Over the course of the past seven posts, this account of overarching solutions to issues presented by climate change and industrial growth has tackled problems from pollution to land use to carbon emissions. However, many of these solutions also must run alongside massive cuts to United States CO2 emissions—most notably in energy production. Given this necessity, it may come as a shock that solar energy is simply not the country’s future. Ironically, the least intensive solution to combat CO2 emissions has also been the source that has historically received the most public backlash as a result of its connotations.
The Case for Nuclear
Nuclear energy often inherits a relatively negative reputation as a direct result of its connection with atomic bombs and their devastating impact when used in war as well as with past nuclear meltdowns. In order to analyze the efficacy of nuclear energy, one must first drive away the urge to focus on nuclear weapons and reign their attention to controlled, energy-producing power plants. Historically there have been very very few nuclear disasters and meltdowns across the world in such facilities. In fact, compared to all other forms of energy, in the United States, nuclear energy results in 50 times fewer deaths per kilowatt hour of energy than the next safest form being hydroelectric, and from a global perspective, factoring in disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power still boasts nearly 16 times fewer deaths. The Forbes article goes on to state that:
The dozen or so U.S. deaths in nuclear over the last 60 years have mostly been in the weapons complex or are modeled from general LNT effects… [T]he two [reactor] failures have been in GenII plants with old designs that were due to human failures to heed our warnings. All new builds must be GenIII and higher, with passive redundant safety systems, and all must be able to withstand the worst case disaster, no matter how unlikely.
Fig. 1 Daily Nation. Nuclear Reactor
In other words, the death toll from nuclear, even including non-energy related weapons tests, still resulted in far fewer deaths and accidents than hydroelectric which is primarily inflated as a result of dam failures. Further, the idea that reactor technology has progressed to the point where reactors are passively managed in the event of failure brings to question the necessity of nuclear fear mongering in its entirety now that reactors are safer than all other forms of energy and can no longer truly meltdown to the extent of accidents such as Chernobyl.
In comparison to other forms of energy generation, nuclear also produces far more energy relative to its footprint both structurally and ecologically. In terms of land use, the Arkansas Nuclear One Station, for example, uses 1,100 acres of land and produces 1,800 megawatts of electricity. Solar, by comparison, would require 13,320 acres and wind would require 108,000 acres to produce the exact same amount of energy. Shifting to a more ecological focus, nuclear energy produces less CO2 emissions than solar panels due to the production costs of these panels while performing on par with hydroelectric, biomass, and wind.
Fig. 2 The Daily Signal. Yucca Mountain
Now, one of the primary concerns when it comes to nuclear energy is the disposal of radioactive nuclear byproducts after energy is produced. Currently, the United States does not have a great solution for this problem, but projects such as the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository, which was suspended during the Obama administration, are widely seen as a means to tackle this issue to create a more sustainable environment for a transition away from fossil fuels to nuclear and then away from nuclear to renewables. Furthermore, France, which receives nearly 75% of its energy from nuclear power, reduces much of its waste through nuclear reprocessing technologies which allow many of the byproducts from the initial reaction to be enriched and reused again, decreasing the overall waste produced while increasing efficiency. For more in-depth information on the safety of nuclear reactors in all aspects, the World Nuclear Association provides a comprehensive list of various concerns people generally have over these reactors which is certainly worth reading.
The Case for Transition
Fig. 3 Energy Transition. Energy generation by fuel source in France
Now, just how feasible is it to switch the United States to nuclear power within a short period of time? Well, the transition may not be as difficult as one may think, especially when compared with solar, wind, and hydroelectric. France is an excellent example of how quickly a country can transition from a small fraction of their energy coming from nuclear to a plurality within only a few years time. As is shown in Figure 3, around 1980, only a small fraction of approximately fifteen percent of French energy came from nuclear sources. Fast forward only eight years to 1988, and nuclear now appears to be the majority compared to other sources in France. Why was France so successful in adopting nuclear energy within such a short transition period? Was this change detrimental to their economy? To address the first question, one must look at the policies that were put in place prior to the French nuclear program’s boom in the 1980s. During this time period, France adopted a standardized reactor design alongside a strong nuclear regulatory agency and full government support of the program. These factors combined to lead France to eliminate a massive proportion of carbon emissions for cleaner nuclear energy very quickly. As a result of this large-scale endeavor, electricity prices in France plummeted to around five cents per kilowatt hour with the newfound surplus in more sustainable energy, allowing France to become a leading exporter of energy in Europe. Renewable energy, on the other hand, is much harder and more expensive to produce, resulting in higher costs and a much longer transitionary period than cheaper nuclear power.
Unfortunately for nuclear, as time drags on, its appeal in addressing climate change for the United States dwindles as the country slowly climbs the more gradual path towards other renewable energy sources. Though this may be the case, the argument for nuclear energy still remains strong due to the continually rising energy demand in the United States whereas, in 2015, 19.3% of US electricity came from only 98 nuclear reactors nationwide. As a fraction of the total number of plants that must be in operation, the value of nuclear energy is staggering and certainly serves as a viable solution to promote a cleaner, healthier, and safer future across the world.