29 February 2024
On July 16, 1945, U.S. scientists performed the first successful nuclear test under the now famous (or perhaps infamous) Manhattan Project. The splitting of the atom was meant to usher in a new atomic age, yet in the modern day, the general public views nuclear power with both skepticism and fear. On December 5, 2022, the first successful fusion reaction also took place in the United States. This reaction was the first fusion reaction in history to produce a net gain in energy, meaning that the amount of energy released by the reaction was greater than the energy needed to cause the reaction. This scientific breakthrough was decades in the making and raises the question: What does it mean for our future? Nuclear power, fission and fusion alike, presents an excellent opportunity for the United States to shift away from its dependence on fossil fuels in favor of a more sustainable energy supply. While it is unlikely that nuclear power would be the only fuel source, investment in this field would allow for a stable baseline of power production that would help the nation maintain energy independence well into the future.
Let us begin with a bit of comparison. The primary fuel source that powers everything from our cars to the lights in our living rooms is fossil fuels. Fossil fuels do have their benefits. They are relatively cheap in this country due to very high subsidies, and they can be produced with a fair degree of efficiency. Our nation does not, however, produce all its own fuel. This was best illuminated with the 1973 oil embargo, in which gas pumps dried up when foreign oil stopped coming in. Furthermore, over the decades we have all become acutely aware of the lingering cost of fossil fuels in the form of climate change. But what if our nation looked elsewhere? What if there was a fuel source that did not produce these carbon emissions and could produce steady power for many years to come? To this end, I offer nuclear power. The technology has been available in some capacity for decades, but a sizable investment away from fossil fuels into this area has the potential to pay dividends for our nation’s future. Other options such as solar and wind are bound to environmental conditions, but nuclear can operate as a steady source of energy year round and, once in place, can operate successfully for decades. It seems to be a generally accepted reality that our society will need to turn to something beyond fossil fuels. Nuclear presents the potential to be the backbone of the energy grid, though no doubt with supplements from other smaller areas such as wind and solar. Yet, if any power source has the chance to stand where fossil fuels have stood, it would be nuclear power, and this in turn would both secure our nation from dependency on oil producers and help limit the harmful effects of climate change.
The primary issue concerning the use of nuclear power is the stigma around the subject. Three main nuclear events come to mind when the public is asked about the risks of nuclear power: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Of these events, only two can be considered as major disasters, as Three Mile Island caused no notable damage to the surrounding region.[i] Even when factoring in these incidents, the threat posed by nuclear disasters has been low, considering the numerous nuclear plants that operate daily without incident. Chernobyl is by far the most infamous nuclear disaster. It was the only nuclear disaster in history to result in immediate deaths that have been directly linked to radiation. Chernobyl was far from the norm, and can best be summarized in the words of the World Nuclear Association, which described the accident as the “result of a flawed reactor design that was operated by inadequately trained personnel.”[ii] To put it simply, the reactor was operated completely outside of modern standards and practices as a result of the isolation of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It in no way reflects on any modern operation in this country. The only other major incident is the Fukushima incident, one that has been deemed the result of poor management by the company that operated the reactor. The Fukushima incident did not result in any immediate deaths from radiation, though it did result in non-lethal increased radiation exposure for some workers and members of the surrounding area, the exact effects of which have been disputed due to the possibility of increased cancer rates.[iii] The primary cause of deaths in this disaster was due to the evacuation of the area rather than the disaster itself.[iv] This is not to say that mistakes were not made. The loss of power and cooling during the disaster was due to a series of earthquakes and tsunamis, phenomena that are not uncommon in Japan. The Japanese legislature even launched a commission to look into the matter, which concluded that the outcome was foreseeable and that there had been a failure to act. The company failed to adequately prepare for an expected reality. This outlier, while still relevant, was again an instance of inadequate oversight rather than a failure of nuclear power as an energy source. It merely shows the need for strict oversight and regulation, something necessary for any major industry. The dramatization of these incidents and the resulting effects on public support would be a noteworthy hurdle in implementing any attempts to fortify efforts surrounding nuclear power and would therefore require a public education campaign before any further work could be done.
