# data[].attributes.headline
Redo: News Article: Things to Know About Nuclear Plant

# data[].attributes.subject
Redo: News Article: Things to Know About Nuclear Plant

# data[].attributes.body
The author emphasized how the adverse impacts that nuclear power leaves on environment and humans health are far more harmful and long-lasting than the other energy sources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nuclear power offers a number of advantages over other electricity generation methods. An operating nuclear plant can produce energy without the noxious air pollution of fossil fuel generation and offers more reliability and capacity than many renewable technologies. But nuclear power comes with a pair of environmental dangers that have so far limited its widespread use, at least in the United States.

The waste from nuclear power plants falls into two categories. High-level waste is the leftover fuel from the reactor after the reaction is finished, and it is extremely dangerous and can remain so for hundreds or even thousands of years. Low-level waste includes safety gear and incidental items that have picked up radioactive contamination but enough to remain dangerous to human life. Both types of waste require storage until the radioactive material decays enough to become harmless, requiring secure containment facilities that will last centuries.

In addition to the waste produced by reactors under normal conditions, another major ecological danger is an accidental release of radiation. One common source of radiation leaks is the water system that plants use to generate electricity. A faulty valve can release radioactive water or steam into the environment, potentially contaminating the surrounding area. In more severe cases, accidents with fuel or control rods can damage reactor cores, potentially releasing radioactive materials. The Three Mile Island incident in 1979 released a small amount of radioactive gas into the area surrounding the plant, but the overall exposure to citizens was less than they would receive from a chest x-ray.

Of course, the major concern about nuclear reactors is the possibility of a catastrophic failure. In 1986, the operators of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor near Pripyat, Ukraine, initiated a safety test under dangerous conditions, and the procedure overheated the reactor and caused an enormous steam explosion and fire, killing many of the first-responders sent to deal with the disaster. The catastrophe also released a significant amount of radiation into the surrounding town, and it remains uninhabitable more than two decades later. In 2011, a tsunami and earthquake in Japan damaged the Fukushima nuclear plant, causing a partial meltdown that required the evacuation of the nearby area and released contaminated water into the nearby ocean.

All of these concerns are exacerbated by the fact that most nuclear plants in operation today are decades old, and some are operating well beyond their expected lifespan. The reason for this is largely due to public opposition to nuclear energy, making it difficult for companies to construct new plants. Unfortunately, this resistance is somewhat counterproductive because modern reactor designs feature better safety systems and produce significantly less waste than older reactors. In fact, modern thorium reactors can actually use spent fuel from older reactor designs, consuming this problematic toxic waste to produce energy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Two Environmental Problems of Nuclear Power for Generating Electricity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nuclear power offers a number of advantages over other electricity generation methods. An operating nuclear plant can produce energy without the noxious air pollution of fossil fuel generation and offers more reliability and capacity than many renewable technologies. But nuclear power comes with a pair of ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Redo : Debate Article : Different Stand On Nuclear Energy

# data[].attributes.subject
Redo : Debate Article : Different Stand On Nuclear Energy

# data[].attributes.body
Debating Europe article told us that Iran claims it requires nuclear power to ensure that its energy security, and convincing them otherwise would be much easier be proved that civilian nuclear power is unnecessary.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AGAINST nuclear power

FOR nuclear power

1. IT'S UNSAFE AND EXPENSIVE

The 2011 Fukushima disaster showed the world that nuclear power is clearly fundamentally unsafe. The meltdown at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant was the worst since Chernobyl in Ukraine, 25 years earlier. Public investment in nuclear energy far out-strips investment in renewables. Nuclear plants are also expensive to set up and decommission, and the costs of storing radioactive waste (effectively indefinitely) also have to be considered. If the money pumped into nuclear had been spent on renewables, then the pay-off would have been much greater per-euro invested.

1. IT'S SAFE

The technology IS safe, and it's getting safer. Fukushima was an old plant, and the latest generation of nuclear reactor designs are much less likely to meltdown. In adddition, earthquakes and tsunamis of the sort that caused the Fukushima disaster are much less common in Europe.

2. RENEWABLES

Renewables are ready to take over from nuclear. In fact, we could be producing 100% of our energy from renewables by 2050, and the technology is already ready for market - particularly if the subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear are cut. Furthermore, if we don't start using renewable now then we may never make the switch, so this is the chance to take that first step.

