One of the most pressing issues of the 21st century is climate change. Fortunately, the international community is making efforts in climate action by venturing into research on alternative energy. Many of these alternative energy sources have yet to become developed for full usage or are controversial in nature; one of which is nuclear power, a highly stigmatized source of energy that has immense potential (Withgott, 2014). Many believe that an expansion of nuclear power to generate electricity can combat climate change (Sovacool, 2008). However, nuclear technology has been criticized for enormous security catastrophes, such as attacks on or failure of nuclear sites, risks of nuclear terrorism, or complications of nuclear waste disposal (Smil, 2012). Undoubtedly, nuclear power is a controversial source of energy in the 21st century, seeing as it is a way to reduce emissions but comes with significant problems (Withgott, 2014). However, from an environmental perspective, the net benefits of nuclear power arguably outweigh the potential risks.
The most compelling argument for implementing nuclear energy is the fact that nuclear power is a low-carbon power. The 21st century is faced with an increased interest in renewable energies in order to provide electricity whilst minimizing the production of carbon dioxide (World Nuclear Association, 2013). Renewable energies, however, could often be unreliable as they are inherently variable sources that depend largely on the weather conditions and locations (Biello, 2013). Nuclear energy is relatively intermittent, as the production of energy solely depends on nuclear reactions driven by the input of nuclear fuel, and can provide a much larger net energy output than renewable energy sources can. In 2015, nuclear power alone generated 62.4% of emission-free electricity, as opposed to the respective 18.3% generated by solar, wind, and geothermal energies (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2015).
Despite the evidence supporting nuclear energy as a mitigation effort against climate change, many skepticists reason that nuclear power’s long record of security is interrupted by several catastrophic safety breaches that are environmentally detrimental. In a report submitted to the Evergreen State College, Kopytko (2009) argues that nuclear power has the potential for catastrophic accidents that can cause widespread environmental damage, unlike any other form of energy. Additionally, she argues that nuclear power capacity must be tripled to make a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (Kopytko, 2009). However, this directly contradicts recent studies conducted by ecological economists Apergis and Menyah, which suggest that nuclear energy use has been proven as an effective mitigation of CO2 emissions while renewable energy consumption has not achieved a level of significant contribution to emissions reduction (Menyah & Wolde-Rufael, 2010; Apergis et. al, 2010). Apergis and Menyah argue that the potential of nuclear power’s role in meeting the global energy needs and redefining energy consumption proves to be far greater than the risk of catastrophic accidents, especially considering the advancements made in recent technology and security measures. Although there is no denial that safety precautions must be readily addressed, the risk of nuclear reactor accidents is arguably not enough to deter interests in shifting towards nuclear energy. As David J.C. MacKay (2015), the Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, puts it: “the right way to assess nuclear is to compare it objectively with other sources of power.” Although the environmental risks posed by nuclear reactor accidents are disastrous at first glance—decades of nuclear waste cleanup, radioactivity, and health hazards—other sources of electricity are detrimental in the same respect. Pollution from fossil fuels shorten the life spans of as many as 30,000 Americans per year, coal companies destroy habitats and strip the land, hydraulic fracturing threatens water supplies, coal power stations expose the public to nuclear radiation, and oil dependence undermines energy security (Biello, 2013). Moreover, in a report published by think tank Brookings Institution, a cost-benefit-analysis was performed and concluded that “[t]he net benefits of nuclear [combined cycle power plants] far outweigh the net benefits of wind or solar plants”, with the most cost effective low-carbon power technology determined to be nuclear power (Frank, 2014).
Nuclear power’s benefits for climate and security are clear. So why has it not been more widely accepted and implemented? Following the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, countries, such as Germany and Switzerland, discontinued the use of nuclear power for energy production (Withgott, 2014). Similarly, security concerns, especially those regarding reactor failures and nuclear waste, have instilled a fear in the public regarding the use of nuclear power. Another concern is that the building of nuclear power plants would cause enormous damage to various habitats and disturb residential areas (Withgott, 2014). Critics of nuclear energy believe that there are better ways to combat climate change than investing in a relatively “risky” source, including improving energy efficiency and placing greater reliance on renewable energy sources (Smil, 2012). However, clean renewable technologies will take years to offset recent years of greenhouse gas emissions and reach the energy scale needed to replace power from nuclear fission (Scientific American, 2011). For example, hydropower, which harnesses the potential energy of rivers, is by far one of the best-established means of renewable energy production, seeing as it holds the capacity to handle seasonal and daily fluxes and can supply considerable amounts of electricity globally (World Nuclear Association, 2013). However, hydropower will nonetheless take years to offset the impact of greenhouse gas emissions and provide sufficient energy like nuclear power can. Also, the building of dams has flooded historical sites, destroyed habitats, drove endangered species to extinction, and displaced millions of people (Withgott, 2014). From an environmental standpoint, it is evident that nuclear technology is no more damaging than renewable technologies, yet it has a larger capacity for energy production and reduction of emissions. While renewable technologies emit little to no carbon-based products, their ecological footprint is still comparatively larger, seeing as they can only harness low-intensity energy (World Nuclear Association, 2013). Furthermore, nuclear energy has the capacity to reduce approximately 8,111.5 tons per megawatt (MW) of carbon emissions annually, as opposed to the 6,902.6 tons per MW avoided by hydro, solar, and wind power combined (Frank, 2014).
From an environmental standpoint, shifting towards nuclear energy is justified as a mitigation-adaptation effort to combat global warming. Although nuclear energy is unable to completely replace fossil fuels—as oil, gas, and coal are used for other purposes—nuclear energy is an environmentally justifiable option to be used for electricity generation. The net benefits of nuclear power are greater than renewable energies while the costs of nuclear energy are comparable to those of renewable energy sources. Though nuclear power will require several safety assertions and precautions, the coming decades will likely see a surge in the implementation of nuclear power on global energy grids.