As the world approaches the long dreaded climate threshold statistics that supposedly separate life as we know it from diabolical crisis and the last half century of abundant fossil fuels on which we rely, it’s clear that a drastic change needs to be made. Despite climate change and the inevitability of fuel wells running dry being on powerful government’s radars for nearly a century, very little change has been made over the last 50 years. Over 80% of power generated by the United States in 2021 came from the burning of fossil fuels and natural gas, which is only about 6% less than that in 1973(EIA). Efforts to implement renewable energy into the power grid have only slowed the growth of the rate of greenhouse gas emissions minimally and have proven to be impractical as the future of energy due to their price, the space they take up, and their inconsistency. We hear about renewable energy all the time, whether on a democratic presidential candidate’s campaign, or Chevron's cutsey commercials about their biofuel development; it’s publicly portrayed as the the indisputable future of energy, and the truth behind its impracticality is hardly ever communicated. The inevitable solution to our energy and climate crisis will rely heavily on nuclear energy, which has abundant fuel, is basically emission free, and can be transported much more easily than fossil fuels. The fuel reacted during nuclear power production, uranium, has an energy density 100,000% greater than that of crude oil which makes processing, transporting, and reacting it much more efficient(energyeducation). The nuclear future of energy is undeniable and clearly the right answer, but a political culture against nuclear energy that dates back to the Cold War remains in the United States, limiting public support, shaping a stigma and disguising the fact that the United States has very advanced nuclear technology. Today, political rhetoric against nuclear energy consists of reminders of past nuclear plant mishaps and the fact that developing the infrastructure to power the nation on a large scale would be really expensive. These concerns possess very little merit in the context of what other powerful nations have achieved with nuclear energy; it’s important to take them with a grain of salt as the government is almost always challenged with a conflict of interest when the energy industry is involved. Nuclear energy offers a clear solution to climate change and the transition from fossil fuels in the United States, however, due to the powerful influence of the fossil fuel industry, its implementation as the nation’s prominent source of energy will be stalled to maximize Big Oil profits. In the meantime, renewable energy will be widely supported as it poses much less competition to Big Oil and gives the public a cause to get behind.
Nuclear energy is far more efficient, practical, and sustainable than the burning of fossil fuels, and could replace them entirely within a few decades if initiatives are taken. The drawbacks of fossil fuels are the greenhouse gasses they emit which have contributed immensely to climate change, causing food insecurity, rising sea levels, loss of biodiversity, deterioration of the atmosphere, and various other crises. With nuclear energy, there are no emissions, only small amounts of radioactive waste that can be stored safely. The fuel for nuclear power is also much easier to mine and transport than fossil fuels; with an incredibly high energy density, a 30 gallon fish tank of uranium would produce as much energy as a 70,000 barrel oil tanker ship load. While uranium and other radioactive elements that fuel nuclear power production are not renewable, the amount of accessible uranium alone is predicted to last three times as long as fossil fuels or natural gas(MAHB). By then, nuclear energy technology would have time to develop, leading to more solutions that utilize other forms of radioactive fuel, like the current development of thorium based nuclear reactors(Kuo).
Nuclear energy is also far more practical than renewable energy. Yes, there is a finite amount of radioactive material to fuel nuclear reactors as opposed to unlimited sunlight and wind. However, we cannot always depend on the wind and sun being present. Distributing energy to the country’s population takes a lot of planning ahead and control of how much power is being generated; predicting the wind and sun exposure months in advance is insufficient to do this(Forbes). Much like the burning of fossil fuels, producing nuclear power can be done whenever needed in a controlled fashion.
Americans love to hop on the renewable energy bandwagon because it’s advertised as being a major part of our clean future by big energy companies and political policies which is quite misleading.
“In the same way that grocery shoppers believed products marketed as ‘natural’ were healthier than other products, progressive Democrats came to believe that products marketed as ‘renewable’ were better for the environment.”(Shellenberger, 2019)
Aside from practicality, renewable energy has a greater impact on surrounding ecosystems than nuclear power plants. Some wind turbine fields span for miles and have thousands of turbines that disturb wildlife with their noise and large blades. This is detrimental to bats and birds that live around turbines; the U.S.G.S. estimated that around 100,000 bats are killed at the blades of wind turbines every year in the U.S. alone, which has endangered multiple species(USGS). Furthermore, large solar panel fields cover entire square miles of ground, and hydro-dams completely dismantle river ecosystems. Nuclear power plants take up less than a square mile, and to produce the same amount of power, “Solar farms require 450 times more land and nine times more materials (and thus mining and waste) as nuclear plants”(Shellenberger, 2018). The only renewables that can somewhat rival nuclear power, and only because they closely resemble fossil fuels, are biofuels such as ethanol, but burning these also releases greenhouse gasses and have energy densities even lower than crude oil. It will always be important to invest in research and development of renewable energy methods, given that one day all finite fuels will run out, but as of now, renewable energy cannot compete with nuclear.
