Nuclear energy has long been a topic of fascination and fear, often depicted as a double-edged sword in science fiction movies, shows, and books.
Many view nuclear energy as a dangerous energy source because of its association with catastrophic events like atomic bombs and reactor meltdowns. However, these growing concerns about the environmental impact of fossil fuels and nuclear power deserve a closer look.
Studies have consistently shown that fossil fuels contribute significantly to adverse environmental impacts like climate change, deforestation, and rising sea levels. In response, numerous federal and state laws have restricted their use.
In California, new reactors cannot be built until technologies are developed to safely dispose of nuclear waste, as outlined in the Warren-Alquist Act of 1974. The state’s last reactor, Diablo Canyon power plant, is under threat of being decommissioned by 2030.
With fossil fuel reserves projected to be depleted in 100 to 150 years, according to the Statistical Review of World Energy, the United States’ dependence on these resources raises long-term concerns.
Despite efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, they accounted for 82% of U.S. energy consumption in 2023, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Renewable sources, including wind, solar, geothermal, and biofuels, collectively made up 9%. At the same time, nuclear energy, with only 93 reactors nationwide, provided an impressive 9%.
Uranium-235, the main ingredient in the nuclear energy process, also has an energy density millions of times higher than fossil fuels, according to the European Nuclear Society.
Though nuclear energy seems complex and out of reach for many, the process is relatively straightforward when broken down.
“Like most of the energy sources we have, what nuclear does is turn water into steam, and we use that steam to push turbines around to generate electricity. Fossil fuels do this by combusting organic material. Nuclear does this by arranging radioactive metals in such a way that they heat each other up. The advantage here is that nuclear power doesn’t release any carbon into the atmosphere like combusting ancient plants and animals do,” said White House Science Communication Adviser and YouTuber Kyle Hill.
A small number of reactors is proven to produce a significant share of the nation’s power. Despite this, nuclear energy remains underutilized and often overlooked by citizens and policymakers due to its poor reputation.
“Nuclear energy is perfectly positioned to address climate change because it’s both clean and powerful. Wind and solar are also needed, of course, but they need more space and more reliability. Nuclear can produce an enormous amount of energy without releasing greenhouse gasses, no matter if the sun is shining or if the wind is blowing,” Hill said.
High-profile incidents, such as the Chornobyl disaster and the more recent Fukushima meltdown, have shaped public perception, fueling fears of apocalyptic fallout and uncontrollable dangers. However, these fears are often exaggerated or based on outdated information. Advances in technology and rigorous safety protocols have made modern nuclear reactors far safer than their predecessors.
“A lot of the time, the media tends to exaggerate the negative consequences of nuclear energy because they focus so heavily on the two or three nuclear disasters that happen, but if you really look at it, many places across our country have nuclear energy sources, and very few of them have problems, if any. It’s only when a big disaster happens that the media amplifies it,” said Tara Krishnan, president of the Carlmont Green Team club.
The Fukushima disaster, which occurred 13 years ago, was caused not by reactor failure but by an unpredictable natural disaster: a 7.4-magnitude earthquake followed by a tsunami. According to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, such extreme scenarios are rare and have driven even stricter safety measures in the industry.
“The biggest misconception about nuclear energy is that it isn’t safe. Nuclear energy is extremely safe. Everyone remembers Chornobyl and Fukushima, but we’ve all seemed to have forgotten about fossil fuel pollution,” Hill said.
A Harvard study found that one in five deaths worldwide is linked to fossil fuel-related illnesses such as heart attacks, respiratory disorders, strokes, asthma, and absenteeism. Fossil fuel emissions have also been tied to higher rates of autism and Alzheimer’s disease. Research by News Medical found that maternal exposure to sulfur dioxide, a byproduct of burning fossil fuels, during pregnancy increases the risk of children being on the autism spectrum.
Although meltdowns are rare, other pressing concerns remain. For example, spent fuel, the byproduct of nuclear fission is highly radioactive and dangerous to people if not properly dealt with. Currently, most U.S. nuclear waste is stored in sealed steel containers at reactor sites. These containers, known as dry casks or spent fuel pools, are a short-term solution.
“Nuclear reactor fuel is radioactive, and long-term storage options are not sufficiently safe for the thousands of years some of the radioactive products need to be managed,” said Daniel Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at UC Berkeley (RAEL).
While concerns about nuclear energy are not entirely unfounded, many are either unrealistic or based on misconceptions. Addressing these fears with facts and advancing public understanding could pave the way for nuclear energy to play a more significant role in a sustainable energy future.
