Skip to main content

To Give Developing Nations Clean Air, Give Them Nuclear Energy

Matt Wald
The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

On Halloween, millions of American kids carried little orange UNICEF boxes from door to door, collecting coins to help provide poor children with food and medicine. But children in the developing world need more. A UNICEF report issued Oct. 31 shows that in addition to the money, the clean air in the boxes would have helped, too. Bad air now rivals malaria and unsafe water as a cause of premature deaths.
UNICEF is shedding a light on air quality in the developing world.*
The problem cries out for nuclear energy.

The authors of the report estimate that 300 million children live in areas with outdoor air pollution at least six times higher than United Nations standards. That research is based on satellite imagery of outdoor air; millions more live in households where the indoor air is heavy with smoke from cookstoves.

Diseases that are caused by air pollution or made worse by it kill nearly 600,000 children under age 5 every year, the report said. Much of the developing world suffers from air problems that citizens in advanced economies have mostly forgotten, like indoor air pollution from burning wood, straw, coal, garbage or dung for cooking and heating. The UNICEF report cites a study from Zimbabwe that found that children living in households that burn those fuels were more than twice as likely to have acute lower respiratory infections, and more than 3,000 children 4 and under die from that disease every year. The problem is concentrated in Asia, India and Africa.

And projections are that the air will get worse, with more cars and factories. Ironically, another cause of bad air is electrification. As third world countries electrify, they are burning a lot more coal, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

The solution is more electricity, not less. Electricity will replace dung used for cooking and kerosene used for indoor lighting. It will supply clean water and allow proper sanitation. It allows refrigeration, which improves nutrition. It can replace motor scooters and motorcycles, which are often far more polluting than cars, and which are a major part of transportation in third-world cities. And it will increase productivity and create healthy economies that lift people out of poverty.

In big countries with big pollution problems, like India and China, nuclear is already playing a role and the plans are for many more big reactors. In small countries with big pollution problems, a new class of reactors is coming to the fore, small modular reactors. These can be factory-built by specialists and then shipped all over the world, to places that do not have construction expertise in nuclear projects but that need electricity. Small reactors are good for power grids that are small and cannot accept power from giant generators. And in places where demand is growing each year, the modular design makes it possible to bring on more capacity in small increments.

Chongqing, China.*
This clean air benefit is independent of another crying need: meeting energy demands without contributing to the threat of global warming. Over its whole lifecycle, including construction and fuel production, nuclear power produces only tiny amounts of carbon dioxide, less than half as much as solar power, and a few percentage points more than wind. Unlike the cleanest fossil sources, they do not emit any particulates, smog precursors or sulfur that causes acid rain.

Most developing countries are also pursuing wind and solar power. Those work especially well in remote places, off the national grid. When they are available, they can augment the output of diesel generators, which are particularly dirty and costly to run. For larger systems, wind and sun can also help save fossil fuels but because they are intermittent, they need conventional capacity back them up. And most Third World countries are already short of capacity. Wind and sun provide clean energy, but nuclear provides both clean energy and reliable capacity, and reliability is essential for economic growth.

PS: nuclear energy accomplishes many of the same goals in this country as well. U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) points out that air pollution here is linked to childhood asthma and other ills. Nuclear energy reduces the size of that problem.

*UNICEF photo by Antonio Zugaldia through the Creative Commons license. Picture of Chongqing, China by Leo Fung also through Creative Commons license.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…