Monday, December 16, 2024

For a Greener Future - Nuclear Power, Environmental Impact, and Economic Feasibility

In Fall 2024, the Human Rights at Home Law Profs Blog is excited to feature a series of blog posts focusing on human rights and the environment written by students in the International Human Rights Clinic at UIC Law. This is the tenth post in that series. The first post can be accessed here. The second post is here. The third post is here. The fourth post is here. The fifth post is here. The sixth post is here. The seventh post is here. The eighth post is here. The ninth post is here.

By Zachary Limon, 2L at UIC Law

The search for the future of clean energy has brought government and industry leaders together to discuss implementing their candidate, nuclear power. On September 19-20th, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)’s Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) hosted the Roadmaps to New Nuclear 2024 in Sweden to reaffirm and bolster the commitment made during the 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and to review the progress made from the previous year. In 2023, 20 member states pledged to triple global production of nuclear energy by 2050 to ensure safe operation of nuclear facilities, provide reliable energy, decarbonize hard-to-abate sectors, and provide job security while driving economic growth.

This joint effort between public and private entities was spurred by the rising global concern for climate change and statistical evidence that fossil fuel costs do not include the effects on humans or the environment. Operating under the UN legal framework, each member state must implement policies in line with the right to right to a healthy environment, rights of the child, rights of indigenous people and right to a Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Each of these rights are intertwined due to climate change and long-term effects on health are both related to fossil fuels. For the right to a healthy environment, the effects of climate change have been felt disproportionately by groups that have been racially discriminated against. These historical patterns of racism pose a concern for the UN’s International Convention to End Racial Discrimination, a legally binding treaty in the U.S. Therefore, analyzing the economic impact of such a large-scale transition must include the cost on human and environmental health in these member states.

Natural gas and brown coal cannot guarantee staying in the black because, considering the cost to human and environmental health, nuclear energy is safer and profitable. The Social Cost of Atmospheric Release presents a multi-impact economic valuation framework (SCAR) to better ascertain the cost of carbon by evaluating all carbon-based emissions. SCAR considers trends of population growth and the correlations between temperature changes and malnutrition in poor socio-economic conditions due to failing agriculture.  Our World in Data shows that nuclear power results in 99.9% fewer deaths than brown coal, 99.8% fewer deaths than coal, 99.7% fewer deaths than oil, and 97.6% fewer deaths than gas. Both articles stress that the ‘true cost’ of carbon emissions may be higher due to the unrealized long-term impacts on health and the environment. Maintenance and continued use of nuclear power plants relative to coal and oil are considerably less expensive, it is nuclear plant’s initial cost that presents one of the largest economic challenges. The NEA also has tortfeasor liability based on the Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy and Radioactive Waste Management Programmes, effectively tracing liability for injury unlike carbon emissions that cannot accurately gauge the full damages caused.

The mass production of Small Modular Reactors (SMR) offers flexible solutions to energy needs. In response, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has, in conjunction with the NEA and other international nuclear organizations,  provided New Recommendations on Safety of SMRs from the SMR Regulator’s Forum to maintain current level of safety standards. The IAEA outlines new safety measures unique to SMRs, such new licensing framework, as maintenance of one or more independent SMRs at a time, and new risk considerations given the compact design on the lifecycle of a nuclear reactor. Flexible use of SMRs in conjunction with other renewables can offer economic choices to communities transitioning from fossil fuels to nuclear energy. Construction of conventional reactors require a much higher initial cost, stalling an economic transition to cleaner energy over time. In anticipation on reliance of SMRs, Also, to maintain long-term operation (LTO), the NEA’s Working Group on Integrity and Ageing of Components and Structures (WGIAGE) offers LTO plant and decarbonization strategies to increase the lifecycle of the plant as a whole.

Ensuring the progression of this legal framework can prevent contamination near nuclear power plants. Studies have found quantities of tritium near plants in U.S. and China. Tritium is “super-heavy” water used in nuclear fission and is a known carcinogen. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Committee (NRC) claimed the observed releases were localized to plants offering no threat to public health, even though groundwater contamination does not necessarily remain localized.  In China, a study at the Third Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant shows contamination of drinking water and correlated with increase of cancer in workers. This evidence, while alarming, should urge countries to join the progress underway by the UN agencies that ensure internationally recognized rights are respected and a legal framework that holds tortfeasors accountable.

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/human_rights/2024/12/for-a-greener-future-nuclear-power-environmental-impact-and-economic-feasibility-.html

Environment, Global Human Rights | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment