The Use of Nuclear Energy to Supplement Renewable Energy Sources
Global temperatures are getting warmer and water levels are rising. Weather is becoming more extreme and wildfire activity is at an all time high. Climate change is happening and something must be done to slow it down. Whether or not it is entirely human caused or just the natural life cycle of the planet, the majority of scientists agree that carbon emissions must be reduced in order to keep the planet habitable for future generations. With our current technology renewable energy sources alone will not meet the energy demands that our world requires. Society must look to nuclear energy to bridge the gap that renewable energy sources cannot fill if we are to combat climate change in the growing climate crisis.
Although the idea of global warming originated in the early 1800's, the theory of climate change wasn't formed until 1956 when Gilbert Plass calculated that the addition of Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere would increase the greenhouse effect on Earth. This theory discovered by Gilbert Plass was first introduced in June of 1972 at the First Earth Summit which was held by the United Nations in Stockholm, Sweden. This was the first time that a conference was held and climate change was proposed to nations. At this conference recommendations were made to place climate monitoring stations throughout the world to evaluate the rate at which we were seeing changes. Monitoring data from these sources would then bring about awareness to global climate change and its effects.
Fast forward to today, nearly fifty years later and we are just now starting to see renewable and green energy sources at a competitive level with non-renewables. In fact "In 2019, U.S. annual energy consumption from renewable sources exceeded coal consumption for the first time since before 1885" (Francis). This is a big milestone, however, we still have a long way to go before we can reach net zero. The total output from all renewables in the U.S. was 3.369 trillion kilowatt hours or 11.5 quads. This did not include the contribution of Nuclear energy which for the U.S. in 2019 was 843 billion kilowatt hours or 2.9 quads. In comparison according to the EIA the United States consumed 100.2 quads of energy in 2019. Therefore, in 2019 less than fifteen percent of our consumed energy was produced by renewables or green energy.
With a goal date of 2050 for net zero carbon, where the amount of carbon produced is offset by the amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere, we have a lot of work to do. We must find a way to produce more than 500% more energy with renewable and green energy sources to replace the output of non-renewables in the next twenty-eight years. This also does not factor in the fact that our energy consumption by 2050 will be significantly higher with the introduction of the electric vehicle en mass. According to IEA "In 2019, 2.2 million electric cars were sold, representing just 2.5% of global car sales" (Paoli). This is far less than the number of electric cars predicted to be sold per year by 2050. An article written by Scientific American states that "Ninety percent of U.S. cars must be electric by 2050 to meet climate goals" (Iaconangelo). This will add a significant amount of energy requirements to our current power grid due to the fact that all of these vehicles will need power to charge on a daily basis.
This means that the entire power grid will need an upgrade. Even currently the strain on power sources is too much in some states, like California, which have rolling blackouts for power management due to insufficient energy supply. It would be illogical to think that all of this could be sourced by renewables. There has to be some supplementation and nuclear energy could be the answer. Is it wise to remove a viable zero carbon emissions energy source from an already struggling power grid? In fact, states that have removed nuclear power in favor of renewables and current non-renewables have seen a rise in emissions. According to an article by Politico referencing the closure of a nuclear power plant that supplied New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania emissions rose by fifteen percent in New York and twelve percent in the other two states over the last two years. This can make a valid argument against the removal of nuclear energy from the power grid.
The Paris Agreement was held in 2015 established guidelines for the reduction of carbon emissions in order to meet specific climate goals. "The Paris Agreement sets out a global framework to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting global warming to well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C." (European Commision) The guidelines within the agreement vary by country, however that all agree on the end goal and to achieve this we must have net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
While the majority of the public is in favor of solar and wind power expansion the opposite is true for nuclear energy. According to a study by PEW Research Center 89% and 83% of the public are in favor of the expansion of solar and wind power respectively. While only 43% of the public is in favor of nuclear energy expansion. The differing views between republicans, who are more in favor of nuclear energy, and democrats, who are more likely to be against it, show that the opinion of the individual is likely to be swayed by their political party. Gender also played a role with more men in favor of nuclear energy and more women in favor of renewables.
