The world runs on electricity. In the short time that electricity has been around, it has revolutionized everyday life. Almost all modern conveniences depend on it. Electricity is necessary for transportation, communication, commerce, medicine, cooking, and many other things. The applications are obvious, but the source is sometimes overlooked. Most of the world's electricity comes from steam-electric power plants. They are essentially giant tea kettles that shoot steam through turbines which in turn rotate generators to produce the electricity that everyone is familiar with. What people often do not see, is the source of heat for this steam. Power plants most often use coal, natural gas, or nuclear reactions to create steam. While there are other sources of energy like hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, and wind, the primary three, coal, natural gas, and nuclear provide 90% of America's energy (The National Academies of Sciences). Although electricity has greatly improved the standard of living, it is also contributing to climate change. 

One of the greatest challenges the human race is facing right now is climate change. We are beginning to see how we as humans are affecting the earth. Glaciers are shrinking, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, and trees are flowering sooner. Scientists' predictions about climate change are coming true. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasts that the Earth's temperature will continue to rise over the next century, causing more drought, more heatwaves, and more intense hurricanes. By the mid century, the ice in the Arctic Ocean is expected to disappear during the summer. Sea level is expected to rise by 1 to 4 feet by 2100 (NASA). These implications will have serious impacts on the way we live. Scientists have recognized climate change as an issue for years and now the world's leaders are also calling for action. At the Paris Climate Change conference this past December, 195 countries adopted an agreement to limit climate change. The goal is to limit global warming to below 2 C. In order to achieve this goal, these countries plan on greatly reducing their CO2 emissions (UNFCCC).

Clearly something must be done to preserve the planet we all share. Scientists are calling for change, world leaders are calling for change, and some everyday people are calling for change. However, there is some disagreement on how to achieve the goals set by the Paris Agreement, specifically, reducing CO2 emissions (UNFCCC). CO2 is a greenhouse gas produced by the combustion of fossil fuels which contributes greatly to climate change. Fossil fuels, which include coal, oil, and natural gas, provide a staggering 66% of the world's electricity and 71% of the electricity in the US (TED). It is clear to most people that if we are serious about making any real change to the environment, we must address this. Countries cannot rely so heavily on fossil fuels, but the demand for electricity is only growing. The challenge we are facing is reducing our dependence on fossil fuels while still providing the electricity that is essential to modern society. The alternatives to fossil fuels are renewable energy sources (e.g. solar or wind), hydroelectric, or nuclear. The difference between how people address the challenge is that many everyday people and environmental activists oppose nuclear energy (German, Greenpeace, Weyler). In this dire situation we are all in, not using nuclear energy is a drastic measure. It is imperative that we weigh our decisions carefully in order to make a decision that is both realistic and will prevent climate change.

Nuclear energy provides 15.7% of the world's electricity and has the potential to provide much more (TED, MacKay 161-171). This electricity is created by the energy dense, radioactive element uranium. This uranium is mined, refined, and sent to a power plant where it undergoes a process called nuclear fission. This process splits the uranium atoms which release an incredible amount of energy. This energy creates the steam for a "tea kettle" kind of power plant. When the fuel has been used up, it can be pulled from the reactor and stored without any airborne emissions (World Nuclear Association). This technology has been neglected for years, never being used to its full potential. One of nuclear power's biggest roadblocks has been regular people, taxpayers, and environmental agencies that protest nuclear energy. All of these people are concerned with safety for themselves and the environment (Bailey). Greenpeace claims that "nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive," (Greenpeace). It is easy to misunderstand nuclear power; however, it may be the best way to prevent climate change because of its safety, cleanliness, and its ability to meet our growing energy demands.

People are afraid of nuclear energy. Disasters like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and more recently, Fukushima, taint people's perceptions of nuclear energy. People claim that "the catastrophic risks of nuclear energy ...  far outweigh the potential benefits," (Greenpeace). The argument is that the radiation released by nuclear meltdowns, which they claim are inevitable, will do far greater damage to people and the environment than it would to refrain from using nuclear energy (German, Weyler). In order to save people from dying of cancer, they want to close all nuclear power plants. Far too often, people associate nuclear weapons with all nuclear technology. Greenpeace is an organization that was started to protest nuclear weapons testing. This was a serious issue in 1971 and fortunately, they were successful in their efforts to stop it. They continue to oppose nuclear testing, but they also oppose nuclear energy. Their reason for putting both in the same category is that with nuclear energy, countries have access to uranium. Uranium can in turn, be used to create nuclear weapons (Greenpeace).

