lessons learned. (2004). https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE_1421_web.pdf

^[12] World Nuclear Association. (2022, April). Chernobyl Accident 1986. World-Nuclear.org; World Nuclear Association. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx

^[13] Chernobyl Accident and Its Consequences. (n.d.). Nuclear Energy Institute. https://www.nei.org/resources/fact-sheets/chernobyl-accident-and-its-consequences#:~:text=The%20fire%20burned%20for%2010

^[14] Transport of Radioactive Materials - World Nuclear Association. (2017). World-Nuclear.org. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/transport-of-nuclear-materials/transport-of-radioactive-materials.aspx

^[15] Transport of Radioactive Materials – World Nuclear Association. (2017).

^[16] shielded with steel or a combination of steel and lead

^[17] A Historical Review of the Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel. (n.d.). Energy.gov. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/historical-review-safe-transport-spent-nuclear-fuel

^[18] Transport of Radioactive Materials – World Nuclear Association. (2017).

^[19] Storage and Disposal Options for Radioactive Waste - World Nuclear Association. (2018). World-Nuclear.org. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-wastes.aspx

^[20] Storage and Disposal Options for Radioactive Waste - World Nuclear Association. (2018).

^[21] Storage and Disposal Options for Radioactive Waste - World Nuclear Association. (2018).

^[22] Storage and Disposal Options for Radioactive Waste - World Nuclear Association. (2018).

^[23] International Atomic Energy Agency. (2019, May 31).

^[24] World Nuclear Association. (2021, March). Safety of nuclear reactors. World-Nuclear.org; World Nuclear Association. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

^[25] Chernobyl Accident and Its Consequences. (n.d.).

^[26] World Nuclear Association. (2021, March).

^[27] @NatGeoUK. (2019, May 20). The Chernobyl disaster: what happened, and the long-term impact. National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/environment/2019/05/chernobyl-disaster-what-happened-and-long-term-impact#:~:text=Long%2Dterm%20impacts&text=Today%2C%20the%20exclusion%20zone%20is

^[28] UNSCEAR. (2008). The Chernobyl Accident. United Nations : Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html

^[29] UNSCEAR. (2008). The Chernobyl Accident. United Nations : Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html

^[30] @NatGeoUK. (2019, May 20).

^[31] @NatGeoUK. (2019, May 20).

^[32] The. (2014). The Animals of Chernobyl | The New York Times. In YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG-nwQBBfmc

^[33] IAEA: Chernobyl radiation levels safe, but it’s no place for “a picnic.” (n.d.). Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/04/28/chernobyl-radiation-levels-grossi/

^[34] IAEA: Chernobyl radiation levels safe, but it’s no place for “a picnic.” (n.d.).

^[35] IAEA finds normal radioactivity at Chernobyl on disaster’s anniversary. (n.d.). Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/04/26/chernobyl-nuclear-anniversary-radioactivity-inspectors/

^[36] World Nuclear Association. (n.d.). What are the effects of nuclear accidents? - World Nuclear Association. World-Nuclear.org. https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-are-the-effects-of-nuclear-accidents.aspx#:~:text=There%20have%20only%20been%20two

^[37] World Nuclear Association. (n.d.).

^[38] BBC. (2021, March 10). Fukushima disaster: What happened at the nuclear plant? BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56252695

^[39] Perkins, R. (2015, September 22). Fukushima disaster was preventable, new study finds. USC News. https://news.usc.edu/86362/fukushima-disaster-was-preventable-new-study-finds/

^[40] BBC. (2021, March 10).

^[41] Ritchie, H., Roser, M., & Rosado, P. (2020). Nuclear Energy. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy

^[42] Ritchie, H., Roser, M., & Rosado, P. (2020).

^[43] BBC. (2021, March 10).

^[44] BBC. (2021, March 10).

^[45] What’s happening at Fukushima plant 12 years after meltdown? (2023, March 10). AP NEWS. https://apnews.com/article/japan-fukushima-daiichi-radioactive-water-release-75becaaf68b7c3faf0121c459fdd25af

^[46] Fukushima water tanks will be full by 2022 - Nuclear Engineering International. (n.d.). Www.neimagazine.com. Retrieved May 4, 2023, from https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsfukushima-water-tanks-will-be-full-by-2022-7378859

^[47] What’s happening at Fukushima plant 12 years after meltdown? (2023, March 10).

^[48] World Nuclear Association. (n.d.).

^[49] World Nuclear Association. (2021, March).

^[50] In quotes because it’s originally denoted ’defence’ in the literature

^[51] World Nuclear Association. (2021, March).

^[52] World Nuclear Association. (2021, March).

^[53] World Nuclear Association. (2021, March).

^[54] World Nuclear Association. (2021, March).

^[55] Office of Nuclear Energy. (2020, April 16). What’s the Lifespan for a Nuclear Reactor? Much Longer Than You Might Think. Energy.gov. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-reactor-much-longer-you-might-think

^[56] Lurshina, D., Karpov, N., Kirkegaard, M., & Semenov, E. (2019, June 21). Why nuclear power plants cost so much—and what can be done about it - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-nuclear-power-plants-cost-so-much-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/

^[57] EIA. (2020, February 27). What Is U.S. Electricity Generation by Energy source? Eia.gov; U.S. Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

^[58] Negative impacts of burning natural gas and biomass have surpassed coal generation in many states. (2021, May 5). C-CHANGE | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/gas-biomass/

^[59] Negative impacts of burning natural gas and biomass have surpassed coal generation in many states. (2021, May 5).

