As the world population continues to increase, energy demand has reached an all time high and is not slowing down. The controversy on how to meet the growing energy demand is at the forefront of various nations political agendas. Although many have different ideas on how to combat the energy crisis there is only one clear cut idea that stands above the rest on an efficient and doable solution, nuclear energy. Nuclear energy must be accepted, exploited, and expanded in the United States and the international community to combat the energy crisis. 

Nuclear energy is a complicated subject and in order to understand the politics on the issue it is necessary to understand how nuclear energy works. For those who have taken base level chemistry class, we all learned the anatomy of an atom. The “brain” or nucleolus contains neutrons and protons, while the outer “shell” of the atom, contains electrons. Nuclear energy starts by manipulating one of the largest atoms on the periodic table, Uranium (Union of Concerned Scientists). Uranium is a rare mineral obtained through mining. It is radioactive and the mining waste needs to be safely stored, once the processes of the uranium is complete. The atoms of uranium are harnessed in massive nuclear reactors, where neutrons are shot at the uranium atoms. This process starts a chain reaction of dismantling the other neutrons, essentially forcing them to “bounce around” the reaction. This process is called nuclear fission (Union of concerned scientist). The fission produces energy in the form of heat. The heat produces, is absorbed by rods, which are in turn used to heat up water and boil it into steam at about 520 degrees F (Union of Concerned scientists). The steam rises through chambers to turn a turbine and generate usable electricity for people like you and me. Once the energy process is complete, the expended fuel rods need to be safely until the radioactivity of the fuel rods is deemed safe.

The process of creating energy through nuclear power seems complicated, so why not just use alternatives such as solar and wind? The answer lies within efficiency and output. A quote by TED talk speaker Michael Shullen Borger explains it perfectly, “Although clean energy electricity has been increasing, the percentage of usage is in decline, the opposite of what we should be doing.”. To explain that further, Borger is talking about how clean energy methods such as solar and wind have been increasing. This statistic alone seems like a great thing, however, the usage of electricity and energy is also increasing, and it is increasing at a faster rate than solar and wind is. Solar and wind energy is very inefficient, and it takes massive amounts of solar and wind farms to generate enough electricity to be even closely compared to the energy generated by a singular nuclear plant. Since 2006 nuclear energy has decreased by 7% and is on pace to continue to decrease more (Burger). This means that the percentage of clean energy will only to continue to decrease and the world is at risk to lose 4X the amount of clean energy we have lost in the last 10 years (Burger). The downward trend in nuclear energy has come from a public misconception about nuclear energy. World Poll found that nuclear is not popular with the public, finding that only 28% are in favor of it. The public fear that because of a few incidents in which nuclear waste was mishandled, it is dangerous and not worth it. Although nuclear waste is dangerous, comparing it to the alternatives, such as coal, makes the decision much easier. Burger put it into a great analogy, he said “Nuclear waste we have every produced if stacked on a football field is only 20 ft high, just sitting there, vs pollution which kills millions of people a year and threatens the entire global ecosystem.”. It has been estimated that nuclear energy has saved 2 million lives since 1970 (Kilester). Burger finished off the talk with a strong statement, “We are not in a clean energy revolution, we are in a clean energy crisis.” 

