The debate pits those urging the rapid adoption of nuclear energy against critics who point out the still-salient risks of nuclear power.
As fossil fuels fall increasingly from favor as a result of a warming planet and the increasing prevalence of climate-related natural disasters, such as the Palisades Fire in California, an alternative source of energy must be found as soon as possible to avert both a climate catastrophe and a dramatic decline in the quality of life in both the developed and developing worlds. At first glance, nuclear energy seems to fit the bill. Among other things, it is reliable in all sorts of weather conditions, does not produce greenhouse gases and has high energy density. However, as the ghosts of Chernobyl and Fukushima, as well as the near-miss at Three Mile Island, can attest, nuclear energy has dangers as well.
Even so, the world is at a turning point with regard to embracing green energy. There is no doubt that carbon has to go, but is nuclear energy the solution?
To Read the Pro Side of This Debate, Go Here.
The pro-nuclear power party states that nuclear power should be pursued, but not in opposition to fossil fuels or to arrest the development of climate change. Instead, the shift to nuclear power should be grounded in the original, bipartisan principles of domestic nuclear power policy formulated in 1947, which frame the matter as a national security issue. After all, to compete with China in the artificial intelligence revolution will require a reliable power source to fuel the data centers and computers powering it. In addition, such a shift will make the matter less subject to the constantly shifting winds of party politics and more subject to the pivotal values of US nuclear leadership and competitive advantage.
To Read the Con Side of This Debate, Go Here.
The anti-nuclear party disagrees, arguing that nuclear reactors, especially small nuclear reactors (SMRs), are way overblown as a solution to the world’s energy crisis. Prime among these concerns include what one author describes as the “albatross of nuclear energy — safety, waste, water.” For instance, President Trump’s recent executive order allowing the override of Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) reviews may accelerate the construction and deployment of reactors, but the long list of misses and near-misses involving either nuclear energy and nuclear waste is greatly concerning and may only increase in the future. In addition, due to the high level of water required to cool the reactors and the rising temperature of water as a consequence of a warming planet, they may not be appropriate for all locations.
Image: Shutterstock/Dmitry Dolhikh