2. CLIMATE CHANGE

We need to use all of the energy sources we have, because renewables aren't yet able to take over from nuclear power. The alternatives to nuclear are coal and natural gas - including unconventional gas resources - and these would be (over the long-run) much more polluting and damaging than nuclear.

3. NUCLEAR-FREE WORLD

Even now, Iran is developing a civilian nuclear programme that analysts warn could be used for a covert nuclear weapons capability. Iran says it needs nuclear power to guarantee its energy security, and Europe's diplomatic efforts to convince it otherwise would be much easier if it could be demonstrated that civilian nuclear energy was unnecessary. If Europe really wants a nuclear-free world, then it has to commit to abandoning nuclear technology completely.

3. POTENTIAL

Nuclear fusion would, potentially, solve all of our energy needs. It's a valuable area of research that could guarantee abundant clean energy, so it's worth investing in the technology, continuing to use it and not abandoning it.

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr - TruthOut

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arguments for and against nuclear power - Debating Europe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AGAINST nuclear power FOR nuclear power The 2011 Fukushima disaster showed the world that nuclear power is clearly fundamentally unsafe. The meltdown at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant was the worst since Chernobyl in Ukraine, 25 years earlier. Public investment in nuclear energy far out-strips investment in renewables.

# data[].attributes.headline
Redo: News Article by The Conversation: Nuclear power - Effects of Radioactive Waste Water Towards the environment

# data[].attributes.subject
Redo: News Article by The Conversation: Nuclear power - Effects of Radioactive Waste Water Towards the environment

# data[].attributes.body
Research showed that the radioactive waste from the nuclear disaster had exposed biological health to the risk by damaging their genetics thus the regulation on nuclear power should be set immediately in order to have a "win-win" solution for the communities and environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's been just over a decade since the fourth most powerful earthquake of the modern era triggered a tsunami that struck Fukushima on the eastern coastline of Japan, causing thousands of deaths and leaving hundreds of thousands unable to return home. That tsunami was also responsible for the world's worst nuclear accident since the Chernobyl disaster.

When the 14-metre wave flooded the Fukushima Daiichi plant, it shut down emergency generators, triggering a series of heat-induced meltdowns. Now, the Japanese government's decision to allow the release of more than one million tonnes of radioactive water from the plant into the ocean has divided opinion.

Water is a vital tool for all nuclear power stations: it's used to cool their heat-generating radioactive cores. During the cooling process, the water becomes contaminated with radionuclides - unstable atoms with excess energy - and must be filtered to remove as many radionuclides as possible.

The filtered water is then stored in huge steel tanks or released into nearby bodies of water. As huge amounts of water are required by every plant, most nuclear facilities are built on coastlines - or, in the case of Chernobyl, surrounded by huge lakes. That way, filtered waste water can be discharged into the ocean or lake once it's been assessed and confirmed safe by authorities.

This is how workers at Fukushima dealt with waste water while the plant was operating. But since the tsunami hit in 2011, authorities have used more than a million tonnes of water to try and cool the plant's disabled reactors, which are still hot thanks to the long-term release of energy from the nuclear power source. All that radioactive water - which is more contaminated than standard waste water - has to go somewhere. The decision to release it into the oceans is - some would argue - the most pragmatic long-term solution.

What could the impacts be?

The process of filtering and diluting the huge amounts of water to meet safety standards will take a few years to complete. Then, we'd usually expect the water to be released gradually in small volumes through coastal pipelines. That way, any potential effects of releasing the radioactive waste will be minimised. However, the fact is that we don't know exactly what those effects will be on marine - or human - life, given the sheer volume of water set to be released from the Fukushima plant.

Our own research has shown that a number of marine species could have their DNA damaged through extended exposure to radionuclides in seawater. It's important to note that our conclusions are mostly drawn from studies in the lab, rather than in the real world; when a nuclear accident takes place, human safety takes priority and biological assessment often takes place decades after the original event.

EPA-EFE/Kimimasa Mayama

That being said, our experiments with both marine and freshwater mussels found that when radionuclides are present in seawater alongside commonly-occurring metals like copper, the DNA damage caused by radionuclides to the mussels was increased. Much, much more research is needed to understand the effects of exposure to different types of radionuclides on different species.

In the meantime, anger towards Japan's decision from fishing communities is understandable. In a world where global dependence on fisheries for food is increasing - and at least 10% of the world's population depend on fisheries for their livelihood - a potentially contaminated environment could result in a contaminated food chain, raising consumer concerns.