Outside of the United states, nuclear energy is starting to be more accepted. One of the biggest areas of growth is in the middle east. My first impression on nuclear energy in the middle east was asking myself why, the world largest concentration of oil is building nuclear energy? After reading the article “Nuclear Energy in the Middle East: Chimera or Solution?” it made a lot more sense. Saudi Arab, The United Arab Emirates, and Iran produce a large majority of the worlds oil. Producing oil and processing it into usable fuel to sell and export, requires a lot of energy. So much so that with a projected increase in oil exploitation and production, is expected to increase the energy demand by 2030, to that of Russia, a clearly much larger country (Nuclear energy in the middle east). Saudi Arabi alone burned 58% of global usage in 2014 (Nuclear energy in the middle east). The Arab states impose price locks, on oil produced within the states. This means that the companies and state produced oil is forced to underprice their oil intensely, destroying the potential profits that could be made by exporting to countries such as the U.S. Other than the massive business incentive to creating other ways to get energy, like nuclear, fossil fuels are rapidly decreasing as the demand for energy increases. The Arab countries are realizing this and understand that in order to continue having economic prosperity in the future, they need to establish a reliable source of energy to run the energy grid. Establishing a system of nuclear energy can do that. The benefits have been realized and Saudi Arabi has made a major commitment to nuclear energy, projecting to produce 16 reactors which would produce 20 percent of the power and cost 80 billion, however because of a large decrease in fuel prices projected incomes have taken a massive hit. The creation of the nuclear plants however would save the companies billions on saving fuel for resale. Russia are big promoters in assisting the middle eastern nations in this. 

Nuclear energy has another potential major benefit for the middle east, water. Since the middle east is primarily desert, there are little to no fresh water sources. This means that the majority of there drinking water comes from the process of desalinization. Desalinization is the process in which the salt or salinity, is removed from the water turning it into usable drinking water. The process is energy intensive because it causes for millions of gallons of water to be boiled which then leaves the salt behind (Rabinowitz). Previously and still currently, middle eastern countries relied on natural gas to power the desalinization plants, which again take away from the natural gas that they are able to sell and profit off of (Rabinowitz). However, with nuclear power plants scientists have created a way to use the steam created to generate electricity, and condense it back into drinkable water. Using this method can help eliminate the need for massive desalination plants, and the added energy needed to run them, “Killing two birds with one stone” type of thinking. To relate this back to the US, adopting a process like this could have major benefits in areas such as California. California has been experiencing major droughts. The massive agricultural businesses drain local fresh water supply to grow there crops, which has has huge repercussions for all of those who live south of the ever depleting water supply. Using in desalinization and nuclear power, would not only help to promote a greater supply of clean and useful energy in California, but also supply useful water to replenish the depleted sources, from the massive cost line of California.

As we can see in the middle east, the world is beginning to dive into the growing sector of nuclear energy while America sits back and watches. Not only the nations in the middle east are growing there nuclear plants, but are often looked at rivals, China and Russia, are also making strides in the nuclear industry. The U.S was once leading in development and usage if nuclear energy but has recently fallen due to lack of development, to China and Russia (Kilester). There are a few different reasons for this. Nuclear plants have high initial costs, which is one of the reasons why it has taken so long to pick up in popularity. Combining that with extremely low costing fossil fuels, completely discourages private investing as well as government spending. Another reason is inconsistency from the government. The majority of advances in nuclear energy, such as new and safer reactors, as well as more efficient methods, are coming from the private sector. University’s and private energy companies invest billions into the nuclear industry each year (Kilester). The government, however, has created many nuclear energy programs that run for a few years and are then abandon, this prevents any major strides or contribution from the government. Due to the lack of commitment by the government, and constantly changing policy’s, nuclear energy companies have begun to look elsewhere. U.S Power Company, majorly invested in by Bill Gates, is building and running there first new reactor model in China because U.S regulatory environment is to strict (Kilester). Environmentalists have set CO2 emission goals to help combat global warming. However the rate of alternative energy infrastructure being built is not nearly fast enough to achieve goals set for 2050 (Kilester). As coal and fossil fuels continue to burn, CO2 continues to build in the atmosphere. Increased CO2 concentration leads to increased temperatures, rising sea levels, and ozone depletion. (******) In order to achieve the CO2 emission cuts, nuclear energy development needs to begin now. Planning and establishing nuclear power plants takes tens of years, sometimes up to 20 years. For this reason, planning and building must begin now. As we have seen with the hesitation to build because of price, money talks. 

