Debunking 9 myths about nuclear energy

Pop culture encourages misperceptions about a lot of things, including nuclear power. Here are the facts.

Note: This story first appeared on Duke Energy's storytelling website, illumination.

TV shows exploit incorrect information or ideas for the sake of drama. Viewers like a good drama, after all. But TV shows and movies are fiction and are not the best sources of accurate information, especially when it comes to nuclear energy. These are nine myths about nuclear power and the facts.

Nuclear power is the only energy source that produces electricity 24 hours a day without emitting greenhouse gases, for example. Duke Energy generates power with a diverse mix of fuel sources, including wind and solar, and operates six nuclear plants. Those plants account for about 50 percent of the company’s power generation in the Carolinas. 

Myth: Nuclear fuel is dangerous green slime

Facts: Contrary to what you may have seen on “The Simpsons,” nuclear fuel comes in the form of solid uranium fuel pellets stacked inside sealed metal fuel rods. One pellet – about the size of a pencil eraser – produces the same amount of energy as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 149 gallons of oil or nearly 1 ton of coal.

Myth: Nuclear plants are aging and inefficient

Facts: Plant equipment is continually evaluated to determine what needs to be upgraded or replaced. Like a classic car, nuclear plants are modern on the inside because most components have been replaced. Duke Energy’s nuclear plants also operate at a 90 percent capacity factor or greater, which is higher than other forms of electric generation. (Capacity factor is the percentage of how much electricity a plant produces compared to how much it could produce if it operated nonstop.)  

Myth: Nuclear plants generate hundreds of football fields worth of waste

2019-0122-nuclear-myths-CASKS

Dry cask storage. 

Facts: The volume of fuel used across the United States for almost five decades would cover an area the size of a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards. If all the electricity you used for 70 years was generated at nuclear facilities, the used fuel would fit in a soda can.

Myth: If a nuclear reactor is critical, it's out of control

Facts: In pop culture, nuclear power is often fictionalized to create suspense, like when reactors go “critical” in movies and books. “Critical” simply means that the reactor is in a configuration that will let it operate at a steady power level. When a uranium atom is hit by a neutron it splits apart; a process known as fission. The atom splits into two smaller atoms and emits a few neutrons. To keep reactor power steady, one of those neutrons needs to cause another fission. When the reactor is in a configuration where one neutron from each atom fissioned causes another fission, the reactor is said to be critical.

Myth: Nuclear energy is dirty

Facts: Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest sources of energy in the United States, emitting no greenhouse gases when generating electricity. It’s our only carbon-free energy source that operates around the clock for 18 to 24 months at a time. Nuclear power plants don’t burn anything. Instead, they split or fission uranium atoms to generate heat. The white plume seen rising from nuclear plants with cooling towers is clean water vapor. It contains no pollutants, and it is not radioactive – the nuclear process takes place inside a secure containment building, not the cooling tower.

Myth: Nuclear plants emit dangerous amounts of radiation

Facts: Radiation occurs naturally in our environment. A person who continuously stands outside of a nuclear plant for one year may be exposed to less than 1 millirem of additional radiation. That’s less than one chest X-ray, which is about 4 millirem. The average annual radiation dose per person in the United States is 620 millirem. No radiation-related health effects have been linked to nuclear plants during the nearly 60 years of operation in the United States.

Myth: Nuclear energy isn’t safe
 

2019-0122-nuclear-myths-CONTROLROOM

Control room at McGuire Nuclear Station.

Facts: Nuclear power plants are among the safest, most secure facilities in the United States. The U.S. Department of Labor says it is safer to work at a nuclear plant than at a fast-food restaurant, grocery store or in real estate. Multiple, robust safety barriers and systems are in place to ensure the safety of the public and plant workers. Nuclear energy is controlled by operators licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They receive requalification training every five weeks throughout their career as nuclear control room operators.

Myth: Nuclear power plants can explode

Facts: It is physically impossible for a U.S. commercial reactor to explode like a nuclear weapon. The fuel does not have enough uranium to be explosive and reactors are designed with layers of safety systems and automatic shutdown capabilities. It is not possible for a person to intentionally or unintentionally modify a commercial nuclear reactor to cause an explosion. The technology used to make uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons is independent of the technology used to make uranium used in commercial reactors in the United States.

Myth: Wind and solar can replace nuclear power

Facts: To meet future energy demands, electric utilities will have to depend on an array of energy sources, including wind, solar, biomass, natural gas, coal, hydro and nuclear. Wind and solar cannot provide baseload demand (the minimum amount of electricity required to meet minimum energy demands) because neither technology yields enough power or offers a constant supply of electricity.