We also know that around 95% of cancers in humans are triggered by exposure to toxic substances present in the environment, food included. If these substances damage genetic material within our cells, that damage must be repaired. Otherwise, the damaged cell either dies or divides. And when the latter happens, the damage - which can cause genetic mutations - is passed on to dividing cells in a process that may lead to diseases like cancer.

If that genetic damage happens to egg or sperm cells, it may be passed down from parent to child, triggering new diseases in future generations. To neutralise these complex threats, it's key to ensure that only safe levels of nuclear waste are being released into the ocean.

Where do we go from here?

As new nuclear plants emerge in the effort to tackle climate change, the need for transparency when it comes to nuclear technology has never been greater: especially if we are to build public confidence in the benefits of nuclear energy.

When nuclear reactors are mentioned, it's disasters which tend to spring to mind. Yet considering the long history of nuclear power generation, serious accidents - involving loss of life and severe damage to the environment - are extraordinarily rare. The huge amounts of data gathered from each disaster site have enabled powerful advances in nuclear security, making future accidents even less likely. Meanwhile, waste from the world's nuclear reactors is being managed safely every day, although long-term solutions to waste disposal still pose a challenge.

Rapidly developing technology like nuclear fusion - mimicking the Sun's way of generating energy by fusing hydrogen atoms to form helium, and converting that helium into energy - may eventually slash generation of nuclear waste. There's also room for improvement of our existing nuclear facilities to help minimise waste generation: for example, by forcing radioactive byproducts to decay faster.

But while we still rely on nuclear power, the most urgent priority is to set internationally accepted regulations for radiation exposure levels across different species. After all, we are what we eat: our health as a global community depends on the health of the environment, and a contaminated ocean knows no geographical or political borders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nuclear power: how might radioactive waste water affect the environment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's been just over a decade since the fourth most powerful earthquake of the modern era triggered a tsunami that struck Fukushima on the eastern coastline of Japan, causing thousands of deaths and leaving hundreds of thousands unable to return home. That tsunami was also responsible for the world's worst nuclear accident since the Chernobyl disaster.

# data[].attributes.headline
25/04/2022 Redo: Main Idea of World Nuclear Association Paper 2022

# data[].attributes.subject
25/04/2022 Redo: Main Idea of World Nuclear Association Paper 2022

# data[].attributes.body
World Nuclear Association alerts the world to climate change issue and recognizes nuclear energy as potential solution to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and electricity in order to achieve deep decarbonization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To limit the impacts of climate change, the world must rapidly reduce its dependency on fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear energy is low-carbon and can be deployed on a large scale at the timescale required, supplying the world with clean, reliable, and affordable electricity.
Climate change - an accelerating global problem

The United Nations has identified climate change as "the defining issue of our time", with the central aim of the 2015 Paris Agreement is to keep the rise in global temperatures to well below 2 °C compared to pre-industrial levels, and with the aim to limit the rise to 1.5 °C. This is driven by the scientific consensus that limiting the rise to 1.5 °C would significantly reduce the risks posed by climate change. Despite this, carbon dioxide emissions related to energy continue to rise - reaching 33.1 billion tonnes in 2018, a record high, and have increased by more than 40% since 2000.

Concerted international efforts over the past 20 years have increased the amount of electricity generated by wind, solar and other renewable sources, but have failed to displace fossil fuels from the mix. As a matter of fact, in 2017, fossil fuels produced more electricity - in relative and absolute terms - than ever before. In its 2018 report, Global Warming of 1.5 °C, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that we are likely to breach the 1.5 °C threshold by as early as 2030.
Fossil versus non-fossil fuel electricity generation in 2000 and 2017 (Source: IEA World Energy Outlook)
Nuclear is low-carbon

Nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, and over the course of its life-cycle, nuclear produces about the same amount of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions per unit of electricity as wind, and one-third of the emissions per unit of electricity when compared with solar.
Average life-cycle carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions for different electricity generators (Source: IPCC)
Experts have concluded that in order to achieve the deep decarbonisation required to keep the average rise in global temperatures to below 1.5°C, combating climate change would be much harder, without an increased role for nuclear. Because nuclear power is reliable and can be deployed on a large scale, it can directly replace fossil fuel plant, avoiding the combustion of fossil fuels for electricity generation. The use of nuclear energy today avoids emissions roughly equivalent to removing one-third of all cars from the world's roads.
Nuclear power plants, such as the Diablo Canyon power station in California, provide our societies with reliable and affordable electricity, day in and day out (Photo: Mike Baird)
Modern society is becoming more and more dependent on electricity, with demand steadily increasing as transport, domestic heating and industrial processes are increasingly electrified. Whilst electricity is clean at the point of use, its generation currently produces over 40% of all energy-related carbon emissions. Decarbonising the electricity supply, whilst providing affordable and reliable electricity to a growing global population, must be central to any climate change strategy.
The French electricity mix 1974-2017 (Source: IEA)
Nuclear energy has shown that it has the potential to be the catalyst for delivering sustainable energy transitions, long before climate change was on the agenda. France generates over 70% of its electricity from nuclear power - the largest nuclear share of any country globally - and its electricity sector emissions are one-sixth of the European average. In around 15 years, nuclear power went from playing a minor role in the French electricity system to producing the majority of its electricity, showing that nuclear energy can be expanded at the speed required to effectively combat climate change.

Achieving Harmony

All technologies that can contribute towards solving one of the greatest challenges faced by humankind should be deployed. We cannot afford to wait, as the impacts of climate change will hit the poorest and most vulnerable first and failing to act will have significant humanitarian consequences.

The nuclear industry recognises the scale and immediacy of the challenge, and the important role that all low-carbon energy sources must play. Harmony - the industry's vision for the future of electricity supply - sets a target to build an additional 1000 GWe of nuclear reactors across the world so that nuclear power would provide 25% of electricity by 2050. By achieving Harmony, we can build a new, cleaner and truly sustainable world - enabling us to pass on a cleaner planet to our children.

You may also be interested in

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nuclear energy and climate change - World Nuclear Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To limit the impacts of climate change, the world must rapidly reduce its dependency on fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear energy is low-carbon and can be deployed on a large scale at the timescale required, supplying the world with clean, reliable, and affordable electricity.

# data[].attributes.body
IAEA warns countries to be more proactive to decarbonization of our atmosphere due to impending climate change and they see the potential of nuclear power and also IAEA to decarbonize the world

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nuclear power is a low-carbon source of energy. In 2018, nuclear power produced about 10 percent of the world's electricity. Together with the expanding renewable energy sources and fuel switching from coal to gas, higher nuclear power production contributed to the levelling of global CO ₂ emissions at 33 gigatonnes in 2019. Clearly, nuclear power - as a dispatchable low carbon source of electricity - can play a key role in the transition to a clean energy future.

As part of the capacity building process for energy system analysis and planning, the IAEA provides assistance to Member States for the evaluation of the role of nuclear energy in national climate change mitigation strategies through the Technical Cooperation programme and Coordinated Research Projects. For this purpose, a comprehensive set of IAEA tools and methodologies are available to Member States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, almost all Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed to prepare nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to control GHG emissions and limit the increase of global mean surface temperature by the end of the century to below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Climate change can be saved by nuclear energy, by reducing the emission of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere

# data[].attributes.headline
Publication Article: Nuclear Energy Is Good In Preventing Climate Change

# data[].attributes.subject
Publication Article: Nuclear Energy Is Good In Preventing Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nuclear power is a low-carbon source of energy. In 2018, nuclear power produced about 10 percent of the world's electricity. Together with the expanding renewable energy sources and fuel switching from coal to gas, higher nuclear power production contributed to the levelling of global CO ₂ emissions at 33 gigatonnes in 2019. Clearly, nuclear power - as a dispatchable low carbon source of electricity - can play a key role in the transition to a clean energy future.

As part of the capacity building process for energy system analysis and planning, the IAEA provides assistance to Member States for the evaluation of the role of nuclear energy in national climate change mitigation strategies through the Technical Cooperation programme and Coordinated Research Projects. For this purpose, a comprehensive set of IAEA tools and methodologies are available to Member States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, almost all Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed to prepare nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to control GHG emissions and limit the increase of global mean surface temperature by the end of the century to below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Nuclear energy is dangerous and harmful to the environment

# data[].attributes.headline
News Article: Things to Know About Nuclear Plant

# data[].attributes.subject
News Article: Things to Know About Nuclear Plant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nuclear power offers a number of advantages over other electricity generation methods. An operating nuclear plant can produce energy without the noxious air pollution of fossil fuel generation and offers more reliability and capacity than many renewable technologies. But nuclear power comes with a pair of environmental dangers that have so far limited its widespread use, at least in the United States.