Public education would be a necessity given the stigma around nuclear power. The first and most obvious step of the campaign would be to simply remind the public of the existence of nuclear power. This may seem unnecessary, but nuclear power largely operates out of view of the general public, and so making a point to bring attention to current operations would be paramount, especially in places in which it is already in use. If the public were to be reminded, for example, of their local nuclear plant, or told of the percentage of their power that comes from nuclear, it would no doubt soften their view on the subject. Another necessary step would be to elucidate the benefits and negatives of nuclear power. Clearing up the misconceptions around how nuclear operates would no doubt go a long way in warming the public to the idea of nuclear power. One of the most common portrayals of nuclear power has been the image of glowing green waste, popularized by media such as the Simpsons. This portrayal of nuclear power as harmful and dangerous is far from the truth of the matter, but has done a great deal of damage to public perception of the issue. Nuclear waste takes a few forms, but the type of serious importance, also known as “high-level waste,” only makes up a small amount of the overall waste produced despite containing 95% of the radioactivity.[v] Most nuclear waste (approximately 90%) comes in the form of lightly contaminated items such as clothing, tools, and so on. This waste only contains roughly 1% of the radioactivity produced in nuclear waste. This means that the primary concern is to deal with the dense high-level waste. For reference, the amount of total waste produced to fuel one person’s energy needs for one year would only result in 5 grams of high-level waste. This is about as much as a single sheet of paper. When this high-level nuclear waste is taken to be disposed of, the primary method in the United States is direct disposal. Direct disposal simply means that the waste is contained and stored far from the public. The used fuel is placed underground in large storage repositories, all while being contained in canisters that are then sealed with rocks and clay. This waste, while still radioactive, will not stay as radioactive over time and will lessen in radioactivity as it decays. By explaining the small amount of waste that has actually been produced and how it is disposed of, the campaign could assuage public fears of runaway radioactive materials seeping into the environment.
Having now addressed the irradiated elephant in the room, one must take a step back to see how effectively nuclear power has been implemented beyond the aforementioned incidents. A rather famous case is the nation of France, which produces a majority of its energy through nuclear power. The United States is no slouch in this department either, producing the most energy worldwide in this sector. However, the nation also consumes a large amount of energy per capita and therefore only produces approximately 8% of its energy needs from nuclear fission, a figure that has remained stable since the 1990s despite the declining number of fission plants due to improvements in efficiency.[vi] The numerous shutdowns of nuclear reactors is a serious concern for energy security due to the fact that the removal of these reactors leaves a gap in the energy grid that must be filled by other sources. With this in mind, the main policy aim in regard to fission reactors should be to maintain their operation in a safe and effective manner. Reopening old reactors is a possibility, though it does come with its own set of issues. There has been nearly no construction of reactors in the last several decades, meaning that any reactors would be at least two or more decades old. Furthermore, any reactor that has already gone through its life cycle would need to be outfitted with newer safety measures—a costly and time-consuming endeavor, if possible at all. With this in mind, it is in my observation likely not worth the trouble due to these compounding factors. Policy aims should therefore focus on existing operations in order to secure these vital sources of energy.
