Introduction

Nuclear energy: What comes to mind when you think of nuclear energy? Chernobyl? Fukashima? War? Mutant animals?

Nuclear energy has been associated with fear and violence since its creation. The production, use, and threat of nuclear science to create weapons of mass destruction sent the world’s two biggest powers into a silent war that lasted almost a half-century. Causing governments to engrain the imminent threats of nuclear energy into generations of future policymakers, scientists, and activists who would go on to shun the practice of nuclear science despite its known benefits and functionality it could have for society. In this article, I hope to debunk the common myths of nuclear energy and show what real benefits it has offered for our everyday lives.

How the Public views Nuclear Energy

After interviewing housemates and other acquaintances about how they would feel about nuclear power is the main source of energy in the United States the responses were nearly unanimous. Each interviewee had concerns for safety and one even said “What if it explodes?”. All valid concerns considering every major headline about nuclear energy for the last 75 years has been about violence or fatal accidents. Very little reporting with the general public in mind has highlighted the benefits of nuclear energy. However, how much of these concerns are based on fact, and how much is based on the over-publication of avoidable accidents?

Honest Dangers of Nuclear Energy

While I am arguing for the advocacy of nuclear energy in the United States energy portfolio, there are some dangers associated with the energy source. The question that matters is are they as significant as publically perceived?

Production

The production of nuclear energy, contrary to popular belief, is quite safe. Since 1957, that is 64 years ago, they have only been eight core-melt accidents ever. Eight. And with the use of easy math, the probability of having a core-melt accident over the course of one year is 1/3704, far less than even a 100th of a percent according to Thomas Rose of Münster University. Not using nuclear energy because an accident might occur during the production process is like jumping off a building and purposefully landing on the concrete next to the haystack because you were worried about landing on the needle. The concrete being the evitable climate crisis. Not to say accidents won’t happen, they are just very uncommon and generally non-lethal.

Some of the most well-known nuclear disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima are not due to a problem with nuclear energy itself, but rather its management. In the case of Chernobyl a very poorly designed and maintained reactor blew up, the same would happen to a natural gas plant if it were under the same management. As for Fukashima, whoever’s the idea it was to put a nuclear power plant next to the largest most hostile ocean on earth should be fired.

Disposal

The disposal of nuclear waste is a debate still taking place today. Do we bury it, drown it, re-use it or just forget about it. Hint: we’ve tried them all. The US government has littered nuclear waste around the world. From burring it in the desert, a concrete dome in the middle of the ocean, and we’ve forgotten about most of it. While this is bad form, and littering isn’t nice to our planet, how badly does it actually impact the environment? Studies comparing nuclear radiation and wildlife populations have been done in places like Chernobyl and shown almost counterintuitive results. In Chernobyl, local wildlife populations such as elk, deer, wolves, and wild boar have seen a serious increase since the reactor meltdown. Sadly showing that the mere presence of humans without radiation is more detrimental than the radiation itself.

While the animals were exposed to levels of radiation, as an overall population, they were not affected and were able to continue their lives. So, if one of the worst nuclear meltdowns ever had an actual positive impact on the environment around it, how can burring nuclear waste miles underground hurt us.

Actual Deaths

As for the actual death toll of nuclear energy, it is the opposite of the general public’s perception. Coming in first is coal, with 100,000 deaths; second is oil with 36,000 deaths; third is gas, with 4,000 deaths; and below solar, hydro, and wind power, nuclear energy is in last, with 90 deaths. Before you say it is because nuclear energy is uncommon, this statistic is taken by how much energy produced by each source, so they are proportional. Below is a graph showing the sheer drop-off of deaths between energy sources.

Source: Jeff Desjardins, https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-safest-source-energy/

How Nuclear Energy will Save the Environment

Aside from the inherent “dangers” of nuclear energy already discussed, it has tremendous opportunity when it comes to rearing away from fossil fuels. To start, fossil fuel reserves such as coal and oil are running out, burning millions of tons daily worldwide. So, even if climate change is not a motivator, the shift away from fossil fuels is imminent, and our renewable energy technology is not advanced enough to take on the world energy demand. Something needs to fill the gap to aid the transition.

Nuclear energy can do that and more. Plutonium, or nuclear fuel, has reserves that can last the world hundreds of years, even as our only energy source. Plus, modern reactors can even reuse certain types of plutonium in order to stretch the reserves even further, making nuclear energy reliable in the long run.

Reliable, locally produced, clean energy can do a lot for a community. For example, since the price of plutonium is relatively constant compared to gas and oil prices, the energy bill won’t spike like it used to. In Texas, for example, during the recent freezes, the government cut power because burning fossil fuels became too expensive during the cold weather, leaving thousands without power and the amenities needed to last the freeze. With nuclear energy, energy production could’ve stayed constant in the cold weather and help save Texas’ infrastructure. The lack of greenhouse gas production also allows for clean air in the surrounding environment, promoting community health and well-being.

Conclusion

After debunking deleterious myths about nuclear energy dangers and pitfalls, as well as defining its positives in real-life settings nuclear energy makes a strong claim for the future of the world’s energy production. Long-lasting reserves, as well as a much safer than publically perceived track record show that nuclear energy is clearly the best choice for a prosperous future for humankind.