Three Mile Island. Fukushima. Chernobyl. The three worst nuclear disasters in human history, and yet they barely account for a few hundred deaths, as opposed to millions of deaths caused by the fossil fuel industry. Nuclear energy has a stigma of being inherently bad for the environment, toxifying whole cities, and spreading radioactive material. That is exactly what fossil fuels do, yet the lobbying efforts against nuclear power center the danger of nuclear power and brush off the harmful impacts of fossil fuels to scare the public against clean energy. The United States of America experiences the impacts that fossil fuel reliance has on the environment, consumer prices, and foreign policy. We have put ourselves in a position where we are forced to choose between relying on foreign hydrocarbons or polluting our own soil through fracking and decrepit piping infrastructure. It does not have to be this way. The solution to our woes is simple, efficient, and does minimal damage to the environment, given the right circumstances. The million dollar question is why has this solution not been implemented yet? The tenure of nuclear power started with a bang, and by the end of this article you will learn why it became such a taboo, its pros and cons, and what the costs of a nuclear America would look like.

The Right Technology for the Wrong Reasons

Before jumping into the history of nuclear technology, it is critical to understand what “nuclear” means in the first place, as it is often misconstrued in popular culture. Anything nuclear involves the nucleus of the atom, or the center of it, and any science that is involved with it. So take nuclear weapons, which are devices that  split atoms of certain elements to create an atomic blast in order to decimate enemy cities and militaries. There are two types of nuclear reactions that humans can harness: fission and fusion. Nuclear fission is the process in which a large isotope, typically Uranium-235, is targeted by a neutron, causing the uranium nucleus to split. Once split, the uranium transforms into smaller isotope particles, several neutrons, and a massive explosion. This reaction is how we power aircraft carriers, power plants, and our atomic arsenal. The other reaction, fusion, is the opposite type, in which “two low mass isotopes, typically hydrogen, unite under conditions of extreme pressure and temperature.” This is the process our Sun uses to create the energy that fuels the Earth and all life on it. The energy created from nuclear fusion is exponentially greater than fission. 

The iconic nuclear power plant you are imagining in your head is likely not even remotely close to why humanity harnessed the power of the atom. Nuclear research was being done as early as 1895, and many of the components of nuclear energy were discovered, such as the neutron, radioactivity, and the energy release that comes out of nuclear fission, thanks to German scientist Otto Firsch in 1939. While the efforts into nuclear research were redoubled, it was only to gain an upper edge on the battlefield. Adolf Hitler began his Nazi Wunderwaffe (translated to ‘Wonder-Weapon’) program as soon as World War Two started, and the Allies were fully aware of German attempts to build the bomb. Britain began their program around the same time, largely due to the information gathered by exiled scientists from Nazi Germany. Once the Americans entered the fray in December 1941, the bomb was fully bankrolled. The Americans fully funded the Manhattan Project, the program to develop the atomic bomb. Led by American scientist Robert Oppenheimer, American and British scientists were able to create, and detonate, a device using nuclear fission by 1945. The project required extensive efforts and resources, but the quest for nuclear power did not stop there. The race to get the bomb opened a new frontier in technology that was originally not thought possible. The applications of this technology extended into a new power source, and the “first nuclear reactor to produce electricity was sited in Idaho, USA… in 1951.”  In 1953, then-President Eisenhower gave the “Atoms for Peace” speech, a wake-up call to the horrors unleased by atomic research, but also called attention to the potential for nuclear fission to previously un-electrified areas. From the 1960s to the 1980s, the West and the Soviet Union established countless nuclear power plants. Nuclear power, at its peak, accounted for 6.5% of power usage in the former USSR, 20% in the United States, and 25% of power in the European Union. While these statistics are staggering, there has been a consistent decline in nuclear power output since these peaks, and a switch to fossil fuels and other clean energy sources. Why? Several incidents led the public away from nuclear power, but in hindsight, the costs greatly outweigh the benefits of this switch.

Nuclear Accidents and Sensationalism in the Press

Nuclear power comes with an abundance of energy and a hefty price tag. The cost to actually build a nuclear power plant can “cost twice as much as a coal plant to build and five times what a natural gas plant costs.” Furthermore, fossil fuels have already established safety networks and have been ingrained into Western society, whether it be powering our cars and houses to giant industrial parks.. Nuclear power was once on the rise, but from the start the PR campaign against it has stymied its proliferation. Environmentalists have long claimed that nuclear power plants harm the environment, due to potential radiation leaks, nuclear waste, and improper safety standards. Such a push in the early 1960s forced American nuclear power plants to run up their initial costs, with costs rising over 1000% between the 1960s and 1980s. Between these crucial 20 years, several “one-off” accidents put the thought of a nuclear world in the grave, and nations shifted back to fossil fuels or “green” energy. These accidents include Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, as well as other minor incidents involving nuclear weapons.