The waste from nuclear power plants falls into two categories. High-level waste is the leftover fuel from the reactor after the reaction is finished, and it is extremely dangerous and can remain so for hundreds or even thousands of years. Low-level waste includes safety gear and incidental items that have picked up radioactive contamination but enough to remain dangerous to human life. Both types of waste require storage until the radioactive material decays enough to become harmless, requiring secure containment facilities that will last centuries.

In addition to the waste produced by reactors under normal conditions, another major ecological danger is an accidental release of radiation. One common source of radiation leaks is the water system that plants use to generate electricity. A faulty valve can release radioactive water or steam into the environment, potentially contaminating the surrounding area. In more severe cases, accidents with fuel or control rods can damage reactor cores, potentially releasing radioactive materials. The Three Mile Island incident in 1979 released a small amount of radioactive gas into the area surrounding the plant, but the overall exposure to citizens was less than they would receive from a chest x-ray.

Of course, the major concern about nuclear reactors is the possibility of a catastrophic failure. In 1986, the operators of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor near Pripyat, Ukraine, initiated a safety test under dangerous conditions, and the procedure overheated the reactor and caused an enormous steam explosion and fire, killing many of the first-responders sent to deal with the disaster. The catastrophe also released a significant amount of radiation into the surrounding town, and it remains uninhabitable more than two decades later. In 2011, a tsunami and earthquake in Japan damaged the Fukushima nuclear plant, causing a partial meltdown that required the evacuation of the nearby area and released contaminated water into the nearby ocean.

All of these concerns are exacerbated by the fact that most nuclear plants in operation today are decades old, and some are operating well beyond their expected lifespan. The reason for this is largely due to public opposition to nuclear energy, making it difficult for companies to construct new plants. Unfortunately, this resistance is somewhat counterproductive because modern reactor designs feature better safety systems and produce significantly less waste than older reactors. In fact, modern thorium reactors can actually use spent fuel from older reactor designs, consuming this problematic toxic waste to produce energy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Two Environmental Problems of Nuclear Power for Generating Electricity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nuclear power offers a number of advantages over other electricity generation methods. An operating nuclear plant can produce energy without the noxious air pollution of fossil fuel generation and offers more reliability and capacity than many renewable technologies. But nuclear power comes with a pair of ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Nuclear energy has its own advantages and disadvantages to the world

# data[].attributes.headline
Debate Article: Different Stand On Nuclear Energy

# data[].attributes.subject
Debate Article: Different Stand On Nuclear Energy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arguments for and against nuclear power - Debating Europe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AGAINST nuclear power FOR nuclear power 1. IT’S UNSAFE AND EXPENSIVE The 2011 Fukushima disaster showed the world that nuclear...

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Death caused by nuclear energy (accidents)  is way low if compared to the fossil fuel, killer of the climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Safe levels of nuclear waste are being released into the ocean could reduce the risk of people getting diseases such as cancer.

# data[].attributes.headline
News Article by The Conversation: Nuclear power - Effects of Radioactive Waste Water Towards the environment

# data[].attributes.subject
News Article by The Conversation: Nuclear power - Effects of Radioactive Waste Water Towards the environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's been just over a decade since the fourth most powerful earthquake of the modern era triggered a tsunami that struck Fukushima on the eastern coastline of Japan, causing thousands of deaths and leaving hundreds of thousands unable to return home. That tsunami was also responsible for the world's worst nuclear accident since the Chernobyl disaster.

When the 14-metre wave flooded the Fukushima Daiichi plant, it shut down emergency generators, triggering a series of heat-induced meltdowns. Now, the Japanese government's decision to allow the release of more than one million tonnes of radioactive water from the plant into the ocean has divided opinion.

Water is a vital tool for all nuclear power stations: it's used to cool their heat-generating radioactive cores. During the cooling process, the water becomes contaminated with radionuclides - unstable atoms with excess energy - and must be filtered to remove as many radionuclides as possible.

The filtered water is then stored in huge steel tanks or released into nearby bodies of water. As huge amounts of water are required by every plant, most nuclear facilities are built on coastlines - or, in the case of Chernobyl, surrounded by huge lakes. That way, filtered waste water can be discharged into the ocean or lake once it's been assessed and confirmed safe by authorities.

