The Urgent Case for Nuclear Power: Our Only Solution to the Energy Crisis

The Modern Energy Crisis

Climate change is a serious problem, with detrimental consequences. With rising sea levels, coral bleaching, wildfires and increased frequency of extreme weather events such as heatwaves, we are already seeing the destructive effects of climate change – and there is no doubt that this will continue, with ever accelerating danger. This danger is not only to the natural world, but also to our economy and wider human society. The direct effects may be droughts, floods, famine or wildfires. This will lead to desperation, despair and economic instability. From here the consequences are war, recessions, and all the terrible byproducts of that carnage. No one wants this. So how is this happening, how have we thrown ourselves into this chaotic mess?

Since the late 19th century, humans have been powering our grids with fossil fuels, initially coal-fired power plants. As we have become ever more demanding of our energy consumption, it is unsurprising that fossil fuel use, particularly coal, oil and natural gas, has increased with it. This appeal is evident in their nature of being cheap, energy-dense and reliable, with already established infrastructure. Yet there is a major issue with our widespread use of this energy source. Burning fossil fuels pumps enormous quantities of carbon into our atmosphere, wrapping us in a blanket and significantly limiting how much heat may escape. Fossil fuels are the accumulation of millions of years worth of carbon (from plants, fossils, etc) buried underground, and this sudden release is an overload. This issue is dire, and we are now trying, hopelessly in many ways, to solve it with bureaucratic get-togethers and arbitrary investments.

The so-called solution that has been invested in for replacing carbon-emitting power sources has been renewables, which seemingly excludes nuclear. Politicians and investors have focused on power sources such as solar, wind and hydropower, even with their many clear issues. Although clean sources of energy, each of these are both unreliable and make use of excessively large infrastructure. Unlike fossil fuel power plants, these energy sources rely entirely on the external environment, such as the sunlight or wind. This is a significant problem as these environmental factors are intermittent and, at least until we have brilliant efficiency (which is decades away), will need to rely on fossil fuels, most notably natural gas, as the backup power source. This can be seen vividly in Germany, where they are converting to renewable energy sources, yet finding themselves ever reliant on fossil fuels to keep stability within the grid. Beyond their unreliability, these renewables make use of excessively large infrastructure, and are in this way hugely inefficient. Rather than a reasonably sized power plant, renewables are relying on entire farms just to produce a sufficient amount of energy. For instance, to power the entire Earth off of solar, you would need to cover all of Italy with solar panels. And even then, given the infeasibility and inefficiency of widespread battery storage, you would still need to rely on fossil fuels for reliable back-up energy. We are finding ourselves in the midst of an energy crisis, and the last thing we need is this level of inefficiency.

Why do we need Nuclear?

Yet beyond these glorified renewables, the solution to our predicament is clear, ridiculously so. Why are fossil fuels so attractive, and why are they so hard to replace? As we mentioned previously, they are cheap, energy-dense and reliable. Yet our “brilliant” solution involves expensive and unreliable, with energy density so low that we need farms. There is a completely clean alternative to fossil fuels, which carries all of what makes it attractive. Nuclear power works by firing neutrons into deuterium atoms, splitting them up and causing a high energy chain reaction, without any greenhouse gases. Beyond this, nuclear power plants are extremely energy-dense, reliable and can be made fairly cheap.

Nuclear reactors are powered by uranium, the most energy dense power source humans have ever made use of. The energy quantity that can be obtained from half a tonne of natural gas can be obtained by one pellet of uranium (roughly the size of the eraser on the end of your pencil)! Furthermore, unlike solar, wind and other similar energy sources, nuclear power is just as reliable as fossil fuels. Built in the form of power plants, nuclear reactors don’t rely on external environmental factors, and so run 24/7. Beyond this, even if expensive to build (although maybe not so due to new SMRs, more on this later), nuclear reactors prove tremendously profitable in the long-term due to the low price and high energy-efficiency of uranium. It’s a genuine enigma why we haven’t widely adopted nuclear, so let’s take a look.

Why aren't we using Nuclear Energy?