When it comes to renewable energy sources at the current level of technology there are some limitations. The space that solar takes up for instance is significantly more when you look at the megawatt per acre comparison between solar and nuclear. In reference to solar "Larger utility-scale PV systems may require up to 3.5 to 10 acres per megawatt and CSP facilities require anywhere from 4 to 16.5 acres per megawatt." (Johnston) While nuclear power plant can generate approximately 1.2 megawatts per acre on current technology. Another drawback to solar is that the sun has to be out to generate energy. This means that no energy is generated at night and limited energy if any at all is generated on cloudy or stormy days. The climate of a particular area would make the effectiveness vary from place to place. An example of this would be comparing Phoenix, AZ to Seattle, WA. Phoenix averages 300 sunny days per year whereas Seattle averages just over half of that at 152 sunny days per year. Therefore, your energy yields would be significantly different from place to place.
One of the downsides to wind energy is that remote locations are often the best for wind energy generation and to keep them out of sight as they can be considered an eye sore. The distance at which wind farms are positioned from power demand presents a challenge when the energy is needed to be stored and transported far away from the generation location. Transportation of the generated energy over long distances may be inefficient and require more land to be disturbed for lines and storage facilities. This also means the destruction of habitats for many plants and animals. Something that many people don't realize is that wind turbines often cause noise pollution. They can also be detrimental to wildlife in the area due to the noise and spinning blades. As with solar energy generation some areas are windier than others and may have better or worse energy yields. As time goes on technology changes and there will surely be advances in renewable energy sources, but, for now supplementation is required and we should look at nuclear energy to fill some of that gap.
Now let us look at the positives of nuclear energy supplementation and why it would make a great tool to combat carbon emissions. First and foremost aside from popular belief, once a nuclear power plant is built it produces net zero carbon emissions. While the building of the plant does create carbon emissions the same can be said about the manufacturing and transportation of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. When it comes to space it can generate more electricity per square foot than either wind or solar. Another positive is that nuclear energy is not at the mercy of mother nature. The amount of power that is generated is consistent whether or not the sun is out or the wind is blowing. Consistency of power is important especially when we are talking about increasing power demand with the increase in electrical vehicles among other new technology. Nuclear energy overall has a relatively good safety record.
When most people think of nuclear energy the first word that comes to mind isn't safe. However out of approximately 440 nuclear plants worldwide only three of them have had major incidents. The latest one and one of the largest incidents was at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. According to the World Nuclear Association the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was damaged by a tsunami on 11 March 2011. While the reactors were hardened against the initial earthquake that caused the tsunami, they were not able to sustain cooling due to major flooding and the effects that it had on the electrical and generator system required to power the cooling of the reactors. This incident was not a result of failure within the power plant itself but rather due to mother nature and poor placement of the nuclear power plant in the first place. Since this incident protocols have been put in place to safeguard against disasters like this in the future.
The second of the three major nuclear incidents is Chernobyl. This is probably the most famous and in fact up until the war in Ukraine the site had become a sort of tourist destination. "The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel" (World Nuclear Association). While this may be the most notable event it resulted in relatively few deaths with only 31 deaths.
The third event was the malfunction at Three Mile Island. In 1979 a nuclear reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant suffered a malfunction. This resulted in no deaths or harm to the public. "Some radioactive gas was released a couple of days after the accident, but not enough to cause any dose above background levels to local residents" (World Nuclear Association).
Terrorism is also often associated with nuclear power. While there is always a risk that spent nuclear fuel ends up in the wrong hands there has never been an act of terror commited with nuclear waste from a power plant. Nuclear power plants in the United States are heavily guarded with security measures to ensure they cannot be breached by airplanes or other extremist means. There are also strict accountability measures in place to ensure that all nuclear waste is disposed of properly and accounted for.
Nuclear waste is stored in one of two ways in the United States where there are strict regulations on the disposal and management of said waste. The two methods are spent fuel pools and dry cask storage. In spent fuel pools the nuclear waste is stored under a minimum of twenty feet of water providing enough shielding from the radiation that it won't affect anyone in the same room. According to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commision " About one-fourth to one-third of the total fuel load from the pools is spent and removed from the reactor every 12 to 18 months and replaced with fresh fuel." (NRC.gov). This is a great short term storage solution and these spent fuel pools are located in the plants that generate the waste. There are constantly experiments being performed in search of ways to recycle this waste and find ways to reuse it aside from the nuclear weapons aspect.
