FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science The Nuclear Option A Global Sustainability Appraisal of Civil Nuclear Energy Sebastian Arnström 2020 Student thesis, Basic level (Bachelor degree), 15 HE Environmental Engineering Environmental Strategist Supervisor: Karl Hillman Examiner: Björn Karlsson Preface I would like to thank my supervisor Karl Hillman for giving me valuable tips and criticisms throughout the work with my thesis. I am also grateful for the support of my sister Maja, my girlfriend, and my family and friends, who endured me ranting about the ins and outs of nuclear energy for six months. Finally, the work I have done is built on the efforts of brilliant researchers from all over the world. Hopefully, this thesis can make some small contribution to the epistemic base of sustainable energy development. Sebastian Arnström, Gävle, 2020-06-07 i ii Abstract Energy production systems are essential for human progress. They fuel the technologies that underpin economic growth and are prerequisite for efficient food production, education and healthcare. On the flip side, they also incur substantial eco-social costs. Hence, finding and promoting sustainable means of energy production is a key topic within the Environmental Sciences. This thesis examines the sustainability of nuclear power, by comparing its social, economic and ecological impacts to those of wind and solar power. The assessment is performed using Multi- Criteria Analysis (MCA), with a Weighted Sum scoring system and a Distance-To- Target weighting scheme. The selection and the weighting of the indicators are grounded in the Planetary Boundaries framework, the Oxfam Doughnut Economics model and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, and the technologies are compared on 9 axes of evaluation; greenhouse gas emissions, land-take requirements, material throughput, non-recyclable wastes, toxic and radioactive wastes, negative health impacts, economic costs, intermittency and energy return on energy invested. The thesis finds nuclear power to be the most sustainable option according to all but three indicators, and in the unified analysis, it outcompetes wind and solar by a factor of 2 and 3 respectively. Also notable is that solar power does not excel in a single impact category; it has the highest greenhouse gas emissions, the largest land-take, and it is costly, intermittent and energy-inefficient. It is also a source of toxic pollution, the effects of which cannot yet be determined. Although wind is more competitive, it consumes vast amounts of physical resources, generates a lot of waste, and its land-take is at least 10 times higher than that of nuclear power. In addition to the MCA, the thesis investigates three perceived threats that are often raised in criticisms of nuclear power; the risk of nuclear fuel depletion, the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and the risk of catastrophic nuclear accidents. The results show that many popular arguments against the technology are loosely aligned with reality, and the thesis as a whole presents a challenge to the notion that nuclear power is a dangerous and unsustainable energy source. Keywords: nuclear power, solar power, wind power, sustainability, sustainable development, sustainable energy development, sustainability of nuclear power, nuclear accidents, nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear fuel depletion iii iv Table of Contents 1 Background ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Sustainable Development ...................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Social and Economic Sustainability .................................................................... 2 1.1.2 Ecological Sustainability ..................................................................................... 3 1.2 Energy Production and Sustainable Development ................................................ 6 1.2.1 Tools and Energy ................................................................................................. 6 1.2.2 Energy and Socio-Economic Development ......................................................... 7 1.2.3 The Ecological Impacts of Energy Production .................................................... 9 1.3 The Importance of Electricity ............................................................................. 10 1.4 Summary of Chapters 1.1 to 1.3 .......................................................................... 13 1.5 Nuclear, Wind and Solar Power .......................................................................... 14 1.5.1 Nuclear Power ................................................................................................... 14 1.5.2 Wind Power ....................................................................................................... 16 1.5.3 Solar Power........................................................................................................ 17 1.6 Aim and Research Questions .............................................................................. 19 1.7 Delimitations ....................................................................................................... 19 1.8 Target Groups ...................................................................................................... 20 1.9 Ethical Considerations ........................................................................................ 20 2 Methods and Methodology ..................................................................................... 21 2.1 Literature Study ................................................................................................... 22 2.2 Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis .......................................................... 22 2.3 Evaluation Criteria and Indicators ....................................................................... 24 2.3.1 Ecological Indicators ......................................................................................... 24 2.3.2 Social and Economic Indicators ........................................................................ 27 2.4 Distance-To-Target Weighting Method .............................................................. 28 2.5 Weighting the Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................... 29 3 Results ..................................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Three Perceived Threats of Nuclear Power ......................................................... 31 3.1.1 The Risk of Nuclear Fuel Depletion .................................................................. 31 3.1.2 The Risk of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation ...................................................... 33 3.1.3 The Risk of Catastrophic Nuclear Accidents ..................................................... 36 3.1.4 Radiation Fear .................................................................................................... 40 3.2 MCA: Indicators and Impact Measurements....................................................... 41 3.2.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................ 42 v 3.2.2 Land-Take Requirements................................................................................... 42 3.2.3 Material Throughput .......................................................................................... 42 3.2.4 Non-Recyclable Waste ...................................................................................... 44 3.2.5 Toxic/Radioactive Waste ................................................................................... 46 3.2.6 Negative Health Impacts.................................................................................... 48 3.2.7 Economic Costs ................................................................................................. 50 3.2.8 Intermittency ...................................................................................................... 50 3.2.9 Energy Return On Energy Invested ................................................................... 51 3.3 Final Evaluation and Conclusions ....................................................................... 52 3.4 Discussion ........................................................................................................... 54 3.5 Future Work ........................................................................................................ 57 4 Reference List ......................................................................................................... 58 Appendix A ...................................................................................................................... A1 vi 1 Background Energy production systems (EPS) are essential for socio-economic progress. They fuel the technologies that underpin economic growth, such as efficient harvesting, manufacturing and agricultural equipment. Moreover, they are a prerequisite for social necessities like heating, refrigeration, ventilation and electric light, as well as modern education, transportation, healthcare and waste management systems (UNDP, 2000; GEA, 2012). On the flip side, they also have substantial eco-social costs. The combustion of fossil fuels drives anthropogenic global warming, which threatens to destabilize both human