What Is An Example Of Alternative Energy That Is Not Sustainable?

What is an example of alternative energy that is not sustainable?

Alternative energy refers to any energy source that serves as an alternative to conventional fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas. While some alternative energies, like solar, wind, and hydropower, are considered renewable as they regenerate naturally over time, others like nuclear power are not truly renewable. The key difference between alternative energy and renewable energy is that alternative energies may or may not be sustainable long-term energy solutions, whereas renewable energies are sustainable by definition.

Renewable energy comes from natural sources that are replenished at a rate faster than human consumption. Renewable sources include solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, and biomass. These energy sources are considered clean and environmentally friendly.

Alternative energies that are not renewable include nuclear power, which relies on uranium and produces radioactive waste, and hydrogen, which takes energy to produce initially. While these may reduce dependence on fossil fuels, they come with downsides that call their long-term sustainability into question.

Non-Renewable Alternative Energies

While some alternative energy sources like solar, wind, and hydroelectric power are renewable, others are considered non-renewable. Two major examples of non-renewable alternative energy sources are nuclear power and natural gas.

Nuclear power relies on radioactive elements like uranium to generate electricity through nuclear fission reactions. While nuclear power plants do not produce air pollution or greenhouse gases while operating, the nuclear fuel they require is finite and must be mined. The processes for mining, enriching, and preparing nuclear fuel are also energy-intensive. Nuclear power relies on a non-renewable resource and is therefore not considered sustainable in the long run.

Natural gas is another major source of energy that is considered an alternative to traditional fossil fuels like coal and oil. However, natural gas is a non-renewable resource extracted from underground deposits. As these limited supplies are depleted, costs and environmental impacts from extraction increase over time. Therefore, while natural gas emits less pollution than coal when burned for electricity, it is still a finite resource that cannot provide energy indefinitely.

Other non-renewable alternative energy sources include hydrogen derived from fossil fuel sources and deep geothermal energy that is localized and limited in supply. Overall, while these sources may provide cleaner energy in the short term compared to traditional fossil fuels, their finite nature makes them unsustainable long-term alternatives.

Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy comes from the splitting of uranium atoms in a process called nuclear fission. Uranium is a non-renewable energy source found in the Earth’s crust. In nuclear power plants, uranium rods are inserted into a nuclear reactor, which contains a neutron moderator to control the reaction. The uranium undergoes fission when struck by a free neutron, releasing a large amount of energy in the form of heat and radiation. This heat is used to boil water into steam, which spins a turbine to generate electricity.

The uranium fuel rods need to be replaced every 1-2 years as they become depleted. The spent fuel is highly radioactive and needs to be stored safely for thousands of years while the radiation naturally decays. Nuclear power plants provide reliable baseload power but rely on a limited supply of uranium. While nuclear energy does not directly produce greenhouse gases, the mining, enrichment, and transport of uranium does require fossil fuels.

Source: https://www.enec.gov.ae/discover/how-nuclear-energy-works/

Nuclear Waste

One of the biggest drawbacks of nuclear energy is the radioactivity of the nuclear waste it produces. Nuclear waste contains unstable isotopes such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 which can emit radiation for hundreds or even thousands of years (What is nuclear waste half life?, n.d.). This long-term radioactivity creates major challenges for the safe long-term storage and disposal of nuclear waste.

Most nuclear waste is currently stored on-site at nuclear power plants. The waste is initially stored in cooling pools and then transferred to dry casks for longer-term storage. However, the operational lifetimes of nuclear power plants are typically just 40-60 years. Storing nuclear waste at these facilities for the hundreds to thousands of years needed for the waste to decay to safe radiation levels is simply not viable. This creates the risk that nuclear waste storage sites could be abandoned as plants cease operations, posing threats to public health and the environment (What is nuclear waste half life?, n.d.).

For these reasons, most experts agree that centralized, long-term storage facilities are needed for nuclear waste. However, constructing such facilities has proven extremely difficult politically, as no community wants to host a nuclear waste site. For example, plans for the U.S. Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository were canceled after decades of planning and billions of dollars in development costs. Without long-term storage solutions, nuclear waste will continue to pose financial, health, and environmental risks long into the future.

Nuclear Accidents

Some of the most devastating nuclear accidents in history include:

Chernobyl Disaster

In April 1986, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine suffered a catastrophic nuclear accident that released large quantities of radioactive particles into the atmosphere, contaminating much of eastern and western Europe. The accident was the result of an unsafe reactor design and serious mistakes made by the plant operators during a safety check. The radioactive particles spread far and wide, resulting in at least 4,000 cancer related deaths and the establishment of a 1,000 square mile exclusion zone that remains uninhabitable due to radiation levels. The total estimated health and economic costs of the Chernobyl disaster could be as high as $235 billion.

Fukushima Daiichi Accident

In March 2011, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan suffered major damage after an earthquake and tsunami knocked out the reactor’s power and cooling functions. This caused three nuclear meltdowns, hydrogen explosions, and the release of radioactive material. Over 100,000 people were evacuated from the area. The accident was classified as a Level 7 event, the most severe nuclear accident rating. The long-term health and environmental effects are still unknown, but are expected to be less severe than Chernobyl due to advances in reactor technology. However radioactive contamination of air, water and food caused great concern in Japan and serious economic challenges for the region.