Despite nuclear energy being more practical, sustainable, and efficient than renewable energy, it does not receive the appropriate praise and support in the United States. Renewables are mentioned profusely by politicians such as in the Green New Deal, nuclear energy rarely is. It’s as if politicians are scared they’d lose support for supporting nuclear energy, which they might. The benefits of nuclear power are usually drowned in irrational fear and the fact that the infrastructure doesn’t exist(Goldstein, Pinker, NY Times). This fear can be traced back to Cold War sentiments when everyone in America was scared of a nuclear war with Russia for almost 50 years.
The Cold War was an incredibly influential time for American culture defining who we hate and label as the savages that would vaporize hundreds of thousands of innocent people with their new nuclear technology, then maybe do it again three days later. Baby boomers, the generation that has likely held the most political power since the Cold War, grew up in a society where “nuclear” had a connotation that aligned with soviet ideals and communism. In an interview, Neil Degrasse Tyson explains how nuclear energy is unable to gain traction because people don’t understand it. The “forbidden word” deters people from anything it’s in. He gives the example of an MRI which uses nuclear radiation, “nobody would go into it if the word nuclear was in front of it”(Carolla, 2019). Invisible rays that can kill you are incredibly scary when used as a weapon, and the magnitude of fear grows even more outside the context of war.
Nuclear power plant disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, which made the areas surrounding the plants uninhabitable for years after the accidents and inflicted radiation damage to local populations have been portrayed as “what happens when you mess with nuclear energy” for years accumulating a copious amount of press. Chernobyl happened nearly 40 years ago and killed only 31 people(Gray). Fukushima killed a few hundred people, but the death toll from these two instances cannot compare to the deaths caused by gas explosions, and air pollution caused by fossil fuels. “The combined effects of ambient air pollution and household air pollution is associated with 7 million premature deaths annually”(WHO). Many studies have found nuclear energy to be the safest form of generating energy when considering direct and indirect effects of pollution and disaster. In a study done by an international development and economics professor at the University of Bath, Anil Markandya, it was concluded that especially with newer, safer nuclear power technology, the negative effects of nuclear power could never come close to those of burning fossil fuels(Markandya, 2007). After all, if nuclear was adopted as the world's main power source when it was discovered, climate change would be far less severe.
Nuclear reactor mishaps are still horrible and should be avoided at all costs, but past incidents should not prevent the advancement of the technology. Chernobyl happened decades ago and was caused by human error and Fukushima happened because the plant was built close to a tectonic fault and experienced the most severe earthquake in Japan’s history. Learning from these mistakes, countries around the world, including the United States have been smarter about nuclear power plant location and design. For example, a year after the Fukushima disaster, a nuclear power plant that was foolishly placed on a cliff next to the Pacific Coast Highway in San Onofre, California was shut down.
Almost all hysteria against nuclear energy in the United States and the concern that the infrastructure doesn’t exist can be discredited by two facts: that other countries have made a successful shift to nuclear energy as their main source of power, and that the U.S. government is spending millions on developing better nuclear power technology.
France and Sweden are examples of “proven models for rapid decarbonization with economic and energy growth” as a result of switching to almost all nuclear energy(Goldstein, Pinker). They also made this switch within 20 years because they were willing to spend the money. They saved money by implementing a standard design so that building reactors was repetitive and uniform, which is something the U.S. could learn from. These nations now enjoy minimal emissions and cheap power. Although expensive to build, nuclear power plants are relatively cheap to run; in South Korea, nuclear power is the cheapest form of electricity; almost all other countries that have embraced nuclear energy have benefited economically as well(Goldstein, Pinker). The concerns of not having the infrastructure is unrealistic and a sad excuse especially when nations with less money have made the transition.
The excuse of fear is also null because the United States already has nearly 100 nuclear reactors that contribute about 20% of the country’s electricity which equates to the most nuclear power generated by a single country, and the government funds research on nuclear energy with hundreds of millions of dollars every year(Weinreb). If the government was actually scared of building nuclear power plants, they wouldn’t already have them or put money towards developing them. In 2021 the Department of Energy granted $61 million to university research and development projects(Energy.gov). The government is spending this kind of money on developing nuclear energy; it must mean that they actually do understand its value and importance, but are limiting its implementation.
Some things just don’t add up here. All of the United States’ excuses of why nuclear power isn’t worth the risk and money are debunked by the success of ally nations and the fact that nuclear power is already a significant part of the power grid today. It’s even more suspicious that the government fails to mention, or even denies the future role of nuclear power in the country when addressing the public. Multiple democrats in congress such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez backed the “Green New Deal” , a proposal to switch 100% of the nation’s energy to zero-emission within a decade. This goal is incredibly ambitious considering the legal process of getting major energy changes done, but even more ambitious considering they plan on doing it without more nuclear power. When asked, Cortez said she “leaves the door open on nuclear” as it may play as a sidekick to renewables(Toth, 2019). If this plan is supposed to be executed in 10 years, being indecisive on whether or not nuclear energy would be a part of it is completely unacceptable. It serves as an example of nuclear energy being shrugged off, which has been made easy to do thanks to the anti-nuclear culture in the U.S. The United States is the number one generator of nuclear power in the world, yet the government mentions and praises it rarely compared to renewables.
But, how and why could the entire nation be conditioned to ignore the solution to the world's biggest problem when we’re already 20% there? The answer lies in the complicated entanglement between the U.S. government and big fossil fuel companies.
Unlike renewable energy, nuclear energy poses an actual threat to Big Oil with current technology. Big Oil has lost a lot of business after countries like France and Sweden made the switch to nuclear power, and losing the United States, one of the greatest consumers of fossil fuels in the world, is not something they would let happen without a fight. As an industry with arguably the most political power in the world, evident in their influence on wars and occupation on land dense with oil, and mere slaps on the wrist after catastrophic oil spills and gas explosions, Big Oil is doing everything it can to hold nuclear energy back in the United states.
“Big Oil” refers to the top 6 to 7 oil corporations in the world including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Shell. These companies are known to influence legislation by lobbying, which is essentially bribing with the agenda of stretching their profits. “An analysis of federal lobbying disclosures by the Committee staff shows that these entities spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying on legislative priorities over the past decade”(House Oversight). A lot of this money goes towards funding campaigns of lawmakers running for congress or president that have goals that align with the big oil agenda. Aside from politicians, big oil companies make “donations” to government organizations that Americans turn to for information on the climate and energy. For example, the Sierra Club, a government funded organization with the mission “To practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources”, recently accepted $26 million from Chesapeake Energy, a company associated with Big Oil. This creates a conflict of interest and is simply wrong; as put by John Passacantando, a former director of Greenpeace who is now an environmental consultant, “Runners shouldn’t smoke, priests shouldn’t touch the kids, and environmentalists should never take money from polluters”(Barringer). Many Americans look to the Sierra Club for information on what is good and what is bad for the environment, but after being paid off by Big Oil, who’s to say what is true or not; environmental organizations are supposed to have agendas opposite to those of Big Oil. After learning this one could only assume what the Sierra Club’s stance on nuclear power, their sugar daddy’s biggest threat, is. On their website, the Sierra Club calls for a “Nuclear Free Future” in a big bold header. They follow with the statement:
“The Sierra Club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy. Although nuclear plants have been in operation for less than 60 years, we now have seen three serious disasters. Tragically, it took a horrific disaster in Japan to remind the world that none of the fundamental problems with nuclear power have ever been addressed.” (Sierraclub.org)
This statement is incredibly irresponsible and misleading given that fossil fuels and even renewable energy has contributed to more habitat loss and death than nuclear energy. It is very likely that the tens of millions of dollars they accept from fossil fuel companies heavily influenced this.
Considering Big Oil’s influence on recent politics, it’s important to consider the government's influence on anti-nuclear culture from its beginning.
When nuclear power was discovered, its first application was the atomic bomb. America felt bad for opening Pandora's box and releasing the idea of atomic warfare into the world and in the 1950s vowed to use nuclear energy to help the world, not destroy it. This message was expressed during president Eisenhower’s speech “Atoms For Peace” at a United Nations conference(Shellenberger, 2019). However, less than a decade later, further into the Cold War, the government switched gear completely and began to antagonize nuclear energy. In the emotionally chaotic atmosphere created by the Cold War, “the U.S. government sponsored propaganda showing nuclear blasts and gave instructions on how to survive nuclear war that frightened the public, especially Baby Boomer children”(Shellenberger, 2019). This sparked anti-nuclear sentiments for the next several decades. In the 1950s, TV shows and Hollywood began entertaining the idea of giant monstrous mutant animals such as Godzilla in the 1950s and 60s. The imagery for the word “nuclear” became mushroom clouds, hazmat suits, and yellow barrels spewing glowing green goo. These forms of propaganda propagated all the way to the modern day and were amplified by Chernobyl and Fukushima. Were Big Oil companies involved in creating anti-nuclear propaganda? I wouldn’t put it past them. After all, the country’s shift from embracing to condemning nuclear energy happened around the time when its value and potential were first realized. It would not be surprising if Big Oil took advantage of a U.S. government with much less transparency than today to stretch profits under the radar.