After World War II, nuclear power became widely popular, yet in recent decades this has taken a drastic turn. Why is this, and is it justified? There are many reasons why nuclear power is not being implemented widely, mostly due to safety concerns (albeit mostly unwarranted) as well as cost. In particular, the safety concerns of nuclear power have brought about anxiety in the public eye, and heavily stunting its use. For instance, nuclear power is often associated with the devastation of nuclear weapons, something which has clearly not been thought out. All forms of energy can be weaponised, and nuclear power, being our most powerful energy source, has the most powerful weaponised counterpart. Yet the worries that this brings about, mostly in regard to radiation, are far more exaggerated than the reality. Excluding accidents (we’ll look at this later), radiation effects are near zero. Typical annual radiation exposure around nuclear power plants is approximately 0.01msV (millisieverts), whereas cosmic radiation (a natural and constant background source of radiation) is around 0.03 msV annually, and the rock and soil of some regions even contain radon where annual radiation would be around 2.4 msV. So we’ve dismissed these issues, what about accidents and nuclear meltdowns?

Chernobyl

In 1986, the Chernobyl disaster occured, killing 30 people and relocating about 350, 000. In 1979 and 2011 respectively, although not killing anyone, the Three Mile Island and Fukushima accidents further relocated hundreds of thousands of civilians. The accumulation of these accidents has built a less than ideal reputation around nuclear reactors, yet we must understand two key aspects of these safety incidents. Firstly, nuclear power is generally an extremely safe power source. Nuclear power (0.07) has less deaths per unit of energy production than oil (18.4), natural gas (2.6) and coal (24.6), and roughly the same as solar (0.02), wind (0.02) and hydropower (0.04). As well as this, nuclear is only slightly more dangerous than its fellow renewables due to the Chernobyl disaster which this takes account of. Secondly, the causes of the three aforementioned accidents were to do with design flaws, in the case of Chernobyl, and the cooling systems, in the case of Three Mile Island and Fukushima – both of which pose limited threat today. Nuclear reactor design standards are far higher today than at the time of Chernobyl, making a similar accident highly unlikely. Furthermore, modern cooling systems, particularly those in SMRs, are far safer and more advanced than in the past, most notably with the use of passive cooling systems. Passive cooling systems make use of convection so that cooling systems are self-contained and significantly unlikely to result in accidents. Overall, it seems evident that nuclear power, although carrying a poor reputation, is an extremely safe power source.

Yet we must also investigate the second key roadblock of widespread nuclear adoption, specifically cost. While a 1000mW (megawatt) natural gas power plant would cost roughly 1 billion dollars to construct, a 1000mW traditional nuclear power plant would cost between 5 and 9 billion dollars. Yet, due to the low price and high energy-efficiency of uranium, the long-term profitability of nuclear power greatly trumps natural gas, hence their investments in one-party nations such as Russia and China. Nevertheless, this cost factor of nuclear reactors should serve as, rather than an anxiety, a call-to-action for nations across the globe to think strategically, collaboratively and in the long term – something clearly necessary in our climate crisis. Furthermore, by making use of a new type of reactor known as SMRs (small modular reactors), 1000mW nuclear reactors may cost as little as $3 billion, or less if we see continual investment (although SMRs must be scaled as 1 SMR cannot exceed 300mW). So, now that we have recognised the clear need for nuclear power, how may we implement it?

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Implementing Nuclear Power

NuScale

Although traditional nuclear power plants offer a viable and promising potential, recent investment and innovation has brought about a new form of reactor, with tremendous potential. Small modular reactors (or SMRs) are, as in the name, a scaled-down and modular form of nuclear reactors. As they are smaller, SMRs are more efficient (in terms of both land and cost), and can be localised and deployed in remote areas, increasing accessibility and reducing loss of both energy and money during power transmission. Furthermore, as they are composed of factory-built modules which are later assembled on site, SMRs can be constructed much faster than traditional nuclear reactors, and later scaled up to meet energy demands – and done so with less regulatory handles and a standardised design. Recently, we have already seen SMR start-ups arising with great promise, most notably NuScale – already gaining significant investment (as well as interest from Amazon) and regulatory approval, allowing them to begin engineering and design of their reactors. Overall, it seems clear that we need to begin investment in and adoption of nuclear power plants, and it is paramount that SMR development becomes not merely commercial, but incentivised and adopted by governments.

How do you see it? Comment your take👇

If you enjoyed this article or are interested to learn more, you may be interested in the following article which investigates the next stage in nuclear power:

• Is Nuclear Fusion the Future of Energy?