Last week, the Ohio General Assembly sent a bill to Gov. Mike DeWine designating nuclear power as “green energy.”
Those who follow energy policy at the Statehouse should not find this particularly surprising. Last year, DeWine signed legislation to designate natural gas as “green energy.” Most experts would consider nuclear to be less harmful to the climate than natural gas, so this is not a particularly bold move.
Nor does it have much of a policy impact. According to analysis by the Legislative Service Commission, the term “green energy” is not used by the Ohio Revised Code in any substantial way. It seems that this is more of a “resolution” than a true policy change by the state.
“Green” is kind of an empty term on its own, though it stands for certain things. We associate “green” fuels as those that are good for the climate, our health, and the sustainability of our energy supply. So let’s ask those questions instead.
Is nuclear power good for our climate? The answer to this is, compared to the alternatives, almost certainly “yes.” In contrast to coal- or natural gas-powered power plants, nuclear power plants do not produce carbon dioxide when they are operating. Every kilowatt-hour of energy generated by a nuclear plant that replaces a kilowatt-hour of energy generated by a coal- or natural gas-powered plant helps reduce global emissions, slowing the changing of the climate.
Is nuclear power good for public health? This question is more tricky. On the one hand, nuclear power plants do not produce the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and mercury emitted by burning fossil fuels. This means nuclear power plants are not associated with the respiratory and cardiovascular problems that burning of fossil fuels generate.
While direct exposure to radioactive materials is associated with high cancer risk, there is very little evidence that living near a nuclear power plant does the same due to containment of the energy. Living near a coal power plant or natural gas power plant is much more hazardous to your health than living near a nuclear power plant.
Accident and security risks and waste disposal are the most concerning potential public health problems with nuclear power. While U.S. regulatory requirements have prevented a meltdown from happening in the United States (the closest being the near-miss at Three Mile Island) and even the more recent accident in Fukushima, Japan having no definitive casualties, Chernobyl still looms large in the public consciousness. And while domestic terrorism drives fear around security risks, the fact that the war in Ukraine has been fought so brutally and still avoided a nuclear disaster is a good sign for the energy source.
Long-term deep geological storage is the best practice in disposal of nuclear waste, but Congress’s inability to authorize a permanent repository has been a barrier to safe long-term storage.
From a sustainability perspective, nuclear power also poses challenges. The world currently has an estimated 90 years of uranium reserves. While a more abundant alternative fuel thorium is starting to be used, technological change will be needed to make nuclear sustainable in the long-term.
So let’s stop talking about whether an energy source is “green.” Let’s talk about what really matters: whether it is good for the planet, good for our health, and provides us with affordable, sustainable energy that we can use to provide for our businesses, our homes, and our families.
This commentary first appeared in the Ohio Capital Journal.