Nuclear Power: Yay or Nay?

Nuclear energy is a controversial topic. Some people feel that nuclear is the future of our energy systems, and others think that it’s not worth the risk. For many with opinions across the board, thinking about the next steps for nuclear energy often causes a twinge of anxiety, especially when infamous catastrophes like Chernobyl come to mind.

To be fair, nuclear power is an intimidating energy source. According to the U.S. Energy Information and Administration (EIA), nuclear power plants use the process of nuclear fission to produce heat that then turns water into steam. That steam causes turbines to spin and create electricity. EIA notes that as of 2020, about 20% of our generation capacity in the U.S. comes from the 56 operating nuclear plants.

This photo, taken by Daniel Prudek, shows a nuclear power plant releasing steam into the air.

Only 56 nuclear power plants provide 20% of our electrical generation capacity? That’s a big deal. Right now, nuclear power is a major, centralized base load power source for America (see last week’s blog for a refresher on base load). So why are people still so conflicted on its use? Let’s break it down into some pros and cons.

We can start with the benefits of nuclear. Some environmentalists argue that the U.S. should expand nuclear power because it doesn’t emit carbon dioxide or other harmful emissions. The main component the process releases is water vapor. It’s also a consistent source of energy that runs year-round. Power Technology also notes that the expenses of running the plants are low, even more so than many coal and fossil fuel power plants. EnergySage mentions that nuclear power plants take up a small amount of land to produce a large amount of power, compared to more land-intensive forms of energy like solar or wind.

The cons are likely more well known by the public. We can start with the more obvious downside: If a nuclear plant has a meltdown, it is a major disaster. Power Technology notes that there were 54 immediate deaths at Chernobyl, and almost 4,000 projected deaths were attributed to that nuclear disaster. Much more recently, the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan, in 2011 suffered from a nuclear meltdown after a large earthquake and subsequent tsunami struck the area and the power plant. Aside from these disasters, nuclear power plants are also expensive to build and decommission. The other issue: no one is sure what to do with the waste besides continuing to store it. Currently, The Nuclear Energy Institute says that nuclear waste in the U.S. is stored safely in dry caskets on-site at the nuclear plant.

This photo from Getty Images shows the Fukushima disaster from above, as nuclear meltdowns occurred.

The cons tend to (understandably) make people anxious. That’s why there tends to be public resistance to nuclear expansion. Though EIA notes that some nuclear reactors are in the process of launching, nuclear power plant expansion in the U.S. has mostly stalled. With decommissioning rates also growing, nuclear power will contribute to the energy mix less in 2050 than it is now.

Nuclear power may still expand in other areas of the world. However, in the U.S., it’s looking less and less likely. As these plants get decommissioned, nuclear waste will remain a safety and security concern as experts continue to debate and search for long-term solutions beyond storage. In the meantime, the U.S. will need to think about how to restructure the energy grid based on these projected trends or find a way to sway public opinion about the future of nuclear energy.