“Nuclear” has been a dirty word for decades, and not without reason. After the devastating damage caused by nuclear bombs in World War II, the idea of using nuclear technology for good seemed impossible. Instead, countries focused on intimidating each other with the threat of nuclear weapons, as seen in the 40 years of tension of the Cold War. What good was being done by nuclear power was overshadowed by disasters such as the Chernobyl accident or the Fukushima Daiichi accident, tragedies caused by lack of oversight and poorly run operations. Even nuclear energy optimists have been quick to point out fears about such plants’ infrastructure, waste and radiation. Doubts about nuclear have begun to ease in recent years, yet the imminent reality of climate change is harsh. Extreme flooding, dangerous water temperatures and hurricanes in unexpected places all demonstrate that we need drastic change. Nuclear energy can be that change.
My optimism about the potential success of nuclear energy comes from a strong precedent: France. About 70% of France’s electricity is derived from nuclear power plants, a percentage higher than any other country. France has been rapidly expanding their nuclear power since 1974 due to their lack of natural energy resources. This seemingly harmful natural gas deficit turned out to be a blessing in disguise, as France now boasts low carbon emissions and brings in 3 billion euros per year from exporting electricity as the world’s largest energy net exporter. A country known for its history and tourism, France currently hosts 56 nuclear reactors without interfering with its natural beauty.
All discussions of nuclear power sit downstream of the fear that struck many people worldwide as stories of disasters at nuclear power plants swept the globe. Chernobyl and Fukushima seem to provide compelling reasons, such as fear of widespread damage or long-term radiation, as to why we should not be using nuclear reactors. The reality of these disasters, however, is that they were all preventable and due to errors caused by poor planning. Furthermore, these are the only two large-scale disasters that have occurred in 18,500 cumulative reactor years. Given the current state and safety of nuclear reactors, the chance of another infamous disaster is small and decreasing. Additionally, the normal radiation produced from nuclear reactors is about 50 times smaller than the average radiation on our planet.
In recent years, fears of nuclear disaster have faded as education on the safety of nuclear power has become more prominent. The issue, however, is that nuclear power has fallen to the end of the list of clean energy solutions, overshadowed by options such as wind and solar power. Although all efficient renewable options should be implemented to share the burden, both wind and solar power require vast amounts of infrastructure compared to nuclear power. For example, one nuclear reactor can produce 1 gigawatt of electricity and produce only 3 cubic meters of waste. In contrast, it takes about 2.5 million solar panels or 310 wind turbines to produce 1 gigawatt of energy.
Despite the vast difference in surface area needed for solar and wind energy, critics of nuclear energy point out that historically nuclear reactors have taken on average 7.5 years to build, a daunting span of time when examining how imminent the climate crisis is. With virtually no reactors built in the past 20 years and the lifetimes of many existing reactors coming to an end, it seems as if nuclear may be on its way out.
The infrastructure and fiscal issues with nuclear reactors stem more from nuclear energy’s lack of funding and attention and less from the timing and cost. The negative public attitudes surrounding nuclear power have led it to diminish its profitability as a whole, creating a subsequent lack of funding. A study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that if nuclear reactors were all built with a uniform design and through an efficient process, nuclear could be profitable. Because no new plants are being built and current projects are continuously being delayed, nuclear is receiving negative attention, which extends the process of funding construction. Subsequently, the time and costs associated with building reactors are not being maximized. In a “chicken or the egg” paradox, doubts about how long it takes to build nuclear power plants are creating barriers that cause them to take longer to build, and hence the cycle continues.
A 2015 study says that nuclear power could fully replace fossil fuels in 25 to 34 years, accounting for economic uncertainties. Given this timeline, it’s understood that the delays in nuclear plant construction stem from issues other than constraints on how fast nuclear reactors can be built. We can’t rely on nuclear alone to attempt to achieve carbon neutrality in the near future. But, if we fund nuclear power now, it could support this goal and eventually be a dominant source of our world’s energy.
So how does nuclear power get the positive attention and support it deserves? Give it a voice in politics. In the political scheme of things, nuclear power is not being villainized, but it’s not being advocated for in the way it should either. A majority of conservatives continue to fight against climate change policies. Democrats, although overwhelmingly in favor of renewable energy, have invested their attention in options like wind and solar. These options are effective and need to be included in our climate change plan, but they’re not enough. Democrats need to adopt nuclear as a clear and forthright option, allowing it to get the funding, development and attention it needs. Just as no single renewable energy source should be the only one, nuclear shouldn’t be our only option. But it’s time to change the narrative and realize that nuclear energy is not the enemy.
Claudia Flynn is an Opinion Columnist and can be reached at claudf@umich.edu.