Three Mile Island, an American nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania, “partially melted down” in 1979. This is considered the worst nuclear incident in the United States. A failure in a critical coolant system in the plant caused Reactor 2 to overheat, which could have caused a complete meltdown. Part of the reactor core melted before crews could restore coolant back into the system, and no significant amount of radioactive material was released. The accident was largely a scare, and the media sensationalized the American public into a frenzy against nuclear power. The Dickinson Nuclear Physics Laboratory attempted to find if any radiation was released from the accident, and could not find any meaningful amounts in the surrounding area. For reference, their instruments were sensitive enough to detect Chinese nuclear atmospheric testing during the same time frame. The American government implemented new safety measures to prevent a repeat of such an event, but for the most part, there was no tangible impact to nearby residents, the biosphere, or even the workers at the plant. The next accident, however, was exponentially worse.

The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, located in the former Ukrainian SSR of the Soviet Union, was an integral part of the Soviet nuclear energy apparatus. There were up to 14 of these plants in commission, eight of which are still operating and generating power. The incident in Chernobyl occurred in 1986, and was one of the only nuclear accidents that led to casualties on the ground. The design of the reactor was severely flawed, as Soviet engineering was based on shoddy workmanship and fulfilling quotas. As a result, corners were cut, and errors made by plant workers directly contributed to the worst nuclear incident in human history. During a routine equipment test, Chernobyl operators saw that the reactor became highly unstable, and attempted to manually shut down the reactor, as the automatic shutdown systems were shut down the day before. The pressure caused by this reaction caused the reactor cover to become loose, and air entered the reactor generating steam. The sheer amount of steam created a massive explosion that blew 1,200 tons of radioactive graphite out of the central reactor, and blew the 1,000 ton reactor lid clean off the reactor shell. Nuclear fission was still occuring, and dangerous amounts of radioactive material were gushing into the atmosphere. The citizens of the nearby city of Pripyat were unaware of the dangers, and firemen were even sent to contain the blaze. Some held the radioactive pieces of graphite in their hands, and six firefighters were killed. In total, 28 died from radiation related diseases caused by the accident, and over 350,000 people were uprooted by the Soviet government (none of whom were informed why they were forcibly evacuated). The disaster spewed radiation as far west as the United Kingdom, and Chernobyl became the new face of anti-nuclear propaganda.

The most recent event that deepened the grave of nuclear energy was the Fukushima Daiichi accident after the 2011 Great Japan Earthquake. Japan is a nuclear powered country, and has three dozen operable nuclear reactors. Each of these facilities is designed to automatically shut down during seismic events, and all reactors underwent shutdowns as they were designed to do. However, at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, the damage occurred not from the earthquake itself but the ensuing tsunami. The coolant mechanisms were damaged by the tsunami, which caused a partial meltdown similar to that of Three Mile Island. However, radiation had leaked out, and radioactive water began leaking into the ocean until it was channeled into massive tanks. This event did not cause any deaths, but it did cause a significant release of radioactive material into the environment. 

These three incidents contribute to the whataboutisms the media spews about the dangerous accidents that can occur with nuclear power. Besides these events, there have been relatively few nuclear accidents, while fossil fuel/chemical leaks occur on a daily basis. Based on an EPA estimate, chemical leaks occur in the United States, on average, every two days. This is not even mentioning the oil spills that occur across the globe, which come out to roughly two spills every year. In the coal industry, during the period of 1960-2000, 822 people died mining coal, which is 29 times higher than the deaths that occurred in all nuclear energy deaths. To put these numbers into perspective, the coal and oil industries kill 25 and 18 people prematurely every year, respectively, and nuclear power would only kill someone once every 33 years. So, why does popular culture associate nuclear power plants with radiation and death? 

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

There has been slim coverage on the rather immense benefits of nuclear energy. Nuclear power in the United States alone generates “800 billion kilowatt hours of electricity and produces more than half of the nations emissions-free electricity.” This energy creation also prevents the addition of 470 million metric tons of carbon each year, the same amount of carbon as 100 million cars.

In the United States, nuclear energy has created 500,000 jobs and added $60 billion to GDP. The salaries of these workers are also 30% higher than their local averages, which raises economic output in areas with nuclear power plants and increases overall living standards.

