Skip to main content

Is nuclear green?

It may not be surprising to you that printing the question “Is nuclear green?” on two large banners at the Bristol Harbour Festival in July caused a bit of a stir, but this is exactly what Dr Tom Scott (reader in Nuclear Materials and member of the Cabot Institute at the University of Bristol) and his group of volunteers wanted to do.  I joined the group at their stall next to the MShed to listen to their conversations with the public ignited by this thought provoking question.

The volunteers largely comprised of Bristol members of the South West Nuclear Hub (a joint research partnership - which Dr Scott co-directs - with Oxford University), University of Bristol physics undergraduates and some employees of Magnox Ltd a nuclear company in the South West. Together, they rolled out a wide range of activities at their marquee that invited everyone to join in and voice their opinions without judgement.

A live opinion poll with green and red plastic tokens (to vote “yes” and “no” respectively) was placed amongst the crowds along the harbour side to encourage participation and, in general, people were happy to vote publicly. We asked people to explain why they thought that way as they voted: “The sooner that they build Hinkley C the better!” one man announced as he dropped in his green token. (Hinkley C is the name of the new nuclear power station scheduled to be built at Hinkley Point in Somerset.) A red token voter proclaimed “We should go back to coal!” as he dropped his token in. Some members of the public even pretended to scoop up large numbers of tokens to demonstrate the intensity of their view.
Yes/No board to take note of people's thoughts and feelings about nuclear energy.
The juxtaposition of the words “nuclear” and “green” in the question “Is Nuclear Green?” suggests that there is no straight-forward answer, but yet intense opinions on the matter persist. Nuclear energy, in general, suffers from a negative public opinion and there are three key reasons for this:

  1. the perceived risk of the waste product 
  2. the potential for disasters like Chernobyl to happen again 
  3. the historical link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. 

Dr Scott and his volunteers set about to change public opinion on nuclear energy by presenting the facts on their activities in a neutral light, such that the public would feel free to make up their own minds.

One of the activities at the stall, popular with children, had a Scalextric set (a slot car racing set) connected to a pedal generator – demonstrating how much human power was required to drive the toy cars. Further inside the marquee, you’d see a bucket of coal, 16kg of which is required to meet the electrical demands of one person per day. Many were impressed when they were then presented with a dummy pellet of nuclear waste the size of the end of their thumb that would produce enough energy for their entire lifetime.
This dummy pellet of nuclear waste shows how much nuclear material
would be needed to produce enough energy for your entire lifetime.
Meeting the energy demands of today is a pressing global issue and nuclear power provides a virtually carbon-free way of producing a large quantity of electrical power. Festival-goers were also surprised to learn that due to the large amounts of cement used to install solar and offshore wind power stations, the amount of carbon dioxide released is greater per unit of energy produced than nuclear over the lifetime of the power station.

However, people are generally fearful of the toxicity of waste that nuclear power reactors produce and how it is dealt with. By mimicking Bruce Forsyth’s TV show, Play Your Cards Right, people could learn about the relative radioactivity from different sources. For example, if you went on three transatlantic flights in a year, you would exceed the average annual occupational exposure of a nuclear power station worker.

What gives off the most radioactivity?
“But what if it all goes wrong?” said one lady from Bristol. This fear is understandable given disasters such as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima and it has resulted in publicly driven change. In Germany, for example, large anti-nuclear protests occurred in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011 caused by a tsunami. Partly in response to these protests, the German government have scheduled all nuclear power stations in Germany to be shut down by 2022.

It would be foolish to suggest that the effects of the Fukushima disaster are innocuous and that nothing went wrong. However, it surprised people to learn that despite the large number of fatalities caused by the tsunami directly, there were no recorded fatalities due to short term overexposure of radiation at Fukushima. Of course, the long term effects are unknown and it would be surprising if there were not any future health risks from the disaster.

Many older members of the public were concerned about the connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. It is a fact that the idea of using nuclear energy to generate electricity was borne out of the nuclear arms race that started during the Second World War. Nowadays though, the link between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy is unfounded in the UK because the plutonium required to make the weapons is not extracted from nuclear waste reprocessing.
The University of Bristol nuclear research group talking to
the public about nuclear energy at the Bristol Harbour Festival.
The physics of nuclear fission is very well understood by the scientists and engineers working in nuclear energy, and the risks of using this process to generate electricity are met with very strict safety standards. Despite these rigorous safety measures, nuclear power gets a bad press because the evidence for its potential to harm is clearly visible: the waste has to be specially treated before it is buried and the mass evacuations are put into place following a disaster. Nuclear power station disasters are etched into people’s memories because of their scale but the actual risk posed by a nuclear incident is much lower than maintained by the public.

