Rethinking Energy: Embracing the Rise of Renewable Solutions

The debate surrounding nuclear energy is multifaceted, involving considerations of environmental impact, economic viability, and safety concerns. Proponents argue that nuclear power provides a reliable source of low-carbon energy, while opponents emphasize the risks associated with meltdowns, radioactive waste, and the economic burden of constructing and maintaining nuclear plants. This passage explores various aspects of the nuclear energy debate, shedding light on both its advocates and critics.

Nuclear energy is both expensive and dangerous, and just because nuclear pollution is invisible doesn’t mean it’s clean. Renewable energy is better for the environment and the economy and doesn’t come with the risk of a nuclear meltdown. Meltdowns like the ones in Fukushima or Chornobyl released enormous amounts of radiation into the surrounding communities, forcing hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate. Many of them may never come back. If the industry’s current track record is any indication, we can expect a major meltdown about once per decade. The possibility of a catastrophic accident at a U.S. nuclear plant can not be dismissed. There is still no safe, reliable solution for dealing with the radioactive waste produced by nuclear plants. Every waste dump in the U.S. leaks radiation into the environment and nuclear plants themselves are running out of ways to store highly radioactive waste on-site. The site selected to store the U.S.’s radioactive waste — Yucca Mountain in Nevada — is both volcanically and seismically active. Nuclear meltdowns produce a high amount of nuclear waste and regular nuclear production produces a high amount as well. There is no safe way the US could deal with nuclear waste. If they go with their old method and dump it in the ocean the fish and all sea life will die.

Nuclear energy isn’t just bad for the environment, it’s bad for our economy. Nuclear power plants are expensive to build, prompting Wall Street to call new nuclear a “bet the farm” risk. Every nuclear plant under construction in the United States is well behind schedule and at least $1 billion over budget. This is even before taking into account the astounding cleanup and health costs caused by radioactive waste pollution and nuclear meltdowns. Cleaning up Fukushima, if ever possible, will cost at least $100 billion and could be more than double that. Why invest money in a dangerous, unsustainable form of energy when we can have clean, renewable energy for less? The national debt is already at an alarmingly high number (About 23 trillion dollars) and building these plants will only cause the debt to rise. It will take years for the US to pay off its national debt. The US could spend this money maintaining its already-built power plants. Like its hydroelectric and solar power plants. The national debt is a national problem that will only get worse the more nuclear power plants.

In mid-2019, new wind and solar generators competed efficiently against even existing nuclear power plants in cost terms, and grew to generate capacity faster than any other power type, the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) showed. “Stabilizing the climate is urgent, nuclear power is slow,” said Mycle Schneider, lead author of the report. “It meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster.” The report estimates that since 2009 the average construction time for reactors worldwide was just under 10 years, well above the estimate given by industry body the World Nuclear Association (WNA) of between 5 and 8.5 years. The extra time that nuclear plants take to build has major implications for climate goals, as existing fossil-fueled plants continue to emit CO2 while awaiting substitution. “To protect the climate, we must abate the most carbon at the least cost and in the least time,” Schneider said.

Additionally, A study by the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) concluded, “Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country. ”Under a rapid expansion program, the world could have nearly five million megawatts of wind power by 2020, Brown said. He added, “Combined with an ambitious solar and geothermal expansion, along with new hydro projects in the pipeline, this would total 7.5 million megawatts of renewable generating capacity, enabling us to back out all the coal and oil and most of the natural gas now used to generate electricity. Backing out all of coal and oil (the sources of energy we rely on right now) will drastically slow down climate change. We are already in 2020 and the effects of renewables are starting to become more clear. However nuclear power plants are costly, come with the risk of a nuclear meltdown, and take years to build. Instead of wasting millions of dollars building more nuclear plants, we should spend that money maintaining our already built renewable energy sources and build more (which costs far less than building a new nuclear power plant).

The reason countries switch is for the economy and for the well-being of nature and their own citizens. Californian scientists said a fossil fuel phase-out is achievable that would contain climate change, deliver energy entirely from wind, water, and sunlight to 139 nations, and save up to 7 million lives each year. (210 million total by 2050) They said it would also create a net gain of 24 million long-term jobs, all by 2050, and at the same time limit global warming to 1.5°C or less. The roadmap depends entirely on the political determination within each country to make the switch work. But, the researchers agreed, they have provided a guide towards an economic and social shift that could save economies each year around $20 trillion in health and climate costs.

Director of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz: "After Fukushima, the prospect of such an incident occurring again came into question, and whether we can actually calculate the radioactive fallout using our atmospheric models." According to the results of the study, a nuclear meltdown in one of the reactors in operation worldwide is likely to occur once in 10 to 20 years. Currently, there are 440 nuclear reactors in operation, and 60 more are planned. Although the risk is low it does not mean it doesn’t exist. Humans are fallible and make mistakes constantly. There is nothing wrong with making mistakes, but in this case, the mistake could have severe consequences, such as a nuclear meltdown. However renewables do not use any radioactive materials, so if something goes wrong there is no risk of a nuclear meltdown occurring.

Most existing nuclear power reactors are classified as Generation 2 and are widely regarded as obsolete. The current generations of new nuclear power stations are classified as Generation 3 and 3+. Only four Generation 3 reactors have operated, so far only in Japan, and their performance has been poor. No Generation 3+ reactor is operating, although two are under construction in Europe, four in the USA and several in China. All are behind schedule and over-budget – the incomplete European reactors are already triple their budgeted prices. Not one Generation 4 power reactor – e.g. fast breeder, integral fast reactor (IFR), small modular reactor – is commercially available. So it can be argued that modern nuclear energy is not ready. This also means that, Renewable energy is ready to replace fossil fuels, and nuclear energy could fill the (alleged) gap in low-carbon energy supply. On the other hand, wind and solar are both growing rapidly and are still becoming cheaper. Large wind and solar farms can be planned and built in 2-3 years (compared with 10-15 years for nuclear) and are ready now to replace fossil and nuclear electricity.

All high-level waste is currently in temporary storage in pools or dry casks. Not one permanent repository is operating in the world. The development of the proposed US repository at Yucca Mountain in the USA was terminated after the expenditure of $13.5 billion. Underground repositories are under construction in Sweden and Finland. Even if the technical and economic challenges could be solved, the social problem of managing or isolating the repositories for 100,000 years remains. In conclusion, the discourse on nuclear energy underscores the complex trade-offs involved in seeking sustainable and efficient power sources. While nuclear energy offers a low-carbon alternative, concerns about safety, cost overruns, and radioactive waste persist. The evolving landscape of renewable energy, characterized by the rapid growth of wind and solar power, presents a compelling alternative that is increasingly cost-effective and ready to replace fossil fuels. As societies weigh the benefits and drawbacks, the pursuit of a balanced and environmentally responsible energy future remains a paramount challenge.