In the US, possible scenarios are being studied if all nuclear power plants shut down

Germany shuts down nuclear power, but at the same time increases the use of gas in the difficult transition to greener energy sources. It could also happen elsewhere, and some wonder what effects the renunciation of nuclear power would have, not only in terms of sources to be used as an alternative to meet energy needs, but also for health. Yes, because giving up nuclear power will mean reviewing one’s energy needs, resorting to more polluting sources, with consequences for the environment and health.

This is the theme tackled by a work recently published on nature energy, by a team of researchers from MIT in Cambridge (hotbed of research for nuclear fusion), who wondered what would happen in the US by shutting down all nuclear reactors. But not only: the researchers have in fact elaborated forecasts in various energy scenarios, which foresee the renunciation of nuclear power and coal, or the renunciation of nuclear power with the hoped-for increase in renewables. Considering that today nuclear power in the US meets the need for about 20% of electricity, it is easy to imagine that turning it off has important effects, not only in terms of diversification of production – which very often means an increase in fossil fuels, MIT reminds us – but also in terms of health, due to the effects of air pollution.

“In discussions about keeping nuclear power plants open, air quality has not been at the center of the debate,” he explains in a statement from MIT. Noelle Selinamong the authors of the study: “What we’ve found is that air pollution from fossil fuel plants is so harmful that anything that does it increases, such as the shutdown of nuclear power plants, will have substantial impacts, and for some people more than for others”. Like blacks and African Americans, more exposed to the harmful effects of pollution, experts remind.

By combining the responses of the electricity grid based on consumption, with the emission models of the various plants and atmospheric circulation, the researchers were able to estimate the impact of the closure of nuclear plants in terms of pollution and related deaths. Thus, they write, without nuclear power we would have 5,200 more deaths a year from the effects of particulate matter and ozone. But that’s not all: due to the increase in carbon dioxide emissions by the end of the century there could be up to 170,000 more deaths. However, considering the scenario in which the closure of nuclear power plants is accompanied by an increase in renewables, the deaths associated with pollution, due to the effect of particulate matter alone, would be around 260 more a year. Much less but still enough to say that there would be no improvement in air quality, the authors point out. For the scenario in which both nuclear and coal-fired plants are shut down, the greatest benefits would be for those living near them, with lower death rates than in coal-free areas (30 per million, compared to 40 per million , reads the study).

The studio is just a set of models, and lacks important considerations. By the authors’ own admission, in fact, who recall the potential danger associated with nuclear power plants, in terms of accident risk and waste management, more complete analyzes should also weigh the effects associated with the use and maintenance of nuclear power plants. What the studio can do for now is just an invitation to further consider the pollution-related aspects resulting from the shutdown of nuclear power plants.