As we move forward with the issue of energy and CO2 cutting, the trend is turning coal fire plants into natural gas fire plants. Natural gas does emit less CO2 than coal does. However, if the trend continues, and all coal fire plants are replaced by natural gas, natural gas usage would increase 70% (Kilester). That would sky rocket the price of natural gas, making using and gas fire vehicle or machinery would become far to expensive to think about using. If we wait however until the price hike does take place, it will be to late to establish a nuclear industry, as mentioned earlier.  

Looking to our neighbors in the east can also help to highlight the benefits to nuclear energy. France is arguable the best example of nuclear energy and its potential for success. France derives about 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy and is the worlds largest net exporter of energy because of it (WNA). France rakes in 3 billion Euros a year on the electricity they export. In addition, about 17% of that is generated from recycled nuclear fuel. France makes up another 15% of there electricity through the use of hydroelectricity, or using moving water to generate electricity. The combination of these two things makes France one of the worlds leaders in CO2 reduction and clean energy suppliers (WNA). All of this did not happen overnight however. In 1974 during the oil shock that sent fuel prices through the roof, the French government laid out the blue prints. With a strong force of engineers, the French build 58 nuclear reactors, providing thousands of high paying jobs and making their country almost completely energy independent. 

The economic benefits seen in France could easily be brought to the U.S. It is estimated that every dollar spent on nuclear energy production, has a $1.87 return on investment (Nuclear Energy institute). Those numbers prove the potential for massive economic growth. In addition, each plant pays an estimated $16 million in state and local taxed, with an additional $67 million federal taxes paid annually (NEI). The taxes collected rom each plant go towards building and funding local roads, schools, bridges and other public entities. Beside just the financial aspect, nuclear energy creates jobs. It’s estimated that 3,500 people are employed during the process of building the facility, and generates 400-700 permanent jobs with salaries 36% higher than the average (NEI). Creating jobs, as well as creating highly paid jobs can instantly impact any local area of a nuclear plant. Each plant generates an estimated $470 million annually by sale of goods and services. (NEI) Not only does the production and running of plants provide economic benefits, but one plant provides economic benefits to a large array of companies across the country. Due to all of the components and different expertise and services that go into each plant, it is estimated that annually the nuclear industry contracts with 22,500 companies a year which provides 14.2 billion in products and services (NEI). As the numbers prove the nuclear industry has even greater potential to impact the economy than the current numbers show. If we expand the industry, the nation will experience radical growth in various industry’s, higher paying jobs, and a new supply of clean and efficient energy.

With every pro comes a con. Opponents to the nuclear energy industry name various cons as to why the industry should be abandoned. On the financial aspect, building a nuclear reactor and site does require a massive initial investment. Building nuclear reactors requires a lot of inspections, and at a moments notice something could go wrong and the entire project, no matter the amount of capitol already invested, could have to be abandoned. Another strong point of opponents is security. Especially in areas such as the middle east, securing not only the site, but the plutonium waste is a major concern. Since plutonium can be used to create nuclear weapons, there would be a large investment required to enforce harsh security measures. Lastly, and most pressing, is the required care with the nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is radioactive, meaning it cannot simply be thrown in a dumpster and buried like normal waste. Nuclear waste needs to be safely stored far away from civilization and must be secure enough that it does not leek into watersheds or animal habitats. Dealing with this has been an issue, and the government has invested billions of dollars into different storing methods. One of the most popular ideas and the most heavily invested is storing it within a mountain. Yucca mountain has been the most attractive in the eyes of the government, and billions have been invested in building various tunnels and storage cites within the mountain.

The future of our planet lies in the hands of those that live on it. Our generation is the generation that decides whether we will address this issue now and take the initiative, or leave it to be dealt with by our children, when it is to late. Nuclear energy is the only current clean energy source that provides the needed energy of the worlds ever growing usage. Other nations across the world have invested and successfully exploited the benefits of nuclear energy, and it is time the United States looks to our neighbors and foreign allies, and begins embarking down the path for a cleaner and nuclear future.   