We need a solution to our climate crisis. Data from Scientists for Global Responsibility explains that the global temperature is expected to rise permanently above 1.5°C by 2032. By 2050, we could lose 16% to 30% of species forever. Every year global greenhouse gas emissions rise to a record breaking number. Even as solar and wind energy work to decrease fossil fuel usage, these efforts are often quickly offset by the very same fossil fuels they hope to crush. Our planet is slowly losing its chances of survival as we close in on the tipping point for irreversible climate change. 

Many organizations, from local to national to international, have long advocated for clean and renewable energy. However, many of these efforts focus solely on water, wind, and solar, leaving out nuclear energy from the conversation altogether.

When hearing the word nuclear, some people’s minds immediately race to war, destruction, and accidents like that of Chernobyl. But this isn’t something that came into our minds on its own. Our ideas on nuclear energy are manufactured. Capital Research Center’s Ken Braun reported that the anti-nuclear industry in the U.S. spends around 2.5 billion dollars per year on making sure we don’t see nuclear as an option. These concerns have long been within us and can often be traced back to opposition towards nuclear weapons during the 1940s-1960s, feelings that stuck through development towards productive nuclear energy.

Yes, there is a push for clean energy, but solar, wind, and water can’t be the sole objects of our focus. Neither solar nor wind produce enough energy to power our electrical systems permanently. Solar power and hydropower combined produce six times the amount of carbon dioxide that nuclear does. A single nuclear power plant can produce around a billion watts, enough to power an entire city. To make that same amount of energy, you’d need 8.5 million solar panels.

Fossil fuels are the leading killers in the energy scene, with millions dying every year from not just pollution, but also accidents and global warming. Shocking statistic: the vast majority of global carbon emissions come from the fossil fuel industry (Our World in Data).

How much would you pay for energy? A thirty billion dollar price tag awaits any potential nuclear project, over ten times that of other energy sources. Once again, this isn’t because these plants are expensive as a whole. Nuclear power plants often run over budget and past schedule due to extensive and unrealistic regulations. In 1970, there existed 400 industry standards concerning building and modifying nuclear plants. By 1978, this number grew to 2,100 and focused on six words: “as low as is reasonably achievable.” This phrase was intended to lower radiation exposure, and was based on the Linear No-Threshold model. The LNT model is a principle stating that exposure itself accumulates over a lifetime and that every amount, no matter how small, poses risks. Therefore, power plants were advised to get radiation exposure as low as is reasonably achievable. 

But what exactly does this mean? Apparently, even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn’t know. In 2021, the NRC stated that “it is generally impossible to determine whether or not there are any increases [in radiation exposure].” Engineers were asked about unreasonable and impossible scenarios, and were forced to take them into account in order to achieve a radiation level of as low as reasonably achievable. Constant changes, redesigns, and inspections pushed projects past deadlines and into more and more debt. Power plants from New York, Texas, Tennessee, and more were all delayed over ten years, some even up to seventeen years. Nuclear plants needed funding, but who would finance something that was practically a bottomless money pit? These plants needed three months of revenue to make up for one month of delay, and that just isn’t practical in these kinds of situations. With this, the push for nuclear power died out, and its negative portrayal in pop culture was the final nail in the coffin.

The Simpsons is a family favorite for many U.S. households. A big part of the show’s setting is the nuclear power plant Homer Simpson works at, which is shown to be dangerous to the people, town, and environment. With its dominance over global audiences, it is impossible to deny that our perception of nuclear power as a dangerous thing is something that has been influenced by the media we consume. While the words radioactive and nuclear have long been used for superfluous and exaggerated depictions, it’s about time that everyone learns that Nuclear Power isn’t all that nuclear.

We often think back to nuclear disasters like Fukushima and Chernobyl when talking about why we shouldn’t use nuclear power. But how much radiation did cleaning up these disasters actually give people? The average dose for liquidators cleaning up Chernobyl was 120 millisieverts. A millisievert measures the biological effects radiation causes and quantifies it into a unit. 120 millisieverts might sound like a lot, but believe it or not, a smoker might receive around 160 millisieverts per year. That’s right, in a radiation competition, a heavy smoker would receive 40 millisieverts more from their cigarettes than a Chernobyl cleaner would.

Similar to this, how many deaths has nuclear power actually caused? The answer? Only 90 deaths per 1000TWh produced. It isn’t like this is an unfair number produced from variances in industries, either. Deaths in energy fields are measured per units of electricity in order to compare impacts equally. Terawatt hours (a trillion kilowatt hours) are often used in order to bring numbers to a reasonable scale. On a graph, this number can’t even be seen in comparison to other energy sources. 90 deaths per 1000TWH is just over half of those by wind, less than twenty percent of solar and just six percent that of hydropower. Since 1951, 667 Nuclear power plants have been built across the world. From these 667 plants, only three major catastrophes have actually happened. That is a less than half of a percent chance for a nuclear accident across the entire globe. 

Nuclear energy is a great source of power and clean energy. Politicians, however, don’t want you to know that. When nuclear energy plants close down, coal, gas, and oil plants turn a higher profit. In 2017, court documents showed that the Cuomo Administration knew that their lobbying to shut down the Indian Point Nuclear Plant would benefit the local natural gas industry. At the same time, Cuomo’s former aide and campaign manager was found to have been taking bribes from natural gas companies to speed up the closure of Indian Point’s Nuclear Plant. In addition, a nonprofit group called “Riverkeeper” posted an article highlighting the risks of the Indian Point Plant and demanding it be shut down. In fact, this organization, in total, has posted around 360 articles concerning and disapproving of nuclear energy. However, unfortunately, Riverkeeper’s claim to fame stemmed from having Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as their chief prosecuting attorney, the same man who today earns up to around thirty thousand dollars a year from the oil and gas industry. 

Germany is often described as a leader in clean energy and its production. Yet Germany in 2016, despite building more renewable energy sources, gained 3.3% less energy than the previous year. Fraunhofer, a German research institute, reported a fifty percent increase in gas energy production in the same year. The reason? It simply just wasn’t very sunny or windy in 2016.

Renewables can’t be what we focus on when we say clean energy. We have neither the ability to store it for long periods of time, nor produce enough of it to sustain our society. Perhaps we could make more wind farms or solar fields, but we shouldn’t have to jump through hoops just to give ourselves the illusion that we’re saving the Earth. By 2030, climate change will become irreversible. We can’t wait another four years for renewable energy to fix itself. We need clean energy now. Six large nuclear reactors could power the entirety of New York City, which has a population of 8.5 million people! All of the nuclear waste ever made could fit in a football field, so why worry about it? Nuclear energy provides a solution to every one of our problems, all we have to do is change our perspective.