At current rates of consumption, global oil and liquid fossil fuel reserves are only expected to properly meet demand through 2050, according the United States Energy Information Administration. This demand is only going to increase, and reliance on fossil fuels as the base of world industry will be an increasingly untenable position. This issue necessitates innovation into alternative fuel sources, so discussion around energy demand has become focused not only on what methods can keep up with requirements, but which are capable of doing so in a way that is safe, affordable and viable long into the future. Attempts have been made, with some success, to convert parts of the global electricity production system to alternate energy sources such as wind, solar and hydroelectric.
However, these sources have proven unfeasible to implement on a large scale that would truly satisfy demand, leaving the current world economy almost totally dependent on fossil fuels. This is an intolerable state of affairs, especially considering that another viable option already exists: nuclear power. Modern nuclear power is the most viable option currently available to avert an energy crisis. It is extremely efficient, which boosts its generation capacity and makes it more affordable. Furthermore, it is surprisingly safe, even without being compared to obviously harmful fossil fuels. Nuclear power is currently the world’s best option for energy production and must be prioritized in future legislation and investment.
Nuclear power is efficient for two main reasons: first, the resources it requires are capable of generating large amounts of electricity relative to their cost, and second, the method of power generation itself is simple. The fissionable materials that produce nuclear power are mainly Uranium, Plutonium and Thorium. These are all elements that, while not nearly as plentiful in mass as coal and oil, are able to generate vastly more energy even relative to their scarcity. For example, the enriched Uranium 235 that is used for fission is about three million times more efficient for power creation than coal, according to euronuclear.org. Thorium is even more impressive, able to produce over 3.5 million times more electricity relative to mass than both coal and oil, according to The United States Department of Energy.
The large gap in efficiency means that nuclear power plants need to process a fraction of the material that coal and other fossil fuel plants require to generate the same amount of electricity. Once the fissionable material is obtained, the process by which it is used is almost as simple as that of fossil fuels. First, a controlled fission reaction to be started inside the plant core. Next, the heat it generates is used to boil water, the steam from which spins a large turbine. This simplicity means that the innate advantages nuclear already has over other types of energy make its implementation even less of an economic burden on both producers and consumers.
As well as being superior in power generation capability, modern nuclear plants constitute little in terms of harmful immediate emissions, future safety risks and ongoing operational hazards. The only by-product produced by nuclear reactors in the short term is steam from the boiling water, a totally benign substance that is released from the top of the plant towers.
In comparison, burning fossil fuels constantly releases toxic fumes that pollute the air and contribute to climate change. The worst byproduct of the nuclear process is the hazardous solid waste that is created when fissionable material is used up. Fortunately, there now exists multiple methods by which this waste can be neutralized and permanently stored, such as burying it in stable rock or even recycling. Even the most hazardous nuclear material can be repurposed into medical isotopes, depleted Uranium metal or advanced batteries.
Lastly, the risk of nuclear meltdowns has become almost negligible as advancements in safety and monitoring technology have massively improved the safety of ongoing nuclear power operations, according to The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Thorium powered plants, for example, are capable of shutting down their fission reactions almost instantly by removing the starter plutonium, which is required for them to function. The industry has simply progressed past the archaic and unsafe systems responsible for early nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Evaluated purely on its merits, nuclear power appears to solve many of the problems that continue to hold back renewables and make fossil fuels so problematic. It delivers consistent, zero carbon emission energy at a scale no non-fossil fuel source can come close to matching. Given those clear advantages, nuclear power’s more marginal status in current energy production is all the more illogical and frustrating. The reason for its sidelining has little to do with its complications, cost or feasibility, but in the decades of political lobbying, public misinformation and regulatory decisions that have made it less profitable to adopt. The only reason it has not already solved global energy demand is because it has been economically disincentivized, politically sidelined and deliberately fear-mongered to destroy public support.
The fossil fuels lobby has, through the funding of anti-nuclear campaigns, both managed to make the general public terrified of nuclear power and framed its opposition as an environmentalist opinion. Because of these efforts, much of the general populace believes that nuclear energy is still prone to disaster and is directly connected to the production of nuclear weapons. Lobbying has also convinced lawmakers to keep their energy subsidies devoted to propping up current fossil fuels or placed into renewable projects that will inevitably not meet demand. All of this is done with the goal of keeping coal, oil and natural gas as the only economically viable forms of large scale energy production despite their lower efficiency and clear environmental risks.
As a society, it is imperative for the future that nuclear power receives the political and economic support it needs to succeed on a large scale. There must be a collective push to vote for politicians that are not controlled by fossil fuel lobbyists and are willing to change policy to get nuclear where it needs to be. This is a change that will have long term positive impacts for the environment, the economy and the world.