The question can then be raised: why not build more reactors? This is a potential option, but would likely not be possible for a number of years. This is due to both the difficulty of maintaining public support and constructing new reactors. New reactors take years to build and are complicated due to the extensive regulations surrounding this sort of power. This is not to say that such regulations are unnecessary. Indeed, it makes perfect sense to take every possible step to ensure the safety of the public. This does mean, however, that these projects can take a great deal of time and resources, in the realm of billions of dollars. Nuclear can serve as a viable energy source for decades after the construction of a plant, but these high upfront costs limit potential growth.[vii] This point would no doubt need to be heavily emphasized in any public education campaign. In order for the investment to pay off, it will take time. At the current point, convincing the public to make such a sizable investment would be extremely difficult, which is why the resources are better spent on maintaining existing structures and educating the public on the value of nuclear energy as an energy investment. Even when larger projects are possible, they would likely be limited to areas with a higher population density. Nuclear can produce a steady yield of energy that can best be utilized in urban areas. Electricity produced by nuclear plants can be distributed to rural areas just as with energy from any sort of power plant, but the feasibility and practicality of this idea pose limits. This is due to the issue of transmission. Power lines could be used for many areas, but they can only stretch so far. Small towns and farms well beyond any urban center would be vulnerable to loss of energy if their connection was disrupted. For this reason, it would be a better matter of policy to focus on solar and wind as renewable resources in some rural areas. These options should at the least be left as a possible alternative or failsafe. These smaller installations may better accommodate the needs of these populations and serve their interests with fewer vulnerabilities. What works best for one area is not always the best for others, and so while nuclear is certainly worthwhile as a whole, it is important to recognize that there will need to be other aspects to the energy grid in these more extreme cases.
The other area that requires significant investment is the realm of fusion energy. Fusion is an extremely new field of study. This means that the focus will need to be on research and development rather than on perpetuating further fusion reactions in the near future. Fusion is both an extremely difficult and expensive process at the current point. In addition, the possibility of using fusion still has major hurdles to overcome due to the incapability to store and distribute the power generated from these reactions. This differs from other power plants due to the fact that they continuously produce energy. A coal plant, for example, continuously burns coal for fuel. Fusion, on the other hand, relies on sudden and extreme bursts of energy that would need to be captured and distributed. Because it is unlikely that this energy will all be needed at once, this will require some form of storage in the form of batteries. There has been some investment in the realm of fusion, but a more guided approach should be welcomed. The primary aim of U.S. nuclear tests was—even stated by the U.S. Department of State—to understand nuclear reactions for the purpose of strengthening the U.S. nuclear deterrent.[viii] The research into fusion was primarily for the purpose of understanding nuclear reactions in order to get a better handle on the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which saw a lapse in development for a number of years. This means that the current policy on the matter is not focused on the potential for providing power; the experiment was a matter of national defense. Just as how the internet was originally created for military communication, the burgeoning field of fusion is wedged in firmly with the U.S. Department of State. Alternative policies that are aimed towards more peaceful ventures would be a necessity to make fusion power a reality. This would need to be done through a shift in internal policy, as most agencies overseeing nuclear power operate at the international level. If and when fusion can be achieved on a more regular basis, there will still be the hurdle of energy storage. After all, power plants are based around supplying consistent energy. While a coal plant might burn fuel constantly, fusion is based on sudden high-volume energy production. Capturing, storing, and distributing this energy efficiently would no doubt be another area of research that would need resources when the time comes. This area of study is already receiving some attention due to the rise of electric vehicles, so one can hope that developments on this front can be made independent of any immediate policy proposals.
The question of nuclear’s role in the global energy supply has been a long-standing one, namely when compared to the dominant power source: fossil fuels. There have been a few famous examples of nations investing in nuclear power over other sources. At one time, Germany produced a large portion of its energy from nuclear power. In 2011, approximately one quarter of the nation’s energy came from nuclear fission reactors.[ix] Despite this, the nation has divested away from this source, leading this gap to be replaced by a mixture of both renewable sources and fossil fuels. In 2023, the nation shut down its last nuclear reactors[x], an act which the government admitted would lead to a greater reliance on coal and natural gas in the short term. The German government did state their intention to eventually phase out the use of coal, but its current efforts have flown directly in the face of the nation’s aim to be carbon neutral by 2045. While nuclear power produces no greenhouse emissions, Germany is now forced to rely on heavily polluting sources of fuel. The nation’s dependence on natural gas was made clear with the advent of the war in Ukraine. In 2021, natural gas made up 15.3% of German electricity production. Russian gas accounted for 32% of the German gas supply that year, meaning that roughly 5% of the nation’s power came from Russian gas.[xi] In a stroke of irony, that is the exact amount of the energy grid that nuclear comprised when the final reactors went offline. This means that just after experiencing a great economic hardship based on energy dependence, the German government once again risked its position by leaving a similar gap in its grid that needed to be filled by fossil fuels, most notably coal. A village in western Germany was even demolished to make way for the expansion of a coal mine. Germany does have a goal of phasing out coal by 2030, but these actions make this much more unlikely, or at the very least will heavily increase the amount of pollutants produced leading up to this point. This is not to say that nuclear power produces no waste products. Fission reactors produce small amounts of concentrated radioactive waste. This should not, however, be seen as an imminent threat. All humans are exposed to a small level of radiation from the environment, commonly known as background radiation. Bananas are often used as a common example due to the small amount of potassium within them being weakly radioactive. Another daily example is the sun itself. The fusion reactions within the sun release the light and heat that makes it to our planet, with most of the harmful radiation not reaching the planet’s surface. The radiation dose that one would receive from a nuclear waste repository is approximately 50 times smaller than the average background radiation, and nuclear waste is kept in secure containment far from the general public. In short, while nuclear does produce unique byproducts, they can be dealt with effectively.