^[60] Jefferson, B. (2021, June 14). New research finds 1M deaths in 2017 attributable to fossil fuel combustion - The Source - Washington University in St. Louis. The Source. https://source.wustl.edu/2021/06/new-research-finds-1m-deaths-in-2017-attributable-to-fossil-fuel-combustion/

^[61] Vohra, K., Vodonos, A., Schwartz, J., Marais, E., Sulprizio, M., & Mickley, L. (2021, February 9). Fossil fuel air pollution responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide. C-CHANGE | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/

^[62] AFL-CIO. (2022, April 26). Death on the Job: The Toll of Neglect, 2022 | AFL-CIO. Aflcio.org. https://aflcio.org/reports/death-job-toll-neglect-2022

^[63] Hurdle, J. (2022, November 17). As Evidence Mounts, New Concerns About Fracking and Health. Yale E360. https://e360.yale.edu/features/fracking-gas-chemicals-health-pennsylvania

^[64] Hurdle, J. (2022, November 17).

^[65] Negative impacts of burning natural gas and biomass have surpassed coal generation in many states. (2021, May 5).

^[66] Hendryx, M., Zullig, K. J., & Luo, J. (2020). Impacts of Coal Use on Health. Annual Review of Public Health, 41(1), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094104

^[67] Hendryx, M., Zullig, K. J., & Luo, J. (2020).

^[68] Duke Health News. (2018, October 12). Despite Studies, Health Effects of Coal-Burning Power Plants Remain Unknown | Duke Department of Surgery. Surgery.duke.edu. https://surgery.duke.edu/news/despite-studies-health-effects-coal-burning-power-plants-remain-unknown

^[69] Duke Health News. (2018, October 12).

^[70] Worker Health Study Summaries - Uranium Miners | NIOSH | CDC. (2020, June 15). Www.cdc.gov. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pgms/worknotify/uranium.html#:~:text=We%20found%20strong%20evidence%20for

^[71] US EPA,OAR. (2019, March 29). Radioactive Waste From Uranium Mining and Milling | US EPA. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-waste-uranium-mining-and-milling

^[72] US EPA,OAR. (2019, March 29).

^[73] Morales, L. (2019). NPR Choice page. Npr.org. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/04/10/473547227/for-the-navajo-nation-uranium-minings-deadly-legacy-lingers

^[74] Morales, L. (2019).

^[75] Office of Nuclear Energy. (2021, March 31). 3 Reasons Why Nuclear Is Clean and Sustainable. Energy.gov; Office of Nuclear Energy. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable#:~:text=Nuclear%20is%20a%20zero%2Demission

^[76] A new way to remove contaminants from nuclear wastewater. (n.d.). MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved May 4, 2023, from https://news.mit.edu/2019/remove-contaminants-nuclear-plant-wastewater-1219#:~:text=As%20much%20as%20two%2Dthirds

^[77]Ritchie, H., Roser, M., & Rosado, P. (2020).

^[78] Conca, J. (n.d.). Forget Eagle Deaths, Wind Turbines Kill Humans. Forbes. Retrieved May 4, 2023, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/#:~:text=Wind%20energy%20kills%20a%20mere

^[79] Jeffery, R. D., Krogh, C., & Horner, B. (2013). Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines. Canadian Family Physician Medecin de Famille Canadien, 59(5), 473–475. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653647/

^[80] Green Job Hazards - Solar Energy | Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.). Www.osha.gov. https://www.osha.gov/green-jobs/solar#:~:text=Workers%20in%20the%20solar%20energy

^[81] Association of State Dam Safety Officials. (2019). Dam Failures and Incidents | Association of State Dam Safety. Damsafety.org. https://damsafety.org/dam-failures

^[82] Dam failures - Energy Education. (n.d.). Energyeducation.ca. Retrieved May 4, 2023, from https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Dam_failures#:~:text=Many%20dam%20failures%20are%20also

^[83] 1975 Banqiao Dam failure. (2021, January 11). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

^[84] Fendt, L. (2021, March 2). Why aren’t we looking at more hydropower? MIT Climate Portal. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-arent-we-looking-more-hydropower.

^[85] Conca, J. (n.d.). EROI -- A Tool To Predict The Best Energy Mix. Forbes. Retrieved May 4, 2023, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-tool-to-predict-the-best-energy-mix/?sh=72365c56a027.

^[86] Conca, J. (n.d.).

^[87] Hayes, Adam., Brown, Jefreda R. (n.d.). Energy Return on Investment (EROI). Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/energy-return-on-investment.asp

^[88] Weißbach, D., Ruprecht, G., Huke, A., Czerski, K., Gottlieb, S., & Hussein, A. (2013). Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants. Energy, 52, 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.01.029.

^[89] https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/list-power-reactor-units.html

^[90] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-101-how-does-nuclear-reactor-work#:~:text=The%20water%20in%20the%20core,and%20the%20process%20is%20repeated.

^[91] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/conversion-enrichment-and-fabrication/fuel-fabrication.aspx

^[92] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

^[93] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/transport-of-nuclear-materials/transport-of-radioactive-materials.aspx

^[94] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-typical-Type-B-used-nuclear-fuel-transportation-cask-TN-TMR-Source-Transnucleaire_fig8_281648832

^[95] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/storage-and-disposal-of-radioactive-wastes.aspx

^[96] https://www.office.com/launch/word?auth=2

^[97] Source: https://en.irsn.fr/library/highlights/chernobyl-accident-ukraine-1986

^[98] https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy

^[99] http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/

^[100] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure

‍