This is how workers at Fukushima dealt with waste water while the plant was operating. But since the tsunami hit in 2011, authorities have used more than a million tonnes of water to try and cool the plant's disabled reactors, which are still hot thanks to the long-term release of energy from the nuclear power source. All that radioactive water - which is more contaminated than standard waste water - has to go somewhere. The decision to release it into the oceans is - some would argue - the most pragmatic long-term solution.

What could the impacts be?

The process of filtering and diluting the huge amounts of water to meet safety standards will take a few years to complete. Then, we'd usually expect the water to be released gradually in small volumes through coastal pipelines. That way, any potential effects of releasing the radioactive waste will be minimised. However, the fact is that we don't know exactly what those effects will be on marine - or human - life, given the sheer volume of water set to be released from the Fukushima plant.

Our own research has shown that a number of marine species could have their DNA damaged through extended exposure to radionuclides in seawater. It's important to note that our conclusions are mostly drawn from studies in the lab, rather than in the real world; when a nuclear accident takes place, human safety takes priority and biological assessment often takes place decades after the original event.

EPA-EFE/Kimimasa Mayama

That being said, our experiments with both marine and freshwater mussels found that when radionuclides are present in seawater alongside commonly-occurring metals like copper, the DNA damage caused by radionuclides to the mussels was increased. Much, much more research is needed to understand the effects of exposure to different types of radionuclides on different species.

In the meantime, anger towards Japan's decision from fishing communities is understandable. In a world where global dependence on fisheries for food is increasing - and at least 10% of the world's population depend on fisheries for their livelihood - a potentially contaminated environment could result in a contaminated food chain, raising consumer concerns.

We also know that around 95% of cancers in humans are triggered by exposure to toxic substances present in the environment, food included. If these substances damage genetic material within our cells, that damage must be repaired. Otherwise, the damaged cell either dies or divides. And when the latter happens, the damage - which can cause genetic mutations - is passed on to dividing cells in a process that may lead to diseases like cancer.

If that genetic damage happens to egg or sperm cells, it may be passed down from parent to child, triggering new diseases in future generations. To neutralise these complex threats, it's key to ensure that only safe levels of nuclear waste are being released into the ocean.

Where do we go from here?

As new nuclear plants emerge in the effort to tackle climate change, the need for transparency when it comes to nuclear technology has never been greater: especially if we are to build public confidence in the benefits of nuclear energy.

When nuclear reactors are mentioned, it's disasters which tend to spring to mind. Yet considering the long history of nuclear power generation, serious accidents - involving loss of life and severe damage to the environment - are extraordinarily rare. The huge amounts of data gathered from each disaster site have enabled powerful advances in nuclear security, making future accidents even less likely. Meanwhile, waste from the world's nuclear reactors is being managed safely every day, although long-term solutions to waste disposal still pose a challenge.

Rapidly developing technology like nuclear fusion - mimicking the Sun's way of generating energy by fusing hydrogen atoms to form helium, and converting that helium into energy - may eventually slash generation of nuclear waste. There's also room for improvement of our existing nuclear facilities to help minimise waste generation: for example, by forcing radioactive byproducts to decay faster.

But while we still rely on nuclear power, the most urgent priority is to set internationally accepted regulations for radiation exposure levels across different species. After all, we are what we eat: our health as a global community depends on the health of the environment, and a contaminated ocean knows no geographical or political borders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nuclear power: how might radioactive waste water affect the environment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's been just over a decade since the fourth most powerful earthquake of the modern era triggered a tsunami that struck Fukushima on the eastern coastline of Japan, causing thousands of deaths and leaving hundreds of thousands unable to return home. That tsunami was also responsible for the world's worst nuclear accident since the Chernobyl disaster.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fossil fuel is the biggest killer of climate change, replacement with the combination of nuclear and renewable energy able to prevent rapid climate change 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do we Need Nuclear Energy to Stop Climate Change?

