Key messages
- The UK Government should limit the development of nuclear power according to the advice of the Climate Change Committee, only producing what is necessary as a backup fuel for an energy system predominantly driven by renewable energy.
- The priority for the green transition should be maximising the development and use of renewables, including battery storage, rapid expansion of the transmission grid, upgrading of the distribution network and speeding up grid connection processes.
- Any proposed development of nuclear power as a source of energy must take into account potential risks to human health, the long term uncertainties regarding storage of radioactive waste, high costs, and uncertainties related to future climatic events and malicious attacks.
Introduction
The transition to a clean energy system predominantly driven by renewables (primarily wind and solar) will be critical for the UK achieving its target of 81% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2035, compared to the 2019 baseline. [1]
It is recognised that periods of weather variability, for example, during long periods of low wind, can impact on consistency of supply of renewables. The Climate Change Committee [1] recommends that, in order to meet the UK’s standards for security of supply, 13% of power generation will need to come from stored electricity, the majority of this provided by nuclear power.
In practice, this equates to nuclear power generation increasing from 6GW in 2023 to 11GW by 2050. In the seventh carbon budget the CCC also makes clear there is no place for Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) in the UK’s future energy supply beyond current contracts to 2027, and acknowledges that additional nuclear (equivalent to three small modular reactors) may be considered as a replacement. [1]
Health risks of nuclear power
Health risks associated with living near and working in a nuclear plant
Research has indicated an association between increased risk of cancer and leukaemias in children under the age of five living within 5km of operating nuclear power plants. [4] The fear of developing cancer amongst those living near or working in nuclear plants can adversely impact mental health, particularly for those who experience a nuclear disaster [3]. Perceived risk of radiation exposure can also cause mental health issues [3].
Health risks associated with nuclear disaster
Acute radiation syndrome
Workers at nuclear plants are at risk of acute radiation syndrome, characterised by local skin injuries at contaminated body parts. It has been shown to affect employees of nuclear plants and people who live near radioactive sites. [2]
Cancer
There is a high prevalence of cancer amongst individuals exposed to high doses of radiation and further, the likelihood of cancer is correlated with the dose of radiation. In Chernobyl, a higher incidence of cancer has been observed 20 years after the accident among children and adolescents who were exposed to radioactive fallout. [2]
Evacuation
Major accidents at nuclear power plants require mass evacuation of people in affected areas and are associated with long-term radioactive contamination of surrounding areas. The Three Mile Island accident in the US (1979) resulted in the evacuation of 195,000 people for a number of weeks, while the more severe Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011) resulted in the permanent displacement of 400,000 people, with long-term impacts of radiation exposure around the nuclear plants including significant environmental harms [5]. Such disasters are rare events, but when they do occur they are catastrophic.
Evacuation is associated with significant physical and mental health risks. People in temporary disaster shelters are at risk of various acute medical conditions including deep vein thrombosis, respiratory infections, viral enterocolitis, and dehydration. Evacuation is also associated with the onset of chronic illness including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, chronic kidney disease, liver dysfunction, and obesity, as well as further deterioration of various chronic illnesses. There are psychological impacts associated with evacuation, including increased risk of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. These may either be the result of the disaster itself, or the resulting consequences, such as displacement, social collapse and lack of access to resources [3]. For elderly people, the stress of evacuation can lead to overall decrease of function and even death. For example, more than 50 elderly people living in hospitals or nursing facilities died of hypothermia, exacerbation of medical illnesses or dehydration, during the evacuation of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, even though there were no direct radiation injuries reported. [2]
Behavioural and psycho-social health effects
Radioactive cesium has been reported to accumulate in neural tissues. Reports have shown that clean-up workers in Chernobyl and people living in highly contaminated areas have a higher incidence of difficulty sleeping, depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and medically unexplained somatic symptoms. [2] In extreme cases, the psychological effects of nuclear disasters may lead to loss of life through suicide. Following Fukushima, 83 deaths were classified as disaster-related suicides, due to the impacts of radiation itself and subsequent relocation [3].
Radioactive waste
Nuclear power produces radioactive waste that lasts for thousands of years and risks contaminating groundwater and radiation exposure if it is not stored properly. A long-standing leak at the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria, for example, is still working to manage a historic leak in the plant, first discovered in 1970, that requires a complex operation to move decades of stored radioactive waste in order to stop the leak, a process that will not be completed until 2049 [6].
The 2011 Fukushima disaster was triggered by a tsunami. Future climatic conditions such as heatwaves, droughts, flooding, storms and sea-level rise increase the likelihood of future nuclear power disconnections and security risks. Nuclear power plants are often located near the sea as they require a large, readily available supply of water for cooling the reactors and other processes. With global sea-level rising at faster than predicted levels, there is significant uncertainty of future risk. [7]
Security
In a volatile world, the risk of attack on a nuclear power station could be catastrophic with the risk of massive release of radioactive material causing widespread contamination and harm to human and animal life.
Cost
According to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, new nuclear power plants are the most expensive option when compared to other energy sources like solar and wind power, based on their lifetime costs per unit of electricity produced. [8]
In the UK, the CCC seventh carbon budget also calculates that nuclear energy is significantly more expensive per unit than renewables including offshore and onshore wind and solar, reporting comparable costs in 2040 per unit of capacity will be £10,300/kW for nuclear compared to £1,300/kW for offshore wind, £1,260/kW for onshore wind and £310/kW for solar. [1] Due to the high cost of producing nuclear power, it is unlikely to reduce energy costs to UK homes. Renewable energy such as wind and solar power are the greenest, quickest and surest ways to reduce costs to consumers.
Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in Somerset is currently estimated to cost £46bn, with costs expected to increase further before completion. [9] By comparison, the cost of fitting every home in the UK with rooftop solar panels would cost about £100-150bn and bring clean energy direct to individuals.
Our position on nuclear power
Progress towards energy security must be balanced against health security. In the case of nuclear power, this requires balancing its use as a source of energy against the potential risks to human health, the long term uncertainties regarding storage of radioactive waste, uncertainties related to future climatic events, and high cost compared to other energy sources.
The Climate Change Committee’s seventh carbon budget states that the majority of our future energy will be driven by renewable sources with a smaller amount (13%) coming from storable sources, such as nuclear. The pathway set out in the seventh carbon budget sees offshore wind grow six-fold from 15Gw in 2023 to 88GW by 2040, onshore wind capacity doubling to 32GW and solar increasing to 82GW. Storable forms of energy make up a smaller proportion of the energy mix with a capacity need of just 11 GW by 2040.
Renewable energy is cheaper to produce, can be developed more rapidly, and combined with battery storage can provide the UK with the majority of its energy requirements in the future. In contrast, any expansion of nuclear power brings significant financial costs and risks to health, particularly with the growing uncertainties of climate threats.
The UK Government should seek to limit the development of nuclear power according to the advice of the CCC, only producing what is necessary as a backup fuel for an energy system predominantly driven by renewable energy. Priority for the green transition should be efforts to maximise the development and use of renewables, including battery storage, rapid expansion of the transmission grid, upgrading of the distribution network and speeding up grid connection processes.
References
[1] The seventh carbon budget (2025) [Ref]
[2] Okano et all (2022) Direct and indirect health effects of the nuclear power plant disasters: a review for health care professionals. International Journal of Surgery: Global Health
[4] Folkers and Pentz Gunter (2022) Radioactive releases from the nuclear power sector and implications for child health. BMJ Paediatrics.
[5] European Parliament briefing
[6] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v6646l9emo
[7] NASA
[8] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power