Nuclear power would be a stable source of energy that would allow the United States to shift away from fossil fuels. Fission has become safer and more efficient over time, and fusion power has finally left the realm of science fiction and leapt into a promising future. The necessary investment in this sector would likely be high, but the possible payoff of stable and sustainable power generation for high-density areas would undeniably outweigh this financial burden in the long run. By putting resources into this sector, the United States can ensure a prosperous future relatively insulated from the ever-looming issue of energy dependency and finally see the promise of progress that the splitting of the atom was meant to usher in all those years ago.
Image via Pexels Free Photos.
Works Cited
[i] “Safety of Nuclear Reactors.” Safety of Nuclear Reactors – World Nuclear Association, Mar. 2022, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx.
[ii] Chernobyl | Chernobyl Accident | Chernobyl Disaster – World Nuclear Association, Apr. 2022, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx.
[iii] “Levels and Effects of Radiation Exposure Due to the Accident At …” Unscear.Org, United
Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, Dec. 2021, http://www.unscear.org/unscear/uploads/documents/unscear-reports/UNSCEAR_2020_21_Report_Vol.II.pdf.
[iv] Fukushima Daiichi Accident – World Nuclear Association, Aug. 2023,
[v] What Is Nuclear Waste and What Do We Do with It? – World Nuclear Association,
http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx. Accessed 5 Feb. 2024.
[vi] “U.S. Energy Information Administration – EIA – Independent Statistics and Analysis.” U.S. Energy Facts Explained – Consumption and Production, U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 16 Aug. 2023, www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20nuclear%20energy%E2%80%99s%20share%20of%20total,U.S.%20energy%20consumption%20was%20about%208%25%20%288.05%20quads%29.
[vii] Hazlegreaves, Steph. “Nuclear Power: The Safer and Cheaper Alternative to Fossil Fuels.” Open
Access Government, 22 Jan. 2021, www.openaccessgovernment.org/nuclear-power-the-safer-and-cheaper-alternative-to-fossil-fuels/102020/.
[viii] Herrmann, Mark. “Fusion Ignition Breakthrough – United States Department of State.”
U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, 13 Jan. 2023, http://www.state.gov/briefings-foreign-press-centers/fusion-ignition-breakthrough#:~:text=On%20December%2013%2C%202022%2C%20the%20U.S.%20Department%20of,as%20a%20potential%20energy%20source%20for%20the%20future.
[ix] “Nuclear Power in Germany.” Nuclear Power in Germany – World Nuclear Association, Apr.
2023, www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/germany.aspx.
[x] Jordans, Frank. “Over and out: Germany Switches off Its Last Nuclear Plants.” AP News, AP
News, 17 Apr. 2023, apnews.com/article/germany-nuclear-power-plants-shut-energy-376dfaa223f88fedff138b9a63a6f0da.
[xi] Eckert, Vera, and Kate Abnett. How Dependent Is Germany on Russian Gas?, Reuters, 4 Feb.
2022, http://www.reuters.com/world/europe/how-much-does-germany-need-russian-gas-2022-01-20/.
Policy & Political Review 