Nuclear Proliferation

One of the major concerns with the expansion of nuclear power is the risk of nuclear proliferation, which is the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons-applicable technology and information to nations that do not already possess them.

There is fear that as more nations develop nuclear energy programs, they will also gain the technical capacity to produce nuclear weapons. Access to enriched uranium and plutonium through civilian nuclear reactors provides opportunities for countries to use these materials to create nuclear explosives. According to Arms Control Association, over 20 countries have already used their civilian nuclear programs as a cover for weapons development.

Some key risks associated with nuclear proliferation include increased chances of armed conflict, nuclear terrorism, and lack of stability from an imbalance of nuclear power. Countries such as Iran and North Korea developing nuclear capabilities has led to global security threats and conflicts.

There have been ongoing efforts to reduce proliferation risks such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. However, experts argue the expansion of nuclear energy worldwide still unavoidably increases proliferation dangers.

Nuclear Costs

One of the biggest downsides of nuclear energy is the high infrastructure costs required to build nuclear power plants. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the typical overnight cost of building a new nuclear power plant in 2019 was $6,210/kWhttp://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph241/long1/. This means a typical 1,000 MW nuclear power plant would cost $6.2 billion just for construction. Operating costs are also high, at around $0.03 per kWh according to the U.S. Energy Information Administrationhttps://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf. This is over twice as expensive as electricity from natural gas and coal plants.

Some of the reasons for the high nuclear power costs include the complexity of the technology, stringent safety requirements, and long construction timelines. For example, the Vogtle 3 & 4 nuclear project in Georgia was originally expected to cost $14 billion and be completed in 2016-2017. However, the project has faced multiple delays and cost overruns, with the latest estimate putting the total cost at $27 billion and completion in 2022-2023https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/georgia-power-says-more-delays-up-830-mln-cost-overrun-vogtle-nuclear-project-2022-02-18/.

Nuclear Supply Issues

One of the biggest issues with nuclear energy is the limited supply of uranium, which is the fuel source. According to data from Statistics Canada (https://db.nomics.world/STATCAN/38100007/1.1.3), Canada’s recoverable uranium reserves have been declining steadily for years. Current estimates put the country’s remaining reserves at around 85,000 metric tons, which may seem like a lot but is a small fraction of what has already been mined and used for energy production.

With finite uranium supplies that are being depleted much faster than new reserves are discovered, there is concern that uranium could become scarce within the next 50-100 years if nuclear power usage continues increasing (https://db.nomics.world/STATCAN/38100007). Some analysts argue that new mining technologies could open up new uranium sources, but Others warn that easily accessible high-grade uranium ore is becoming harder to find.

Either way, uranium scarcity poses a long-term sustainability issue for nuclear power. Unlike renewable energy from the sun, wind, or water, uranium is a non-renewable resource that will eventually dwindle. This makes nuclear reliant on a finite fuel source, which limits its viability as a sustainable energy solution over the very long term.

Alternatives to Nuclear

There are abundant renewable energy alternatives to nuclear power that are sustainable and environmentally friendly, such as wind and solar power. According to the UN, renewable energy sources like wind, solar, hydropower and geothermal are considered sustainable because they are constantly replenished and available in plentiful supply indefinitely (UN, 2022). The US Energy Information Administration notes key renewable energy sources besides nuclear that can meet electricity demands without harming the environment:

  • Wind power harnesses kinetic energy from air flow to run turbines and generate electricity.
  • Solar power converts energy from sunlight into electricity using photovoltaic panels.
  • Hydropower utilizes flowing water to produce power from dammed rivers or tidal flows.
  • Geothermal taps into underground heat reservoirs to drive steam turbines.

These renewable alternatives avoid the waste, proliferation, cost, and accident risks of nuclear while providing clean energy. Wind and solar especially have become affordable and scalable options for nations seeking to reduce carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. Rather than nuclear’s centralized power, they offer modular distributed generation. With proper transmission infrastructure, an optimal mix of renewables can meet energy demands. The costs of wind and solar continue to fall rapidly as technology improves. With appropriate policies, renewable energy presents a sustainable path forward to mitigate climate change risks.


In summary, nuclear energy is not a fully sustainable alternative energy source for several reasons. While nuclear power plants emit very low greenhouse gases during operation, there are sustainability issues around nuclear waste, accidents, costs, and supply limitations of uranium.

The radioactive waste produced by nuclear reactors remains dangerous for thousands of years and requires very careful long-term storage and monitoring. Even with safeguards, major nuclear accidents have occurred in the past and remain a risk. The high upfront construction costs and security requirements also make nuclear less financially viable over time.

Finally, since uranium is a finite resource, it could eventually become scarce. This would limit nuclear energy’s capacity to provide power in the very long term. For these reasons, nuclear does not meet the criteria to be considered 100% clean, safe, renewable and sustainable over decades and centuries.

Fully sustainable energy solutions should avoid these pitfalls of waste, risk, costs and supply limitations. Investing more in truly renewable sources like solar, wind and hydropower could be a better path forward for clean energy.

Similar Posts