Nuclear versus other energy sources (Adelino de Santi Junior) Brazil

Nuclear energy versus other energy sources Adelino De Santi Júnior, Brazil US Army WW II hero, General Douglas MacArthur once said, “...you have one chance to make a first impression.”

That seems to be the ghost of the nuclear sector.

Whenever nuclear energy or any other related technology are evoked a wave of criticism and accusations is to follow.

We have had some bad moments being portrayed as the trend of our field and most of our gifts are quickly forgotten in the face of poor information and sensationalism.

The benefits of nuclear power and other uses of nuclear energy easily outweigh the risks, our capacity to avoid, predict and curb possible events and accidents are greater than ever, yet we are still seen as the Ugly Duckling of the modern era.

Are we?

If we let out of the equation the benefits of radiotherapy, production of radiopharmaceuticals, industrial irradiation technique, etc, we still have a sea of goods to share and plenty of arguments to advocate the importance of the nuclear sector in the 21st century.

Dr. Theodore Rockwell, Nuclear Engineer, listed in the 1970s in the World Who’s Who in Science: From Antiquity to the Present, testified to the US Congress that nuclear energy is great in dealing with climate change from all causes: natural and man-made.

Although they tried to disguise the contributions of fossil fuels to man-made global warming, (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-changealmost-40-years-ago/), even great oil companies now accept the importance of their contribution to the rising temperatures and global consequences of the anthropogenic interference in the global carbon cycle (http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climateperspectives/our-position).

Nuclear energy generation is just a great example of low carbon emission technologies that are the hope of our time to fight the impending consequences of global warming.

Page 1

For comparison only, the carbon emissions of nuclear generation and around 66g of CO2/kWh, meanwhile the emissions for a oil/natural gas/coal/diesel power plant range from 443 to 1050 g of CO2/kWh (Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey - Benjamin K. Sovacool: http://www.nirs.org/wpcontent/uploads/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf).

When we measure the impact of fossil fuels, as above, we can assume that in the best conditions a fossil fuel power plant will exceed its nuclear cousin almost seven times in the generation of greenhouse gases.

We are not advocating that nuclear generation is carbon free.

Nothing is!

Even the Brazilian ethanol generation, based on sugar cane, relies on process and machinery to harvest and produce ethanol that consumes diesel and gasoline!

If not, the minerals and fertilizers used to grown sugar cane will have their contribution to the generation of anthropogenic carbon.

There is no technology in this world that will pass a life cycle analysis with zero contribution to the production of greenhouse gases. It is not a matter of being part of, it´s a matter of how our activities contribute to the emissions of carbon.

There are other problems associated with the energy generation based on fossil fuels.

A recent research focused on the Appalachian Coal Mining Regions, concluded that the human cost of the coal mining economy in the area outweighs its economic benefits (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2693168/).

The scenario is focused just in the Appalachian Coal Regions. But is it so different from the rest of other fossil fuel mining, production and power plants?

Definitely not!

The fine particles generated by the coal consumed to generate energy kills around 13,200 people only in US! And it´s not considered the deaths caused in the mining and transportation (http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf).

Page 2

That is like having the same number of deaths from 1.5 Chernobyl accidents each and every year!!!

And yet, our politicians are inclined to put more money into the coal industry.

Problem is that the deaths associated with fossil fuels are invisible deaths.

They pop up as isolated cases. They are disguised as some case of cancer, much of our heart attacks, etc.

The nuclear fear comes from the same aspect that creates the fear of flying.

It is obvious that airplanes are much safer than cars.

Cars are responsible for way more deaths than airplanes, according to WHO in 2015 more than 1,250,000 people died because of a vehicle, while the total amount of lives taken by airplanes during the same period was 560 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/2015-was-the-safest-year-in-aviationhistory/).

Just like nuclear energy, the deaths caused by airplanes are concentrated in rare events.

And rare events are easily sold! The Media loves them, and profits from them. At the same time, misinformation grows.

We should focus on education and enlightening people about the good and bad aspects of nuclear energy and other sources of energy.

We have to be sincere! We don’t have anything to lose; the numbers are on our side. But people will frown on misinformation and hidden aspects.

And we must commit to the fact that nuclear energy is a better option.

Better than coal, natural gas or diesel or any other fossil fuel based generation in many ways.

Better for us as professionals, but above all, better for the Planet!

Page 3

Adelino De Santi Júnior, Mestre em Ecologia Aplicada; Bacharel e Licenciado em Ciências Biológicas, ESALQ-USP, atualmente é Biólogo das Indústrias Nucleares do Brasil - INB. MSc. Adelino De Santi Jr., Graduated in Biology from the University of São Paulo, Brazil (ESALQ-USP). Currently, he is a Biologist working for the Nuclear Industries of Brazil - INB.

Page 4