Comments (19)

Posted December 14, 2020 by Sherry Bezuo
Love this article! I find it hilarious how many people are convinced by politicians and media to give up on nuclear because it is "not safe." Look up the stats! More people have died from solar than nuclear energy! Also, take into account that nuclear energy saved 64 gigatonnes of fossil fuels from being released. That is about 141 TRILLION lbs. Fossil fuels kill silently, and under 200 people have died in history from nuclear energy. So many people buy into these politics and media, they are all funded by fossil fuel industries or to support renewable energy. Renewable energies will never meet the needs of people, just look at what a failure Germany is regarding energy. Also, these plants cant explode, some people watch way many movies. There simply is not enough Uranium. Not only that, but take a look at France, it is a huge success. We can also talk about how Cherynobl was due to the incompetence of the USSR, and not only that, but the Fukishimas incident killed no one. The tsunami killed those around the plant. Who would put a nuclear plant in an earthquake-prone area, seriously? See, all avoidable human errors.
Posted December 14, 2020 by Dustin
@Mark Musurivskyi, sick burn
Posted November 18, 2020 by Emmalee
This article was a great source! I am using it for my 6th grade project this year and I am sure it will be great
Posted November 09, 2020 by GSogaard
@ Tom I believe the article says: "Facts: To meet future energy demands, electric utilities will have to depend on an array of energy sources, including wind, solar, biomass, natural gas, coal, hydro and nuclear." Now, would you be so kind and provide the stats on the raw materials needed to produce solar panels, if these materials are of a perpetual nature, what happens to solar panels once they have outlived it's electricity conversion capabilities, and lastly, what's the overall carbon footprint of solar panels?
Posted October 27, 2020 by Tom
Fred Mertz you said nobody likes to look at the big picture and said how solar and wind are not emission free because of production... that argument is irrelevant since production nuclear power plants also is not emission free. What do you think replicate like bacteria or something? Also as far as the article goes, the resources for powering these reactors are finite and arguably more finite than the resources used to make solar(not gonna mention the sun since its got at least another 7 billion years before it dies and we'll probably be gone long before then). Estimates say we've got over 200 years left of uranium at our current output and I'll admit I don't know how much Thorium we have left. Currently only about 10% of the world's energy as of October 2020. If we replaced all fossil fuels with nuclear that number goes up to about 94%. So on the high end of about 9 times the needed output. So unless more efficient technology comes into play, the uranium supply would only last about 25- 35 years(the life span of most solar panels) on the high end of things(technically 22.222 years but the number says over 200 years and I assume that if it was greater than 300 it would say that instead of 200). Needless to say this is a very crude approximation but its a reminder of three things: nuclear isn't renewable, things like thorium plants will need to become more popular, and new radioactive plants running off other radioactive elements(like thorium but not thorium since we'd run into the same issue with uranium) will need to be developed in order to sustain this form of energy.
Posted July 31, 2020 by Jack
A very good article. There are some other things to consider too. Less people die because of nuclear power than do from burning of fossil fuels. Reactors melt when something goes wrong as the fuelk isn't enriched wnough to make a nuclear explosion. Fukushima accident was because of a poor desicion on where to build it. Chernobyl happened because the reactor was bad and the people in charge didn't have the qualifications and used bribes to keep their status. Somebody in the comments mentioned Uranium is running out. Simply not true. I think that nuclear fisson isn't the most reliable option for power though. It should be encouraged and used until fusion energy is figured out since that is the best energy source we will maybe ever get.
Posted May 10, 2020 by Mark Musurivskyi
John, I noticed you stated that 8 percent of France's power comes from Nuclear energy when it is in fact 75 percent, also thorium reactors are possible but the thorium must first be bombarded with U-233 Neutrons. I really don't like how you are claiming others are wrong and telling them to cite evidence when in fact you are the one ranting about certain facts that just aren't true. You are a stubborn, naive individual and you should be ashamed as your lack of intelligence is really shining through and giving fellow Americans a bad reputation.
Posted April 24, 2020 by vic
Nuclear generation in France in 2015 was 417 terawatt-hours, or about 76% of the country’s total net generation, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.-- https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/FRA In terms of electricity generation, nuclear energy remains highly dominant, although its share declined between 2014 and 2017 (from roughly 77% to 72%).-- https://www.planete-energies.com/en/medias/close/france-s-overall-energy-mix It's crazy what researching a topic for a minute or two will teach you.
Posted February 08, 2020 by John
Michael, you are so wrong man. Everything you just said is not cited by any evidence.
Posted February 07, 2020 by John
Michael, you are so wrong, man. Thorium is a myth and doesn't work. Uranium is indeed our only option. Geothermal is a scam too, we must therefore rely on wind and solar. France isn't a wasteland inspite of its nuclear power supply. 80%? That is definitely a false statistic. It's more like 8%. Try harder next time, pro-nuclear man. The burden of proof is on you.
Posted February 05, 2020 by Michael Looseman
