Nuclear Energy is the Answer to Combatting Climate Change
- Brooklin Morgan
- Apr 21, 2024
- 8 min read
Updated: Apr 25
April 21, 2024
For every breath you take, you are releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In fact, every day you exhale roughly 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide. Our contribution to supercharging Earth's natural greenhouse effect is not derived from our breathing, but rather from our actions. The most significant source of carbon emissions comes from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas. In return, burning fossil fuels provides energy that is essential in electrifying our homes and cities. Electricity has given us the privilege of heating and cooling our homes, operating machines and electronics, and running public transportation. However, our environment does not benefit from our excessive energy use. Carbon dioxide emissions are the leading cause of rapid global warming. This widely discussed dilemma has resulted in a proposed solution that would satisfy all parties: nuclear energy. A zero-carbon-emission energy source that has the potential to electrify our planet on its own. Replacing current global energy sources with nuclear energy will efficiently mitigate climate change.
Our demand for energy has ruined the harmony in the natural carbon cycle. Carbon is a nonmetal element exchanged through the atmosphere, terrestrial biosphere, oceans, and sediments. Fossil fuels are sediments from decayed organic matter, producing energy when burned. This man-made process has disrupted the natural course of carbon exchange, severely damaging our environment. Carbon dioxide plays a vital part in insulating our planet. Excessive carbon release dangerously escalates this process, causing global temperatures to rise.
Annual global carbon emissions have risen by 32.69 billion metric tons since 1940. Steadily increasing over the years, trends indicate that carbon output will continue to rise. The use of fossil fuels accounts for the majority of this increase. The Industrial Revolution, beginning in 1750, began the transition from handmade to machine-manufactured products. Machine efficiency has since improved, as well as its volume. Industrialization combined with urbanization requires enormous energy needs. A relevant example of this is the energy crisis in China. China maintains a largely coal-dominated energy industry to compensate for its production and exports. Additionally, China's large population is extremely urban, leaving them desperate for reliable energy. Frequent use of electricity, coal gas, liquefied petroleum gas, transportation, and heating has placed China as the world's leading CO₂ polluter. In 2022, China’s coal industry alone produced 8,251 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. This is 8.8 times the amount that the United States produced, holding its place as the third-largest carbon polluter.
The use of fossil fuels not only has a negative effect on the environment but also on human health. Seven million people die from air pollution-related illnesses each year. Those who work as coal miners and the population surrounding nearby mining sites are regularly exposed to coal dust. Inhaling coal dust can cause black lung disease, among other health risks to the brain, heart, and lungs. Nuclear energy eliminates these risks. In fact, the use of nuclear energy has been predicted to have saved 1.8 million lives as of 2013. While operating, nuclear energy does not emit any carbon dioxide, leaving a zero carbon footprint. Among other renewable energy sources, nuclear energy produces far less waste. Solar power, hydropower, wind, and geothermal energy use thousands of tonnes of steel, concrete, cement, glass, and other non-recyclable materials that produce waste after disposal. In comparison, nuclear energy uses less than 1,500 tonnes/TWh of materials to operate. From 60 years of production, nuclear energy has only produced enough spent fissile material to cover the area of a football field 10 yards deep.
While renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal energy are theoretically the best solution, they are not a realistic one. These green energy solutions output a relatively small amount of power. Solar and wind power sources can only generate energy 10–30% of the time. Germany, a country that has been leading the world in adopting renewable energy, has faced obstacles because of its unreliability. In 2016, Germany installed 11% more wind turbines, yet generated 2% less electricity from wind. Likewise, it installed 4% more solar panels, only to produce 3% less electricity from the sun that year. Michael Shellenberger, a nuclear activist, explains that the reason behind these reports is simply due to 2016 being a year without much wind or sun. During times when renewable energy output exceeded energy demand, there was insufficient storage available to benefit from it. Consequently, we cannot solely rely on these sources of energy to meet energy needs. Fortunately, Bill Gates' TerraPower nuclear reactor design, along with next-generation designs, can shift their energy contribution between the sunny and windy parts of the day to allow renewable energy to “do their thing,” says Gates. Renewable energy sources can serve as an exceptional partner to nuclear energy in providing global power.
Nuclear energy is a high-density energy source that already accounts for 20% of the United States' electricity and over 50% of all U.S. carbon-free energy. For 60 years, nuclear energy has served as a reliable option for Americans and has now been adopted by over 50 countries. Nuclear energy can operate around the clock at full capacity approximately 93% of the time. Energy this reliable has the potential to electrify parts of the world facing energy scarcity. Bill Gates' goal for the future of nuclear energy includes electrifying Africa. While there is still much more to be done before this can become a reality, measures to reduce cost and boost accessibility are already in place.
Building reactors at volume and using standardized designs can drastically reduce costs. Currently, the high price of establishing nuclear reactors deters many from believing nuclear has a realistic place in the energy industry. Third-generation designs may have disappointed the public, but new designs have the opportunity to be more affordable and include strong passive safety systems. By shifting reactor construction off-site, there is less need for on-site labor and machinery, reducing delays. As seen with smaller reactor parts already built entirely off-site, this approach can significantly cut costs. Since the cost to maintain and operate nuclear reactors is already low, reducing assembly costs could make it even more feasible for nuclear energy to expand globally.