Dry cask storage is another option in which nuclear waste can be stored. As the spent fuel pools were becoming full, new methods of storing the nuclear waste were in demand. That is where dry cask storage came into play. "Dry cask storage allows spent fuel that has already been cooled in the spent fuel pool for at least one year to be surrounded by inert gas inside a container called a cask" ( NRC.gov). Once placed in the steel cask they are welded shut making sure there are no leaks. Then the casks are stored inside more steel and concrete to ensure that the radiation does not become a hazard to the environment or population nearby.
Watch an episode of The Simpsons and it is hard to miss the nuclear power plant in the middle of Springfield causing all kinds of environmental mishaps. This is hardly the truth. The majority of the environmental impact is during the construction of the power plant. After the plants are built they do not directly produce any carbon emissions. Carbon emissions are produced however, during the mining and transportation of the radioactive materials needed for nuclear energy production. If this is looked at from a broader perspective you can understand that in all aspects of energy production materials are needed and must be transported, therefore the emissions generated for manufacturing renewable energy sources would also be present. As stated in the previous paragraph nuclear waste can be an environmental hazard. "A major environmental concern related to nuclear power is the creation of radioactive wastes such as uranium mill tailings, spent (used) reactor fuel, and other radioactive wastes. These materials can remain radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years" (EIA). This is of course mitigated by proper storage of the radioactive compounds.
Another reason nuclear energy is a good source to bridge the gap between renewables is that it is relatively long lasting. While it is not an infinite source of energy most nuclear power plants are initially commissioned for approximately 40 years depending on the safety regulations and policies put in place. Often these timeframes are extended as long as everything is in good working order nearing the end of the time frame. As technology progresses these timeframes can be expected to lengthen. The other aspect to sustainability of nuclear energy is the resources needed to power the plants. While we know that no current source of energy is infinite, there are technologies being developed such as those using the mine tailings to generate nuclear power. There are also programs being developed that are working on recycling the spent fuel back into the reactors which will reduce the waste and decrease the amount of new material used over time.
The United States currently has ninety-two operating nuclear power plants which generate approximately 19.7% of our total energy. If we wanted to increase nuclear power generation to 100% of our total power production, which is not the goal, then we would need approximately 467 operating reactors. This number would be excessive and unnecessary if the goal is to just bridge the gap between renewables and eliminate carbon producing energy sources. Combined with hydroelectric, solar and wind the number of necessary nuclear reactors would be hundreds less.
Looking at global nuclear energy production there are currently 440 operating nuclear reactors world-wide. These 440 reactors generate approximately 375 GW according to phys.org. The worlds current power demand is something like 15 TW which would require around 15,000 nuclear reactors globally. This number seems rather unachievable, but is not necessary since nuclear energy does not need to be stand alone. Combining with renewable energy sources the goal of generating power without generating emissions is completely possible.
What are some things that can be done in the immediate future to help with climate change? First we must appeal for policy changes that allow for the use of more nuclear power plants along with renewable energy sources. The repurposing of old plants is an easier immediate solution than building new ones since the foot print is already there. The updating may be costly upfront, but in the long term the power plants will be producing energy sooner. There is also technology currently available to build smaller plants that generate less power. These plants are a great solution for smaller cities and not only are they faster to build, but they are also a source of jobs, which will draw more people and increase the economy.
If we don't act fast on climate change it will be too late and renewable energy sources with our current technology cannot help us achieve our goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 alone. We must find other sources of carbon free emissions to fill the gap. Nuclear energy is that source and it is already being used today. Reduction of the use of nuclear energy before renewable energy sources can meet the global demand for energy is a huge mistake. Our leaders must reevaluate the current policies that are mostly based out of fear of the unknown regarding nuclear energy.
Works CitedHolt Educational Consultant - / 14,835 
4783 Rework the opening statement. It should center on the need for nuclear energy as a back up system to the renewable energy sources. There is no need to repeat the climate change mantra at the start. It is no longer impressive. It also does not correctly introduce the topic that the research is focused on. Since the discussion is about nuclear energy, then an introduction based say on Japan considering the reopening of the Fukushima power plant to give a boost to their current energy needs this summer would be an eye catching call. Consider how climate change affects the worldwide need for power during the summer and winter months to create a more relevant discussion.