These arguments are based on good principles. They put human safety and the environment above economic gain. However, they are missing some crucial facts. To begin with, the claims made about Chernobyl and Fukushima's effects reflect what the media has reported, not what research has found. They claim that the radiation from these disasters has left hundreds dead and thousands with cancer (German, Weyler). They are partly true when they say that radiation is harmful to humans and the side effects of nuclear meltdowns are death (Weyler). After the disaster at Chernobyl in 1986, 28 reactor staff and emergency workers died from extremely high exposure to radiation. As of 2005, there have been 15 more deaths as a result of thyroid cancer (Nuclear Energy Institute). Chernobyl is the only incident where people have died as a result of exposure to radiation. The meltdown at Fukushima displaced many people, but there have been no reported deaths and there are not expected to be any deaths (World Nuclear Association). Contrary to many people's beliefs and the media's portrayal, it requires a lot of exposure to radiation to cause a person any harm. The average person is exposed to about 170 milliSieverts of radiation in their lifetime. It is expected that no one living near the accident will be exposed to even an additional 10 mSv of radiation. That is the equivalent to a single CT scan (World Nuclear Association). This shows that while radiation can cause death, it requires a lot more than some claim to even do any harm. 

 The other reason some people oppose nuclear energy is that they want to stop nuclear weapons proliferation. Nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors are very different. The element uranium is used in both weapons of mass destruction and nuclear reactors, but the two applications require a very different refinement process. Weapons grade uranium has to be very heavily enriched. This is a process that is very different than that required to refine uranium for nuclear energy (World Nuclear Association, Bailey). If anyone were trying to secretly enrich uranium, it would be easy to see because it is a different process, requiring different facilities altogether. If anything, nuclear energy could help to reduce nuclear weapons proliferation by reducing nuclear stockpiles. The United States and Russia both have huge nuclear stockpiles leftover. Right now, Russia is converting 10% of their stockpile into usable uranium to provide electricity (TED). Nuclear energy can help us get rid of nuclear weapons.

Not only are some of the claims about nuclear energy's safety not valid, they can lead people to promote more dangerous or unrealistic solutions. Those who reject nuclear energy either advocate for renewable and hydroelectric energy or they stand by the same fossil fuels we have relied on. In terms of individual safety, both of these have issues. Although nuclear energy is allegedly very dangerous, it results in the fewest deaths per terawatt-hour out of every major energy source, including hydroelectric, wind, and solar. This statistic is found by totaling up the total number of deaths in the life cycle of every energy source. This means that every death that occurs from coal mining, installation of solar panels, hydroelectric dams breaking, or nuclear meltdown is totaled up and attributed to their respective energy source. This statistic also includes all of the deaths that can be directly attributed to air pollution, whether that be particulates from a coal mine or smog from a factory. Coal's death rate is 161 deaths per terawatt-hour. Oil is 36, natural gas is 4, and hydroelectric is 1.4. Renewables solar and wind have a death rate of 0.44 and 0.15 respectively. Far below fossil fuels and slightly lower than renewables, nuclear energy has a death rate of 0.04 deaths per terawatt-hour (Wang). This is not based on what people predict or what the media says, this is fact. This is the actual number of lives taken by the energy industry. Saying that nuclear energy is not safe is wrong. Safe is a relative term and there are a lot of things that are far more dangerous than nuclear energy; in the case of coal, 4000 times as dangerous (Wang). Instead of going after nuclear energy, environmental activists should be more focused on shutting down the truly unsafe fossil fuel plants in order to save the environment and to save lives.

It is clear to see that nuclear energy does not do nearly as much harm to people as fossil fuels, but there is still concern over the radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants and its environmental impact (German, Weyler). The waste remains radioactive for a long time and does warrant some concern. In the past, people have not managed this waste responsibly, doing things like dumping it into the ocean (Greenpeace, Weyler). However, there is waste and a potential for pollution with all energy sources. When burning fossil fuels, the gases, like CO2 are released into the air (MacKay, 169-170). Even the manufacturing of solar panels and the construction of wind turbines create some pollution (TED). The advantage of nuclear energy is that the waste is contained and the amount of fuel used, and thus the amount of waste, is relatively small. For example, in Britain, 10 coal-fired plants create about 40 liters of waste per person per year. 10 nuclear power plants create 0.84 liters of waste per year per person. Of this, only 3% (25mL) is high-level waste. High-level waste is the nasty stuff that has to be set aside for thousands of years before it is safe. Luckily, it is already contained in the nuclear energy facility and it is a very small amount. 25mL is negligible compared to the amount of municipal waste (517kg per year per person) and hazardous waste (83kg per year per person) that Britain already has to carefully isolate. If society can already manage this amount of waste, and we have shown that we can, then we can manage a much smaller amount even if it has to be isolated for thousands of years. This is favorable when compared to fossil fuel energy, which releases greenhouse gases like CO2 to the air, contributing to climate change (MacKay, 169-170). Although nuclear waste cannot be destroyed, it can be recycled.  By modifying the reactor and refining the waste, nuclear plants can keep using spent fuel. As technology progresses, this process is becoming more efficient and inexpensive (TED, MacKay 166).