Wow, there are a lot of silly arguments in this comment section. First of all, the occurrence of accidents like Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island don't debunk all of nuclear energy. Chernobyl happened in an ancient reactor in a country that did not have the best engineers, especially during its decline in the 80s. Fukushima was built in earthquake territory so it was only a matter of time. Fukushima should have been built more secure or on higher ground. Three Mile Island was the result of human error. Moving on, modern reactors are hundreds of times less wasteful and more efficient than before. Uranium isn't our only option for fisson here. Thorium based reactors are most likely the way forward, and they are far less toxic than uranium. Also, France gets at least 80% of its energy from nuclear. Pretty sure France isn't a nuclear wasteland. I'm not saying we should not use anything other than nuclear. I am simply saying nuclear is a good energy source and should always be open for option. Geothermal is another good energy source that could have the potential of round-the-clock energy production. Back to nuclear, Brian's assertion that we are "deceitful" about nuclear meltdowns is conspiratorial thinking and not based on reality.
Posted January 20, 2020 by M Diane Signore
Heard of Three Mile Island? Chernobyl? How about Marble Hill? I believe that Indiana economic albatross was eventually scrapped after it was discovered that work defects were being covered up & hidden from inspectors. I worked there & heard it first hand in the construction meetings. Don’t pretend Nuclear Power is soooo safe. Whenever money is to be made or there’s a need to save face, you can count on greed & ego to enable disasters to follow. The U.S. doesn’t need this type of power when there’s other energy solutions available.
Posted December 12, 2019 by TRUETT W BRIGGS
Thanks for stating what should be obvious, renewable energy is unreliable and with no workable storage of energy. Generation IV nuclear strategies offer promise of clean power and reuse of nuclear waste. Talk to Bill Gates.
Posted July 24, 2019 by Fred Mertz
The article fails to discuss the decommissioning of the reactor plant once the licensing has expired and can't be renewed. The shutdown and decommissioning of the plant can cost up to 10 times the amount of money the plant billed for supplying electricity for the ENTIRE LIFESPAN of the plant. And please....LMAO....the Russians said that the RBMK plant can NOT EXPLODE just like the article states. For all readers of these comments, if you want to see what the bad end of the nuclear industry looks like, Google "Hisashi Ouchi". It's a technology that should be explored further, solar panels and wind mills are not emission free as AOC likes to state for the sound bites. What are the the emissions coming out of the plants making the solar cells/panels and the wind turbines/blades/generators. Nobody likes to look at the whole picture. America has turned into the latest version of the Jerry Springer Show, and Congress is the center stage.
Posted March 18, 2019 by Tim Eaton
Plus there's plentiful beachfront for waste storage: https://www.kpbs.org/news/2018/aug/02/former-nrc-chief-says-edison-should-stop-burying-n/
Posted March 14, 2019 by Brian
You left out the mining. You left out the 2 million tons of toxic rare earth type mining per reactor per year or the even worse water system contaminating in situ. Fukushima and Chernobyl exploded. BIg hydrogen and air explosion that blew tons of reactor 1000's of feet into the air and you have the gall to say nuclear power plants can't explode. We all know your "it's not a nuclear explosion" supercilious deceit. And that's what it is: a deceit. Solar, wind, hydro, a day of storage, and waste derived fuels for reserve generators can definitely replace nuclear cheaper and better. Nuclear radiation is dangerous and the IAEA was charter to lie to us and sell nuclear power instead. The Russian and Ukrainian scientist said over a million deaths from chernbols. Do you really believe 4000 thyroid cancers instead like the IAEA said? Have any of you actually read the charter for the IAEA? "ARTICLE II: Objectives The Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world. It shall ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose. ARTICLE III: Functions A. The Agency is authorized: 1. To encourage and assist research on, and development and practical application of, atomic energy for peaceful uses throughout the world; and, if requested to do so, to act as an intermediary for the purposes of securing the performance of services or the supplying of materials, equipment, or facilities by one member of the Agency for another; and to perform any operation or service useful in research on, or development or practical application of, atomic energy for peaceful purposes;" It's a promotional agencies, yet the lead agency that creates all the standards for measuring radiation and determining health consequences. They are it. Yet they are no different than the tobacco promotional groups. Nuclear power is deadly, dirty, expensive and short of uranium in a decade or so.
Posted February 13, 2019 by Mary O’Neill
Informative! Most people, including Americans, don’t understand the difference between fusion and fission And they are susceptible to myths. Can you do an educational project with Nova or Frontline, for example?
Posted January 28, 2019 by Loyd
This was a well done article. Nuclear power plants don't have the pollution that fossil fuel power plants have including using fossil fuel to heat our homes adds to the problem. If we destroy our environment, it won't be Nuclear power that does it. I think France Nuclear power is 80% of their need. The only downside of Nuclear Power is the earthquake in Japan that cause Fukushima nuclear melt down. My understanding of Chernobyl disaster was caused by human error which means the disaster should never happen. Hydro Electric has my vote also.
Posted January 25, 2019 by Thomas Hegele
Well done. Hope more people read this and become educated about their environment.

Leave a Reply

Please read our Comment Guidelines.

*
*
*

For real-time updates, follow us on Twitter

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Opt out from these emails

Check out our new Facebook page