Regardless of whether or not the government is able to overcome Big Oil influences on the future of energy, nuclear power will always be in our back pocket; it will have to be when fossil fuels run dry within the coming century. As long as Big Oil controls the narrative in the United States, renewable energy will be advertised as the future of energy despite the impracticality of its current technology, and nuclear energy will hypocritically be deemed too dangerous to fully implement in the country that already produces the most in the world. It doesn’t make sense to completely ditch fossil fuels; with the infrastructure in place and enough to last over 50 years, that’d be unrealistic. However, reducing the use and transportation of fossil fuels by large margins, say half, would significantly slow climate change and make the global grid a lot cleaner.
What is both frustrating and relieving is that the government and Big Oil likely have everything under control. The U.S. government will continue to develop nuclear technology so that we can resort to it when needed, which will happen once Big Oil companies are done lining their pockets with what’s left of the fossil fuel reserves. Since nuclear fuel will also inevitably run out in a few lifetimes, renewable energy technology will continue to be developed until it is sufficiently practical and sustainable enough for the world to rely on. Unfortunately, the climate crisis could hypothetically be solved within a few decades by switching to nuclear with all hands on deck, but this will not happen until we have no choice, or Big Oil is satisfied.
Work Cited
AdamCarolla. “Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Nuclear Power, Social Media, and the Quest for Knowledge.” YouTube, YouTube, 9 Oct. 2019, www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6GOdIU8ot0.
“Air Pollution.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_2.
Barringer, Felicity. “Answering for Taking a Driller's Cash.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 14 Feb. 2012, www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/science/earth/after-disclosure-of-sierra-clubs-gifts-from-gas-driller-a-roiling-debate.html.
“Committee Analysis of Fossil Fuel Industry's Lobbying Reveals Public Praise for Climate Policies Is Not Backed by Meaningful Action.” House Committee on Oversight and Reform, 28 Oct. 2021, oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-analysis-of-fossil-fuel-industry-s-lobbying-reveals-public-praise-for.
“DOE Invests $61 Million in Advanced Nuclear Energy R&D Projects across America.” Energy.gov, www.energy.gov/articles/doe-invests-61-million-advanced-nuclear-energy-rd-projects-across-america.
“Energy Density.” Energy Density - Energy Education, energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_density.
Goldstein, Joshua S., et al. “Nuclear Power Can Save the World.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Apr. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/sunday/climate-change-nuclear-power.html.
Grey, Richard. “The True Toll of the Chernobyl Disaster.” BBC Future, BBC, 2019, www.bbc.com/future/article/20190725-will-we-ever-know-chernobyls-true-death-toll.
“How Are Bats Affected by Wind Turbines?” How Are Bats Affected by Wind Turbines? | U.S. Geological Survey, www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-are-bats-affected-wind-turbines#:~:text=Dead%20bats%20are%20found%20beneath,clear%20why%20this%20is%20happening.
Kuo, Gioietta. “When Fossil Fuels Run out, What Then?” MAHB, 10 Dec. 2021, mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/fossil-fuels-run/.
Markandya, Anil, and Paul Wilkinson. “Electricity Generation and Health.” The Lancet, Elsevier, 13 Sept. 2007, www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(07)61253-7/fulltext#%20.
“Nuclear Free Future.” Sierra Club, www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free.
Porta, Barbara Della, and Glenn Weinreb. “Nuclear Power Is Inevitable, Yet Not Everywhere.” Power Electronics News, 4 Nov. 2021, www.powerelectronicsnews.com/nuclear-power-is-inevitable-yet-not-everywhere/.
Shellenberger, Michael. “If Nuclear Power Is so Safe, Why Are We so Afraid of It?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 12 Oct. 2022, www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/11/if-nuclear-power-is-so-safe-why-are-we-so-afraid-of-it/?sh=2a2ac4106385.
Shellenberger, Michael. “If Progressive Democrats Care so Much about the Climate, Why Are They Trying to Kill Nuclear Power?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 17 Jan. 2019, www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/01/17/if-progressive-democrats-care-so-much-about-the-climate-why-are-they-trying-to-kill-nuclear-power/?sh=330d5665588d.
Toth, Jacqueline. “Ocasio-Cortez: Green New Deal 'Leaves the Door Open' on Nuclear.” Morning Consult, 27 Sept. 2022, morningconsult.com/2019/05/06/ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-leaves-door-open-nuclear/.
“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” U.S. Energy Facts Explained - Consumption and Production - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/.
“When Fossil Fuels Run out, What Then?” MAHB, 10 Dec. 2021, mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/fossil-fuels-run/.
Comments