When watching the 2019 HBO miniseries “Chernobyl”, one might get scared by the portrayal of the biggest nuclear meltdown in history. Images of the reactor blowing up and firefighters with harsh radiation burns are haunting. Certainly, instances like Chernobyl and others such as the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 should ensure that we never attempt to use nuclear power ever again right? Quite the opposite. The future of nuclear power is severely hindered by misleading counterexamples, and changing public perception is key to changing the narrative around innovative energy technologies.
The first few episodes of “Chernobyl” show the disaster and the immediate impacts it has. This is enough for viewers to completely write-off even considering nuclear energy, even in an overly political climate surrounding the energy crisis that is desperate for answers. While the imagery is terrifying, viewers often forget the long series of coincidences and government incompetencies that had to occur simultaneously in order for the meltdown to occur. In the last episode of the show, a scientist breaks down the scientific deficiencies of the plant as well as what exactly went wrong. The last episode also reveals that the effects of the event were not nearly as bad as one would expect, with the death toll much lower than expected and many exposed individuals still alive today. This should not be overlooked and could shape how nuclear energy is used in the future.
The risk associated with nuclear power needs to be re-analyzed, especially because there are obvious upsides to nuclear energy that should not be ignored. First and foremost, technology has advanced rapidly since the 1986 Chernobyl incident. The ability to harness radioactive materials safely has evolved rapidly, and the risk of a meltdown is infinitesimally small. Nuclear power is also often associated with hazardous waste. Also, as mentioned in “Chernobyl”, the design of the 1986 reactor had many deficiencies that were covered up by the Soviet government, which can be amended and prevented in future plants. Nuclear waste is quite dense. All of the nuclear waste created since the 1960s can fit in the area of a football field, and new studies and technologies have found ways to recycle and dispose of the waste safely.
One of the biggest debates occurring today is over fracking. The fracking industry has boosted the economy, especially in Colorado. Fracking also shifts energy dependency away from coal toward natural gas. That being said, fracking is still a fossil fuel, and still contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Many Colorado residents are unhappy with the increasing prominence of fracking wells popping up around the state, often displacing or burdening minority or low-income communities. Both sides have valid arguments, but most discrepancies can be solved through the implementation of nuclear power. Instead of arguing over fracking being the lesser of two fossil fuel evils, nuclear energy eliminates emissions altogether. The energy created through nuclear fission doesn’t involve burning, so it results in zero carbon emissions. The land required to produce nuclear energy is significantly less than any fracking operation, in fact, it is the most efficient power source in terms of land usage. In terms of danger, the edge again goes to nuclear power over natural gas through fracking. Barring a very unlikely meltdown, nuclear energy has very few hazards associated with it. Fracking on the other hand can cause seismic activity, involves a lot of wastewater being injected into ground, and has environmental safety concerns as well. Nuclear power doesn’t immediately solve the problem of replacing the financial upsides of fracking, but there are bound to be high-paying jobs created through the creation and management of nuclear facilities.
Nuclear power even triumphs over many renewable energy sources. As mentioned before, nuclear power has a very small toll when it comes to land usage. Now, let’s consider other renewable energy plants, such as the Three Gorges Dam in China, which displaced over one million people because of its construction. This number is much larger than the population displaced by the Chernobyl meltdown, and future hydroelectric projects will likely require similar displacements. Solar Farms would require three million commercial solar panels in order to produce the same amount of energy that a single nuclear reactor would generate. Colorado has around 400 wind turbines throughout the state, which produces 23.5% of the state’s overall power. A singular nuclear reactor could produce more power than all of the 400 wind turbines combined. In terms of efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions, there is almost no reason to not take advantage of nuclear power.
I don’t understand the stigma surrounding nuclear energy. The word ‘nuclear’ is often associated with atomic weapons and deadly meltdowns such as the Chernobyl or Fukushima disasters. This, in my eyes, is a red herring, in that it drastically moves the narrative and distracts people to where the focus is extremely negative. If the public can overcome the fear factor of using radioactive materials, the benefits are astounding and could help bring an end to the ongoing energy crisis while not having major environmental consequences.
