“The future is renewable energy.” So proclaimed this much-repeated prediction, which became embedded in my mind, whether through schoolwide water conservation presentations or fourth grade renewable energy projects.
However, the general verdict was clear. The Earth can no longer continue on its current path, seeming to spiral toward catastrophe, as humans cause irrevocable damage to their own home.
While sitting in a coffee shop with a friend recently, we debated the implications of nuclear power. His stance was that nuclear power had the potential to be an extremely efficient source of energy, yet, because many people fear nuclear meltdowns — that no longer seem to happen — nuclear power stations will not be widely implemented.
Nuclear power is often viewed as a dangerous and unstable process, especially because of previous accidents at nuclear power plants, such as the Three Mile Island accident, Chernobyl meltdown or the Fukushima nuclear disaster. While energy derived from fossil fuels has a worse impact on the Earth, causing pollution and global warming, the effects are indirect and usually unnoticeable. However, the harm that nuclear energy causes is much more direct, causing widespread fear.
In reality, nuclear power has become much safer, and the past decades have proven that it is not only a safe means of generating electricity, but it is also incredibly efficient and cost-effective. Besides its initial costs, a nuclear power plant can last for decades as a reliable energy source, and according to Spring Power & Gas, nuclear fission is almost 8,000 times more efficient than fossil fuels. And, according to MIT Climate, one nuclear reactor can produce the same amount of energy as 800 wind turbines or 8.5 million solar panels. Unlike solar or wind power, nuclear power doesn’t depend on the time or season, being able to produce energy reliably year-round.
However, nuclear power is not without significant drawbacks that keep it from being widely implemented. For one, nuclear waste disposal involves significant risks to the environment. Nuclear waste is a byproduct of nuclear reactors that contains or emits radioactive particles. If these particles are not properly managed, they can pose a risk to human health or the environment. Luckily, according to Orano, a nuclear power company, up to 96% of the uranium and plutonium can be recovered and recycled into uranium-based products. Disposal of the remaining 4% is possible, but it is not ideal, as any mistakes can put our health at risk.
Recommended for you
Half of Ukraine’s electricity is produced by nuclear energy. Early in the current war, however, Russia targeted Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, causing the country to suffer from a lack of usable power.
Nuclear power plants create obvious targets for terrorists or enemy nations. And though it is very unlikely that nuclear power will soon become America’s sole source of energy, there is still potential for harm.
Despite these drawbacks, a greater implementation of nuclear power may happen. With greater utilization of artificial intelligence, many companies are finding that the current energy is not enough to maintain AI, and nuclear power is a mostly sustainable and renewable efficient alternative. In September, Microsoft made a deal with Three Mile Island, a nuclear reactor near Middletown, Pennsylvania, that had the worst commercial nuclear meltdown in U.S. history, to reopen the site to power Microsoft’s new AI ambitions. Other tech companies are following suit and looking to nuclear power as an environmentally friendly and efficient way to power their technology, creating a greater trend toward reliance on nuclear energy.
And though there are popular misconceptions or general detrimental drawbacks, we should spread out the types of energy we rely on as well, having diversification between different types of renewable energy, to ensure a constant source of power for the country.
And if we do, we can hopefully come out with a brighter and healthier renewable future.
Ellen Li is a senior at Aragon High School in San Mateo. Student News appears in the weekend edition. You can email Student News at news@smdailyjournal.com.
(9) comments
Thanks for your column, Ms. Li. Nuclear power is the greenest form of energy and is one of the most efficient. Unfortunately, being efficient goes against the man-made climate change industrial complex. With nuclear power, there would be much less taxpayer money gifted to solar and wind power companies and these subsidized industries would cease to exist due to their inefficiencies and waste. When government is attempting to pick winners and losers, we know that in the end, taxpayers will be the losers. For solar and wind power companies, it’s all about the green (as in money) and not making green energy efficient.
Thank you Ellen for your thoughtful and well-researched article!
Hello Ellen - such a welcome change from many of your contemporaries who often seem compelled to address the dark side of our energy infrastructure. When even Newsom decided to extend the licensing of Diablo Canyon, one realizes that nuclear energy has a vital role in our future generation mix. Thank you for your research and your excellent writing. The Netherlands is currently contemplating the addition of two nuclear units. And, as I write this from El Salvador, its government has just formed a commission to explore a nuclear generation option. This a page that we do need to turn.