Concerns about whether poorer countries can effectively sustain nuclear energy in their economy can be addressed. The burden of building nuclear energy sites is short-lived, as the low operational costs offer lengthy payback periods. It is up to each country to determine electricity prices in a way that best pays off their investment. Prices can decrease over time as income surpasses expenses. This return may happen sooner than expected, since the energy produced from a single nuclear fission is up to 10 million times greater than that produced by fossil fuels. France, a country that obtains 93% of its energy from clean sources—70% of that from nuclear—pays half as much for electricity as Germany. In contrast, Germany only obtains 46% of its total energy from clean sources, mainly solar and wind. The data shows that nuclear energy is not only reliable, but also considerably improves the economy.
The infamous failures of nuclear plants Chernobyl, Fukushima, and the Three Mile Island incident have understandably left the public hesitant to accept nuclear energy. It is important to understand what caused these meltdowns. Put simply, cost-saving measures, poor planning and placement, and overreliance on the water-cooling design used were the deadly errors overlooked. Using a water-cooling design that depends on a steady flow of water to cool the immensely heated reactors means that if the water ceases to flow, the nuclear reactors will overheat and create an environment prone to explosion. This design, combined with placing a nuclear plant on a Japanese shoreline liable to tsunamis, defeated the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The Chernobyl nuclear plant used cooling rods designed with graphite tips, a mineral with an inadequate neutron-absorbing boron carbide section for this process. When moving the rods into the reactor core, they caused the temperature to increase at a rate faster than the boron could absorb the neutrons that slow down the nuclear fissions.
The grave mistakes made in designing the Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island nuclear reactors have created an unfair reputation for nuclear energy. Both scientists and engineers have considered these mistakes in their process of designing new and safer nuclear reactors. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission evaluates all up-and-coming designs before giving approval. These regulators follow a rigorous examination checklist to ensure all safety and precautionary measures are met. Safety aspects are not taken lightly, as all designs revolve around preventing any catastrophic events. Luckily, innovative technology has allowed scientists to digitally simulate reactor designs to test concerns such as an airplane being flown into a reactor, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes. Public acceptance of nuclear energy is imperative to paving the way for nuclear to make a difference.
Many misconceptions circulate around the health effects nuclear fallout has caused the public to endure. Nuclear energy uses uranium, which emits ionizing radiation both naturally and through the nuclear fission process. Exposure to ionizing radiation is harmful to human health, although nuclear reactor failures are not the only events that expose us to it. Out of all radiation exposure humans are susceptible to, nuclear discharge and fallout from nuclear disasters and military exercises are responsible for only 0.3%. The majority of our exposure comes from radon gas from the ground (50%), medical (15%), gamma rays from the ground and buildings (13%), cosmic rays (12%), and food (9.5%). In history, around 4,000 people have died as a result of nuclear-related disasters, the majority from being present at the site of the disaster. This number is tragic, regardless of the reason, although many people are misinformed that this number is higher. For all those who were secondarily affected by these incidents and exposed to the radiation in the aftermath, death is not so apparent. Out of the 16,000 predicted to develop thyroid cancer, only 160 are expected to die. There has been no research to indicate that exposure to radiation will increase the risk for any other cancer, affect fertility, cause malformations, or increase infant mortality. In the Fukushima disaster, there were no radiation-related deaths, compared to the hundreds who died from evacuation and stress.
Source: Shellenberger, TEDxBerlin.
In conclusion, nuclear energy has the potential to resolve the international energy crisis, improve the quality of life worldwide, and mitigate climate change. Scientists predict a short window of time until the effects of global warming are irreversible. After many years of negligence toward our environment, action must take place immediately. Nuclear energy has proven it is a reliable and responsible choice for replacing current traditional energy sources. It is important that nuclear energy be considered with urgency and practicality in mind if we are to maintain our current energy use moving forward. Without making nuclear energy the future of energy dependence, we can certainly expect an unforgiving fate for planet Earth.
Works Cited
Climate Council. (n.d.). Killer coal: Just how bad are the health effects of coal? https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/killer-coal-just-how-bad-are-the-health-effects-of-coal/
Climate.gov. (n.d.). Climate change: Atmospheric carbon dioxide. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
Energy Information Administration. (n.d.). Use of electricity. U.S. Department of Energy. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php
In This Together. (2021, February 3). Energy innovation options: Nuclear power. https://inthistogetheramerica.org/2021/02/03/energy-innovation-options-nuclear-power
National Geographic Society. (n.d.). Fossil fuels. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/fossil-fuels/
National Geographic Society. (n.d.). Industrialization, labor, and life. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/industrialization-labor-and-life/
Natural Resources Defense Council. (n.d.). Do we exhale carbon? https://www.nrdc.org/stories/do-we-exhale-carbon
SolarReviews. (n.d.). Nuclear energy pros and cons. https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/nuclear-energy-pros-and-cons
Statista. (n.d.). Carbon dioxide emissions from coal use in select countries worldwide as of 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1198050/carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-coal-use-in-select-countries/
Statista. (n.d.). Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry from 2000 to 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/
TED-Ed. (2018, October 2). Why renewables can’t save the planet – Michael Shellenberger [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak
TED-Ed. (2022, June 13). Can nuclear energy be safe? [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4pDyQzguJE
World Nuclear Association. (n.d.). Nuclear power in the world today. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx
Wu, J., Geng, Y., Dong, H., & Tian, X. (2016). Urban density and carbon emissions in China. In L. Song, R. Garnaut, C. Fang, & L. Johnston (Eds.), China’s new sources of economic growth: Vol. 1: Reform, resources and climate change (pp. 479–500). ANU Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1rrd7n9.27