On the other hand, large quantities of greenhouse gases are continuing to be released into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and although there is also visible evidence for climate change, the serious threat it poses to our planet it is diluted by politics. This plight is encapsulated by the most solemn of quotes from the event;
“I suppose the truth of it is, that the thing that isn’t green is humanity.” 
Perhaps nuclear fission could be a necessary interim energy source before cleaner nuclear fusion takes over in 50-100 years time.
This blog is written by Cabot Institute member and PhD student Lewis Roberts.

Read more about nuclear research at the University of Bristol by visiting the Interface Analysis Centre website.


  1. So, you think there's no link between present-day nuclear power and nuclear weapons? Perhaps you're not aware of the crucial role that tritium plays in modern nuclear weapons, the fact that it needs to be replaced periodically because it has a half-life of 12 years, and the fact that the main way of producing tritium is in a nuclear reactor. Could it be that Germany is content to close down all its nuclear power stations because it doesn't have any nuclear weapons needing a regular replenishment of their tritium?

  2. Following on from the last comment, the UK stockpiles over a 100 tonnes of Plutonium at Sellafield, where did all that come from, the UK "civil" nuclear power stations of course. But maybe the half million pound funding and a professorship per year from the AWE the Atomic Weapons Establishment to Bristol University does call the tune of the piper? Speaking as an ex-nuclear physicist I'm shocked at the propagandist nature of this information being pumped in this project and would welcome a proper public debate on this issue....Dr Rowland Dye

  3. Sorry you folks at the Cabot Institute you are wrong. There IS a very straightforward answer to your question - nuclear power is NOT green.
    Attempts to impress children with “pellets” of nuclear waste will hardly conceal the fact that nuclear power is creating a toxic mountain of waste (currently around 4.5m cubic metres costing £2bn per year to manage in the UK) which future generations will have to deal with because we sure as hell don't know what to do with it. This is about as unsustainable as it gets. On these grounds alone nuclear power can never be called green.
    Almost as non-green is the simple fact that nuclear power is certainly not “virtually carbon-free” as you suggest. You cite the role of concrete in solar and offshore wind power but seem to have neglected to mention that uranium mining is required to fuel nuclear power stations. Uranium mining is a highly energy intensive activity which will become even more so as relatively high-grade uranium ores are mined out. It is also extremely environmentally destructive producing horrendous consequences for the local populations in uranium mining areas. In terms of life-cycle carbon footprints, on average one kilowatt hour of electricity produced in a nuclear power plant is responsible for the emission of 66g of CO2 compared to 34g wind power, about half as much.
    Nuclear power is at best a limited solution to climate change, but not just because it is far from carbon-free. It is used almost exclusively for electricity generation, which accounts for less than 25% of global greenhouse emissions. Even tripling nuclear power generation would reduce emissions by less than 10% − and then only if the assumption is that it displaces coal. In fact it is likely to be displacing renewables. The truth is that nuclear energy simply cannot be brought on stream fast enough to be a solution to the urgent problem of climate change and by diverting funds away from the increasingly impressive advances taking place in the renewable sector it will deprive us of the clean, sustainable and truly green future we so desperately need.
    Dr Jane Creagh-Osborne

  4. There are serious doubts about the economics of the Hinkley C reactor, especially around the construction costs and timescales, about the agreed strike price for the electricity it will generate, and over the long term storage of nuclear waste (the fact that modern reactor designs produce smaller volumes of waste doesn't make thatwaste any less dangerous). It would surely make greener sense to invest heavily in renewables which the UK is well positioned to exploit and where costs are likely to fall in the medium term.

  5. There are serious doubts about the economics of the Hinkley C reactor, especially around the construction costs and timescales, about the agreed strike price for the electricity it will generate, and over the long term storage of nuclear waste (the fact that modern reactor designs produce smaller volumes of waste doesn't make thatwaste any less dangerous). It would surely make greener sense to invest heavily in renewables which the UK is well positioned to exploit and where costs are likely to fall in the medium term.