Finally, a fully nuclear powered America can strengthen our national security, as we can remain independent from the fluctuations in fossil fuel markets. We can build new relationships with nations wishing to nuclearize, and emphasize the peaceful use of nuclear power rather than its violent counterpart. The U.S. has been hammered by rising oil and gas prices due to events in Ukraine and the Middle East, and waning off of these sources of energy can and will create a truly domestic energy sector.

With the good out of the way, there are some drawbacks to nuclear power. The sheer costs that are associated with constructing, operating and maintaining these plants are exponentially higher than fossil fuel plants, solar or wind energy. There are initial costs, which come from the initial work, such as site preparation, building materials, licensing and government contracts. The next phase, which is actual operation costs, include nuclear fuel, worker wages, waste disposal and other necessary expenditures. The final costs incurred are external government costs, which include staying up to code with regulations and insurance costs. In total, the amount of money necessary upfront is a turn-off for many nations, but for richer Western democracies, the cost is not hard to procure. The United States has the necessary capital resources to build new nuclear power plants, and has routinely done so. Furthermore, the uranium market is relatively immune from price variations, but nevertheless an increase in price can increase costs of operation. Roughly, the cost for a 1,100 Megawatt nuclear plant is between $6 to $9 billion, as opposed to $2 billion for a 600 Megawatt coal plant. For reference, 1,100 megawatts can power roughly 1.1 million homes, give or take power fluctuations and other external variables.

Cost aside, the larger issue is waste. Nuclear power is not necessarily ‘renewable’, and the uranium decays into waste products that can no longer be used as fuel for the plant. While it is a common mistake to group nuclear energy generation as ‘renewable’, the amount of radioactive elements that can be mined are finite on the Earth. What this means is that nuclear energy is ‘clean’, which means that it “comes from zero emission sources that do not pollute the atmosphere when used, as well as energy saved by energy efficiency measures.” Regardless, the generation of nuclear energy creates potential dangers in waste disposal, which includes transportation and storage. However, the technology that is currently available resolves the waste problem: as nuclear waste decays over time. As a result, any radioactivity or harm that comes with waste dissipates 40 years after it has been unloaded at a waste site. Furthermore, the transport of nuclear waste has not produced a single tangible accident, and not one person has been harmed by its transport to these sites. Nuclear waste is no more toxic than the by-products of coal, oil, gas, or other chemical production mechanisms. Finally, nuclear waste is often stored far from urban areas, like the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository in the Nevada Desert. The issue is not the waste itself, but public understanding of the perceived problem. The ugly that comes with nuclear power does not come from nuclear power exclusively. There are cheaper options that are clean and renewable power that do not have the risks associated with nuclear power, even if there is a .0002% chance of reactor failure. Regardless, it is necessary to play devil's advocate, as solar energy is substantially cheaper, more sustainable, and has positive PR compared to nuclear power. Both types of energy require further research to promote greater efficiency and safety, but a shift from fossil fuels is more than necessary.

Despite the drawbacks, there is hope on the horizon. A nuclear renaissance is possible in America, with company NuScale Power creating “small nuclear reactors” that can lower overall cost. Because the reactor produces half the power of a larger plant, it can jump the hurdles associated with these giant plants, and still generate clean energy without the skyrocketing costs. Furthermore, a new nuclear reactor finished construction and began operations as of  March 7th, 2023. This reactor, the Vogtle 3 in Georgia, will be the newest addition to the American nuclear energy network in over 7 years, and contribute to the 20% of power generated by nuclear reactors across the country.

Global warming has emerged as a demon caused by humans which can lead to our destruction. Geopolitics and diplomacy aside, something has to be done to prevent a wide scale environmental catastrophe. The United States has the resources to switch our power grid to be fueled by more sustainable sources, even divesting from hydroelectric power. Nuclear energy is a surefire, if costly, method of protecting our interests while generating massive amounts of power with little risk to the environment. Solar energy, wind, and tidal power also have these benefits, without the potential drawbacks. However, it is critical to understand that nuclear power can outproduce other types of energy, and only require a fraction of the space. Nuclear power is tested, regulated, and is constantly updating with new safety measures and new technologies increasing efficiency and power yields. This is not including research breakthroughs into nuclear fusion, which can double, or even triple, current nuclear outputs. America should invest into this burgeoning market and change the way the public views nuclear power, whether it be through energy independence, more jobs, higher wages, and cleaner air. We are at a precipice. We must choose between collapse or progress, and nuclear energy can fuel our drive into the future.

Edited by Dimitri Zlatev