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fukoshima disaster, Japan has caused a hundred thousand people's death due to a nuclear meltdown

# data[].attributes.headline
News Article: Nuclear has Brought Incredible Disaster to The World

# data[].attributes.subject
News Article: Nuclear has Brought Incredible Disaster to The World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fukushima disaster: What happened at the nuclear plant?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A tsunami struck the Japanese plant in 2011, leading to the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Nuclear energy is one of the solution to the rise in global temperatures 

# data[].attributes.headline
News Article by World Nuclear Association: Positive Effect of Nuclear Energy Towards Climate Change

# data[].attributes.subject
News Article by World Nuclear Association: Positive Effect of Nuclear Energy Towards Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To limit the impacts of climate change, the world must rapidly reduce its dependency on fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear energy is low-carbon and can be deployed on a large scale at the timescale required, supplying the world with clean, reliable, and affordable electricity.
Climate change - an accelerating global problem

The United Nations has identified climate change as "the defining issue of our time", with the central aim of the 2015 Paris Agreement is to keep the rise in global temperatures to well below 2 °C compared to pre-industrial levels, and with the aim to limit the rise to 1.5 °C. This is driven by the scientific consensus that limiting the rise to 1.5 °C would significantly reduce the risks posed by climate change. Despite this, carbon dioxide emissions related to energy continue to rise - reaching 33.1 billion tonnes in 2018, a record high, and have increased by more than 40% since 2000.

Concerted international efforts over the past 20 years have increased the amount of electricity generated by wind, solar and other renewable sources, but have failed to displace fossil fuels from the mix. As a matter of fact, in 2017, fossil fuels produced more electricity - in relative and absolute terms - than ever before. In its 2018 report, Global Warming of 1.5 °C, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that we are likely to breach the 1.5 °C threshold by as early as 2030.
Fossil versus non-fossil fuel electricity generation in 2000 and 2017 (Source: IEA World Energy Outlook)
Nuclear is low-carbon

Nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, and over the course of its life-cycle, nuclear produces about the same amount of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions per unit of electricity as wind, and one-third of the emissions per unit of electricity when compared with solar.
Average life-cycle carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions for different electricity generators (Source: IPCC)
Experts have concluded that in order to achieve the deep decarbonisation required to keep the average rise in global temperatures to below 1.5°C, combating climate change would be much harder, without an increased role for nuclear. Because nuclear power is reliable and can be deployed on a large scale, it can directly replace fossil fuel plant, avoiding the combustion of fossil fuels for electricity generation. The use of nuclear energy today avoids emissions roughly equivalent to removing one-third of all cars from the world's roads.
Nuclear power plants, such as the Diablo Canyon power station in California, provide our societies with reliable and affordable electricity, day in and day out (Photo: Mike Baird)
Modern society is becoming more and more dependent on electricity, with demand steadily increasing as transport, domestic heating and industrial processes are increasingly electrified. Whilst electricity is clean at the point of use, its generation currently produces over 40% of all energy-related carbon emissions. Decarbonising the electricity supply, whilst providing affordable and reliable electricity to a growing global population, must be central to any climate change strategy.
The French electricity mix 1974-2017 (Source: IEA)
Nuclear energy has shown that it has the potential to be the catalyst for delivering sustainable energy transitions, long before climate change was on the agenda. France generates over 70% of its electricity from nuclear power - the largest nuclear share of any country globally - and its electricity sector emissions are one-sixth of the European average. In around 15 years, nuclear power went from playing a minor role in the French electricity system to producing the majority of its electricity, showing that nuclear energy can be expanded at the speed required to effectively combat climate change.

Achieving Harmony

All technologies that can contribute towards solving one of the greatest challenges faced by humankind should be deployed. We cannot afford to wait, as the impacts of climate change will hit the poorest and most vulnerable first and failing to act will have significant humanitarian consequences.

The nuclear industry recognises the scale and immediacy of the challenge, and the important role that all low-carbon energy sources must play. Harmony - the industry's vision for the future of electricity supply - sets a target to build an additional 1000 GWe of nuclear reactors across the world so that nuclear power would provide 25% of electricity by 2050. By achieving Harmony, we can build a new, cleaner and truly sustainable world - enabling us to pass on a cleaner planet to our children.

You may also be interested in

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nuclear energy and climate change - World Nuclear Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To limit the impacts of climate change, the world must rapidly reduce its dependency on fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear energy is low-carbon and can be deployed on a large scale at the timescale required, supplying the world with clean, reliable, and affordable electricity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Nuclear power: There might be risks for radiation but effects of low dose radiation are so rare.

# data[].attributes.headline
News Article by BBC : Effect of Nuclear Radiation in Different Level

# data[].attributes.subject
News Article by BBC : Effect of Nuclear Radiation in Different Level

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nuclear power: Are we too anxious about the risks of radiation?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If nuclear power is key to tackling climate change, is it time to reconsider our attitudes?