  6. Let's assume that we want to be totally free of fossil fuels by mid-century - after all, avoiding the cataclysm which is runaway climate change does seem to be quite a good idea. Then we have a choice between nuclear and renewables. They aren't really mutually compatible because nuclear competes for the same grid slots as the safest, cleanest and by next decade cheapest renewables. Nuclear wants the first grid slots because its output is so inflexible. Wind and solar want them because of their variabiity. Work in Denmark and Germany has demonstrated quite clearly that it is possible to run a grid in suh a way as to fully integrate large proportions of wind and solar. Both nuclear and wind/solar would need to be backed up by dispatchables such as hydro and biosyngas.

    So that is the real choice: wind and solar or nuclear. And whether our criterion is cost, pollution, lifecycle GHG emissions, potential for WMD proliferation, job creation or potential for local democratic control, the answer is clear: dump nuclear and go for the renewables.

  7. Nuclear is Green, Pigs Can Fly. Enough already with the propaganda. Nuclear power is extreme, vicious, extractive, fossil fuel hungry, chemical dependent, fresh water dependent, authoritarian, militaristic and an anathema to life on Earth. Ban Nuclear the Sooner the Better Chance we have of Surviving the Nuclear Age.

  8. No, a "dummy pellet of nuclear waste the size of the end of their thumb" WILL NOT "produce enough energy for their entire lifetime". It may well produce enough electricity to last an entire lifetime, but electricty is not the only source of energy required by society. Electricty accounts for about 30% of the UK's CO2 emissions and nuclear power provides about 20% of our electricity and therefore accounts for an approximate 6% reduction in our CO2 emissions over generatinga ll of our electricty form fossil fuels. However, this hardly impressive 6% is reduced when the substantial CO2 emissions from the mining, transportation, enrichment and other processing of uranium is taken into account and reduced still further when the storage and treatment of the resultant waste is taken into account. Doubling our current nuclear capacity would therefore reduce our CO2 emissions by, at most, 12% a figure easily achieved by increased energy efficiency. Mind you, no one ever managed to make a fission/fusion weapon out of loft insulation....

  9. Together, they rolled out a wide range of activities at their marquee that invited everyone to join in and voice their opinions without judgement.
    Bristol Solar Panel Cost


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Diamond Battery – your ideas for future energy generation

On Friday 25th November, at the Cabot Institute Annual Lecture, a new energy technology was unveiled that uses diamonds to generate electricity from nuclear waste. Researchers at the University of Bristol, led by Prof. Tom Scott, have created a prototype battery that incorporates radioactive Nickel-63 into a diamond, which is then able to generate a small electrical current.
Details of this technology can be found in our official press release here:
Despite the low power of the batteries (relative to current technologies), they could have an exceptionally long lifespan, taking 5730 years to reach 50% battery power. Because of this, Professor Tom Scott explains:
“We envision these batteries to be used in situations where it is not feasible to charge or replace conventional batteries. Obvious applications would be in low-power electrical devices where long life of the energy source is needed, such as pacemakers, satellite…

Brexit: can research light the way?

What could Brexit mean for UK science? What impact will it have on UK fisheries? Could Brexit be bad news for emissions reductions? These were just some questions discussed at a Parliamentary conference last week, organised by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), the Commons Library and Parliament’s Universities Outreach team.

MPs researchers, Parliamentary staff and academic researchers from across the country came together to consider some of the key policy areas affected by the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

Why does academic research matter to Parliament? Given the unchartered waters that Parliament is facing as the UK prepares to withdraw from the EU, it is more important than ever that Parliamentary scrutiny and debate is informed by robust and reliable evidence.

Academic research is expected to meet rigorous standards of quality, independence and transparency. Although it is far from being the only source of evidence relevant to Parliament, it has vital ro…

A response to Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement

The decision by President Trump to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change puts the United States at odds with both science and global geopolitical norms.  The fundamentals of climate change remain unambiguous: greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing, they are increasing because of human action, the increase will cause warming, and that warming creates risks of extreme weather, food crises and sea level rise. That does not mean that scientists can predict all of the consequences of global warming, much work needs to be done, but the risks are both profound and clear. Nor do we know what the best solutions will be - there is need for a robust debate about the nature, fairness and efficacy of different decarbonisation policies and technologies as well as the balance of responsibility; the Paris Agreement, despite its faults with respect to obligation and enforcement, allowed great flexibility in that regard, which is why nearly every nation on Earth is a signatory.