Ignoring the full potential of nuclear power could be the mistake of our generation. We’ve all heard of the big events — Cherynobl, Three Mile Island, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. These are all events where nuclear interaction is responsible for death, radiation poisoning, and cancer running rampant in these affected communities. With consistent media coverage portraying nuclear power negatively, it’s no wonder the potential of nuclear power has been overlooked.
Nuclear power, on an atomic level, is the product of energy released from the nucleus. The nucleus is made of protons and neutrons, and fission is when the nuclei of atoms split into several parts. When the atoms split into several parts, energy is released. This energy comes in the form of heat and radiation — which can then be converted into electricity.
In the context of a nuclear power plant, a nuclear reactor contains the reactions of the incident neutron colliding with the uranium-235 nucleus, splitting apart the uranium-235, thereby producing heat in the splitting reaction. The heat generated warms the reactor’s cooling agent, which is typically water. This produces steam, which is then used to spin turbines to fuel an electric generator.
In theory, this is a very low-carbon way of producing electricity — with technologies for managing the nuclear waste improving continually.
So why aren’t we utilizing it?
If anything, there has been an international push away from nuclear power — Germany, as of April 2023, phased out its last nuclear power plants — citing that the risks of managing nuclear power were too great to feasibly continue to run. Germany is far from the first to move away from nuclear power — after a nuclear accident in Fukushima, there was a spike in nuclear plant closures around the world. Studies that followed asserted that “in every country that has closed nuclear plants, clean electricity has been replaced with dirty power.” In the case of Germany, this resulted in the increased reliance of natural gas, supplied by Russia.
The problem goes deeper than just government policies — there is a problem in public perception. Despite the early efforts of public utility commissions to differentiate between the words “atomic,” indicating bomb, and “nuclear” power, anti-nuclear warfare protests used the words interchangeably, blurring the lines between energy and warfare. Media coverage is far from consistent — spiking after nuclear incidents such as Fukushima and Chernobyl, increasing the public’s wariness and creating a false higher risk perception amongst the public. Increased media coverage from these incidents raised the public’s attention to energy policymaking as a whole. Scrutiny from the public pushed the government towards favoring renewable energy to address growing environmental concerns.
While nuclear power may not be, in theory, entirely renewable, due to its costly mining needs, it remains one of the most potent stepping stones to work towards a low carbon future. In relation to the costs of other energy costs, nuclear energy, like hydropower, has mostly upfront costs. Current nuclear reactors are essentially large, expensive public works projects, and this has resulted in the failed construction of several — such as the suspension of construction on the Westinghouse AP1000s in South Carolina. The project was halted after consistent delays, costing consumers an estimated 11 billion dollars.
In light of the mounting evidence against nuclear power, it seems counterintuitive to pursue a future powered by nuclear energy.
However, nuclear power remains one of the most efficient sources of energy that we have readily available today. One uranium pellet produces an amount of energy equivalent to 120 gallons of oil, or one ton of coal. The sheer density of energy contained in uranium-235 allows for much less nuclear waste produced in comparison to the by-products produced from burning coal and oil. In the United States, all of the nuclear waste in the country has the potential to be reprocessed and used once again as fuel with nuclear reactor technology that currently exists, and is undergoing approval by the Office of Nuclear Energy.
As for nuclear reactors, the costly, time consuming construction of massive reactors is a thing of the past. New nuclear reactors use a range of different coolants, are smaller than their older counterparts, and can be fully manufactured ahead of time. Additionally, these reactors contain a much better ability to control output of energy, and levels can be adjusted up and down as needed. This is essential for introducing nuclear power into mainstream energy production, and allows nuclear energy to truly be a stepping stone towards green energy — as green energy becomes more readily available, nuclear power output can be phased out of production.
Nuclear energy accounts for 11% of total energy production, and makes up a third of low carbon energy production globally. Other countries are leaning heavily on nuclear power production as well — in 2019, over 70% of France’s total energy production was accounted for by nuclear energy, the most of any industrialized country.
Stepping away from fossil fuel energy using entirely renewables requires increased battery and energy storage infrastructure, which is currently not feasible. While this infrastructure is developed, it is imperative that nations with resources transition to readily-available low carbon alternatives – such as nuclear power. Nuclear energy’s efficiency, reliability, and constantly improving technologies make it one of the most promising opportunities to successfully transition away from fossil fuel reliance. In light of this, surely nuclear power deserves a seat alongside the giants of solar, hydropower, and wind energy — lauded as the next generation of energy to bring us forth into the age of renewables.
Keely Spens is from Blacksburg Va.
Her major is environmental studies.
