It is estimated that within this century, we will have depleted our currently existing fossil fuels. The resources that have fueled the global economy for over 150 years and supplied 80% of the world’s energy needs will be gone in roughly 50 years. Current predictions state that oil resources will be gone by 2074, natural gas in 2077, and coal will be the only one to survive the century, estimated to last until 2138. (Ritchie and Rosado) If we do not address this issue, the generations to come will run out of the vast majority of energy resources. However, most alternative energy sources will not serve as an effective solution for all. All but one of them. Despite its skepticism and historical mistakes, nuclear energy is the best solution for meeting our world’s growing energy needs.
Before we look at nuclear and why it is so important, we must first look at other alternative energy sources and their impact on US energy. Sources like solar, wind, and hydroelectric, among other renewables, account for 21.4% of all energy in the United States. These sources are great in many cases, and when the criteria allow it, act as great sources of energy for a large and diverse population.
Looking at the benefits of renewable energy, it is shown across the board that the main three mentioned before are among some of the most cost-effective energy sources around. In addition, individual benefits of each exist which make each effective in certain situations.
For example, solar energy has a low land-use-to-power ratio, meaning that the amount of space used in comparison to the energy produced is highly effective. This, coupled with its low maintenance allows for solar to be a viable source of energy for individual homeowners, allowing them to cut costs on power and promote energy independence. However, solar also has setbacks. Factors like a high upfront cost, a dependence on the sun, and resource scarcity all come into play when discussing solar’s limits.
As for wind power, land use comes back into play, where wind power can be implemented in rural areas in combination with farmland and multi-use working landscapes, allowing for versatility that solar farms cannot provide. Wind energy is also a great economic stimulator, providing over $2 billion in state and local tax payments as well as land lease payments. This money is given back to communities and can be used in the development of education, infrastructure, and other local affairs. Where wind falls short is in the fact that many ideal wind sites are in remote areas, meaning that installation difficulties grow when connecting urban areas and energy production
Finally, there is hydroelectric power, which boasts a variety of advantages.
Hydropower has high energy efficiency in comparison to other sources, sitting at 90% efficiency in converting water to energy. Other sources pale in comparison, where solar, wind and coal are 30-36%, 25-45%, and 33-40% efficient respectively. In addition, hydroelectric sources can run almost constantly, only ever being stopped for general repairs and maintenance. From an economic standpoint, the energy produced from hydropower is extremely stable, with little to no price fluctuations in the energy produced. The source also promotes stable development, as it encourages the need for infrastructure improvements all across the board. Once again, this energy is great when the conditions are right, though its reliance on large water sources as well as a high upfront cost and ecological impact on fish species hinders its ability to be relied on as more than a secondary source.
As stated before, each of these energy alternatives greatly suits the specific needs of communities throughout our nation. Yet, their limitations keep them from becoming the backbone energy source needed for such high demand. This is where nuclear finally comes into play, as it exceeds the benefits of each source already mentioned while addressing the needs and limitations with ease.
For starters, nuclear energy has no production limitations in comparison to solar and wind, meaning it can produce energy around the clock at full capacity if necessary. Nuclear can be placed virtually anywhere that it is needed, and seems to greatly benefit the vast majority of people affected by the energy source. Nuclear is one of America’s greatest energy sources in terms of economic stimulation. An estimated 475,000 direct and indirect jobs are supported by the nuclear industry nationwide, with roughly $60 billion being contributed to GDP each year. As for the average person in America, nuclear energy is cheaper. France, a nation that relies on nuclear for 65-70% of its energy, has costs that are on average 40% cheaper than its next-door neighbor, Germany.
This is because nuclear is one of the most efficient and cost-effective energy sources, producing some of the highest outputs in energy for a single source. Nuclear energy has only been implemented through 54 nuclear power plants across the nation, yet it contributes to roughly 20% of all energy used in the United States, all while emitting zero greenhouse gas emissions in the production of its energy. Nuclear also has the smallest land-use-to-power ratios, with just .3 m2/MW. To put that into perspective, a single megawatt can instantaneously power roughly 750 homes. Among the nuclear reactors that are currently active in the United States, the R.E. Ginna plant in New York–the smallest in the US–provides electricity for over 400,000 homes with just a single reactor. On the other side, the Palo Verde Generating Station–the largest in the US–powers over 4 million homes and businesses across the southwest.
In addition to its high energy efficiency, it also stands as one of the most clean energy sources around, a factor which is especially important in curbing the growing climate crisis. In fact, nuclear emits roughly 4x less C02 than solar power in production. As for fossil fuels, nuclear is 40x cleaner than coal and 70x cleaner than gas. In addition, nuclear holds great potential for sustaining our world’s energy needs for longer than fossil fuels, as 96% of all nuclear resources can be recycled after use. There are also early stages of research into nuclear breeder reactors, which if ever brought to full realization, could theoretically sustain human energy needs for hundreds if not thousands of years. However, currently, research stands at a relatively cautious spot, as further safety requirements and precautions are necessary for the process.
The final matter to be discussed with nuclear is its controversial past. Disasters like Chornobyl and Fukushima have tainted the reputation of nuclear energy, despite both largely being caused by improper supervision and inadequate safety measures. The United States on the other hand has pioneered safe nuclear energy programs that have ensured that disasters of the past do not repeat themselves. As for the nuclear waste produced through energy production, misconceptions cause worry among the general public where they are not needed. A common idea of living near a nuclear reactor is that it will emit radiation that can negatively affect nearby residents. On average, nuclear power plants emit roughly .01, where the amount needed to be potentially dangerous in developing cancers in the far future is 100 mSv. In comparison, in just two airplane flights, you would absorb roughly the same amount of radiation as living next to a nuclear reactor for a whole year.
Ultimately, nuclear poses a greater potential for energy diversity while aiding in reducing our unsustainable use of fossil fuels. Implementing greater use of nuclear energy throughout the nation will allow us to extend the time necessary to develop a true energy solution in the far future. By supporting nuclear energy, we can push for cleaner and more efficient energy throughout America, improving the lives of millions and giving us the next step in solving the energy crisis.