Dirk, when you say "the Netherlands is currently contemplating the addition of two nuclear units" do you mean they are bringing Jorg and one of his nuclear friends home?
Not So Common - in the Netherlands they have a saying that one can infill canals with folks like Jorg. In other words, they are a dime a dozen. No need for more of them.
Nuclear power at this point is the more expensive form of "green" energy. Considering the current production cost, that power might cost 3-4 times what other renewables cost. When various states tried to build new reactors the projects stopped and failed because of cost overrun and the typical mismanagement. America at this point seems incapable of finishing any projects anymore (HSR anybody?) - except highway widenings.
If any energy company is compelled to build new reactors, they will be asking for subsidies from federal and state taxes to make up for the difference between the cheapest forms of "green" energy (on-shore wind and solar). They want to make the same amount of money as solar farms, so the taxpayer will have to subsidize this.
Old nuclear power plants are usually another nightmare as they become troubled assets requiring large, expensive cleanup operations. Of course the energy company will go accidently bankrupt at that point leaving everything to the taxpayer.
So if the taxpayer is willing to subsidize each KW produced and each tone of waste being disposed and the cleanup 30-50 years from now, then nuclear power is a great base level source of energy. And with EVs and AI requiring more and more power, researching smaller and less dangerous versions of nuclear power should certainly be considered.
Hard working Americans already subsidize American families and now the 12-20 million illegal immigrants who Joe allowed into the USA. Might as well subsidize nuclear energy since apparently the Federal government believes money grows on trees as our Nations debt is about to hit $36 TRILLION.
Hey eGerd, TBot here – you make an interesting point about nuclear energy and taxpayer subsidies. However, we can’t forget that solar and wind energy is already heavily subsidized and I’d imagine total subsidies, if they’re needed at all, would be lower with nuclear power plants. As for nuclear waste, other nations making use of nuclear power manage their nuclear waste efficiently. The following link makes a case for nuclear power (https://californiaglobe.com/fr/ringside-view-the-case-for-nuclear-power/) and addresses some of the concerns you’ve listed. If “greenies” aren’t interested in nuclear power as an alternative, are they really “greenies”? Or are they looking for some of the man-made climate change industrial complex funding?
The subsidy story is a little more complicated than that. The difference is really where the subsidies end up.
Some 30 years ago politicians in Europe allowed consumers to combine purchasing power and buy "green energy" from "green sources". This led to private citizens paying a little more for their energy, but having the bragging rights to claim being "green". This helped moving wind and solar power towards becoming cheaper. Then governments (e.g. Spain, Germany) subsidized installation of solar for residential use and wind for more commercial installations.
While it sounds like it is a subsidy for consumers, what this really did was helping small business solar installers. Farmers benefitted from that too as they installed lots of panels on their barns and wind turbines in unused parts of their fields. They essentially became small power producers. This created a whole new industry sector, protected old jobs, and created new economies of scale. Solar and Wind became cheaper. By 2010-2015 solar was already one of the cheapest form of energy with onshore wind closely behind.
Of course California did this all wrong. They created their CCAs (Consumer Choice Aggregates) once solar and wind were already the cheapest - so PCE was founded at a time in 2016, when it was already obsolete. So now it's only greenwashing or "carbon laundering" to make San Mateo County politicians look "green". But as long as you don't see bike and bus lanes the only thing "green" about them is behind their ears or in their wallets.
Anyways, now PG&E is pushing away from residential solar and onshore wind (good for small businesses) towards solar farms and offshore windfarms - very expensive initial installations paid for by consumers and then the money is divided between PG&E and some large monopoly.
Just for the record there is really no good setup for creating energy. The nuclear waste is bad to get rid of, but the electronic waste from panels, EVs and batteries isn't far behind either. While on is highly regulated, the other not at all.
And still currently the best form of energy production would be residential solar combined with an EV with LFP batteries that allow bi-drectional charging and V2H. Why we don't really have that in Silicon Valley for the last 5-10 years already tells us a lot about the politicians running this county.
So short answer: Yes, it's all climate change industrial complex funding.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.