One could see how nuclear power is a much better alternative to fossil fuel energy; it results in fewer deaths, it is easier to manage the pollution, and it does not make a significant contribution to climate change. It is clear that in order to prevent climate change, we must reduce our CO2 emissions, thus we must stop using so much coal, gas, and oil for electricity. These three provide 66% of the world's electricity (The National Academies of Sciences). There must be something to fill their place if we seriously want to reduce climate change. Right now, most environmental activists and people who oppose nuclear energy want to replace fossil fuels and nuclear energy, which provide 82% of the world's electricity, with renewables and hydroelectric (German, Greenpeace. National Academics of Sciences). This is a very big undertaking. In the dire situation our planet is in, we need a realistic solution, not an idealized one. 

Renewables and hydroelectric power combined simply cannot meet the world's energy demands. In David MacKay's book, Sustainable Energy--without the Hot Air, he considers a hypothetical situation where Britain uses nothing but renewable energy sources. In his calculations, he neglects all economic, social, and environmental issues. In this unrealistic hypothetical situation, 5% of the country is covered with solar panels, these solar panels cost about $280,000 per person, another 75% is covered with energy crops, and solar panels and hot water panels take up the same space on every rooftop. Even in this impossible reality, renewable energy falls short of Britain's energy demands. They require about 195 kilowatt-hours per day per person and renewables are calculated to provide 180 kWh per day per person. A more realistic estimate puts the estimate at 18 kWh/d per person, which is still a lot higher than Britain's 2006 renewable energy output of 1.05 kWh/d per person (MacKay 103-112). Renewables alone just cannot cut it. Many countries like Germany and Holland are already maxed out on renewables like wind. There is simply no more room. Similarly, the world has already taken advantage of hydroelectric. A hydro dam can only be constructed in a specific area that can provide enough energy and not harm the environment. There are not enough of these places available to make a considerable difference (TED). Trying to switch solely to renewable and hydroelectric energy would render us unable to provide the electricity that our modern society depends on.

If we seriously want to reduce our CO2 emissions, we must consider nuclear energy. The technology is advanced enough and there is enough fuel right now to meet the world's energy demands. MacKay also looks at nuclear energy in his book and finds that if Britain uses all available technology, it could provide at least 420 kWh/d per person. This is more than twice what Britain currently requires (MacKay 161-165). That number is based on a moderate estimate of how much uranium could be extracted through mining and through seawater. There are 27 million known tons of uranium in the world that would be economical to mine, but there has been no exploration since the 1980's. It is estimated that there is 1000 times more mineable uranium that remains untouched, not to mention the 4500 million tons in the ocean. This amount of fuel would be able to sustain the world's current and future energy demands using modern nuclear technology (MacKay 162-163).

Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and preserving the environment without sacrificing our standard of living is an attainable goal. Renewables and hydroelectric energy cannot provide all of the energy that the world demands right now, but, with the help of nuclear energy, the world can have clean electricity. As the world makes the shift to clean electricity, all of theses technologies will advance. Solar panels will become cheaper and more efficient, wind turbines will become less obtrusive, there will be new innovative forms of hydroelectric power, biomass may become more efficient, and we may finally figure out how to harness the energy released by nuclear fusion (MacKay 172, TED, The National Academies of Sciences). Right now, the best thing for the world and for climate change is to work towards shutting down fossil fuel plants and individually replacing them with whatever energy source best fits, be it wind, solar, hydroelectric, or nuclear. 

Working to prevent climate change will not be easy. It will require the kind of collaboration and understanding exhibited by the Paris Conference. Governments will have to work with corporations to cut the amount of CO2 emissions (UNFCCC). One thing that stands in the way of a clean future is everyday people; the same people who support and are a part of environmental agencies dedicated to preserving the environment. Despite their good intentions, many environmental agencies oppose nuclear energy because they believe it to be dangerous and dirty. In doing so, they are standing in the way of a clean future. By objectively comparing different energy sources, it is clear to see that nuclear energy is extremely safe and produces a negligible amount of waste. Nuclear energy must be a part of the equation if we want to save the earth from climate change by reducing CO2 emissions. If environmental agencies are serious about preserving the environment for years to come, they must stop protesting nuclear energy and start supporting it. It is not a weapon. It is not certain death. It is the best shot we have at saving our planet.

