Nuclear Power Is Our Only Solution

By Ryan Ng

Usina nuclear de Angra dos Reis. Rodrigo Soldon/Creative Commons

We all know the world is on fire.

We know climate change, right now, is devastating the planet. Europe is suffering from record-high temperatures. A third of Pakistan is engulfed in flooding. California faces crippling droughts and uncontrollable wildfires.

So as more and more people demand solutions to climate change, the question is no longer what to do but how to do it. But the popular answer is to rely solely on renewables. That's nothing but a fantasy.

Wind and solar have become cheaper, but they're nowhere near consistent enough for full-scale implementation — the sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow — and physics limitations mean their historical exponential improvement is over. That's why they still only account for 10.4% of global energy production, despite politicians' claims that we're on our way to 100% renewables.

But there's one energy source that produces lots of power consistently, with no carbon emissions: nuclear energy.

Contrary to popular belief, nuclear energy is incredibly safe. Nuclear is the second-least deadly energy source, with 0.03 deaths per TWh of electricity. In comparison, gas, oil and coal have death rates of 2.82, 18.43, and 24.62, respectively. Solar, wind and hydropower are at 0.02, 0.04 and 1.3, respectively.

Despite these figures, nuclear energy remains society's punching bag, partly due to fearmongering sensational headlines of once-in-a-decade nuclear disasters. No one was killed in Fukushima; it was mass evacuation provoked by the fear of radiation that led to thousands of deaths. The Chernobyl power plant was riddled with flagrant procedural and design errors—no plant like it will ever be built again. Yet these two continue to have inordinate influence over the anti-nuclear movement.

Ironically, nuclear power's safety is evident in its accidents: they don't happen when following proper procedure, they're so rare that they always make international headlines, and even when they occur, most of the harm comes from fear, not radiation. Compare that to the extravagant death rates of fossil fuels, or even, green energy sources; more have died falling off roofs while installing solar panels than from nuclear accidents, in the US.

Yet, Germany foolishly shut down all but three of its nuclear plants. What did they do next? Buy fossil fuels from Russia. This is why they've seen almost no reduction in carbon emissions despite going all-in for renewables. Compare them to France and Sweden, which decarbonised their energy grids using nuclear power. They consequently enjoy cheaper energy prices and lower emissions than Germany.

Some will point to the rising costs of nuclear as an argument in favour of wind and solar. But they don't realise that their fear of imaginary nuclear catastrophe leads to unnecessary regulations and safety features. Nuclear plants are not atomic bombs — they don't explode like one or contribute to weapons proliferation — so we need to stop treating them as equals.

But why does nuclear energy face so much backlash if it's sustainable, effective, and safe? Much of it can be seen as a matter of public sentiment. Fukushima led to waves of knee-jerk protests, resulting in knee-jerk anti-nuclear policies. At the time, no one cared that the problem could've been safety control, outdated machinery, or even that the "disaster" was harmless in the first place and the perpetrator was, in fact, the evacuation. No one cared that nuclear would be replaced by fossil fuels, which are many times as dangerous. People only cared that Fukushima meant nuclear had to be abolished.

Nuclear power also psychologically manipulates people in two ways: first, people infer a high level of risk from sensationalised nuclear accidents. Second, people fear intuitive dangers more; you're likely to be more scared of the nuclear plant 40 kilometres away from you melting down than fossil fuels contaminating your air, just like how flying is scary despite driving being more dangerous.

And as if it couldn't get any worse, Hollywood and the mainstream media have been massive fearmongers about nuclear energy. Forty years ago, a partial nuclear meltdown occurred in Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, which the media called "the US' worst commercial nuclear power accident". That "worst accident" killed no one and would've been largely forgotten, if not for a Hollywood movie released days before, suggesting that nuclear accidents could burn a hole all the way to China. This movie instilled so much fear that further plans to build another nuclear reactor were cancelled, and US nuclear energy has been steadily declining ever since.

Even then, it's hard to understand the vehement opposition toward nuclear energy until we look at who's behind it: the fossil fuel industry. They know that while the world will never run solely on renewables, it can run on nothing but nuclear—the only thing standing between oil executives and endless profits. That's why fossil fuel multinationals such as BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron have been pouring millions into anti-nuclear organisations such as the Green Party of Germany. That's also why they've been actively trying to sway public opinion on nuclear energy by paying journalists to frame it as "racist, sexist and ageist".

All of this leads to something even worse — further division within the environmentalist movement. When there's massive infighting on the lines of nuclear energy, the only thing that wins out is oil companies' profits. Sadly, that is what's happening right now—big polluters paying "environmentalists" to fight each other.

Even with these challenges, there is still hope. People are taking the climate crisis more seriously. Awareness of nuclear facts is rising. More and more are beginning to realise the fossil fuel industry’s deceitful practices. And evidence is starting to show that the younger generation doesn't religiously follow the narratives that nuclear is racist.

Yes, there's a risk of harm that comes with nuclear power. But we have to ask ourselves: compared to what? All energy has risks. At some point, we must consider the alternatives and realise it's either nuclear or oil and gas. This is how we should fight climate change.