Recently, I watched Understanding Bill’s Brain and there was a particular idea from Bill Gates that stuck with me well beyond the end of the show. While talking about climate change and the future of energy, Bill Gates continued to emphasize the importance of nuclear power – not as a perfect answer to our climate crisis, but as an important solution nonetheless. This sparked my interest and as I did additional research I began to understand why nuclear energy continues to surface in discussions about climate change, despite its controversy.
We clearly have a fundamental challenge when it comes to climate change – we need an enormous amount of energy and we need it to be free of carbon emissions. At present, fossil fuels continue to dominate global energy production; although renewable energy (such as wind and solar) are rapidly increasing in use, they are not always reliable in isolation. The sun does not always shine, nor does the wind always blow. Therefore, at this point, nuclear energy begins to provide an uncomfortable, yet understandable, rationale.
Nuclear power produces energy through the fission of atoms, generating a tremendous amount of energy. What struck me is that during the operation phase, nuclear plants emit no carbon dioxide. Presently, nuclear energy generates about ten percent of the world’s electricity and roughly thirty percent of all low-carbon electricity. Those numbers represent a substantial and often overlooked component of the energy supply mix.
Climate-focused organizations are not ignoring nuclear energy. For instance, groups such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency repeatedly incorporate nuclear power into their models for achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. One reason for this inclusion is reliability. Nuclear plants produce what is referred to as baseload power – continuous energy generation, day and night, regardless of the weather. Given the increasing dependence on intermittent renewable energy sources in grids around the world, the ability to generate stable, non-stop power, represents a significant advantage over renewable energy options.
Another aspect that surprised me is the relative efficiency of nuclear fuel. A minuscule amount of uranium can generate a vast quantity of energy. Compared to both fossil fuels and renewable energy options, nuclear energy has a relatively high energy density, using significantly less land and raw materials to produce equivalent levels of energy. When thinking globally – in terms of space, resources, and escalating global energy demand – the efficiency of nuclear energy becomes difficult to dismiss.
Of course, this is where things become complicated.
Nuclear energy has baggage – much of which is justifiable. The public memory of accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima serve as evidence for this reality. Although accidents of this nature are rare, the consequences of these events are long lasting and devastating. There is nothing irrational about the fear associated with safety concerns – humans should fear for safety. Thus, strict regulation, advanced reactor design and emergency response protocols that permit no margin for error are required.
A second area of concern is nuclear waste. This may be the most emotionally charged subject of all. To store high level radioactive waste safely for thousands of years requires deep geological storage. Although we technically know how to accomplish this, public confidence in, and government support for, the implementation of this solution lags far behind the scientific knowledge base. People understandably do not like the idea of hazardous material stored near their communities, even if experts claim it is safe.
Finally, cost is a significant barrier to widespread adoption. Building nuclear plants is extremely costly. The lengthy construction times, regulatory hurdles and financial risks associated with building nuclear plants make them less appealing than wind or solar in the short term. Additionally, the fear of nuclear proliferation – the potential misuse of civilian nuclear technology for military applications – creates an imperative for international oversight.
So why consider nuclear energy?
The reason we cannot afford to choose the “perfect” solution for climate change is because climate change demands “effective” solutions.
Reading about the new generation of nuclear technologies provided me with some optimism. The next generation of nuclear technologies – including small modular reactors – are designed to be safer, more affordable and more adaptable than previous generations. Next generation nuclear technologies also seek to minimize waste, increase efficiency, and reduce the likelihood of accidents. These are not science fiction concepts – they are currently under development.
It also became apparent to me that nuclear energy does not have to compete with renewable energy sources. Renewable energy sources and nuclear energy work well together. Combining renewable energy sources (solar, wind, hydro, etc.), storage, energy efficiency and nuclear energy creates a robust and reliable energy supply mix. Unfortunately, the discussion regarding nuclear energy and renewable energy is framed as a zero sum game.
To effectively utilize nuclear energy as part of a broader energy strategy, governments will have to take thoughtful action – through improved regulations, education of the public, and creative financing mechanisms and international cooperation. Trust, transparency and honesty about the risks of nuclear energy are critical in this context.
The documentary did not convert me into a blind nuclear optimist, but it certainly changed my way of thinking about this issue. Climate change is enormous, pressing and unrelenting. If we are going to take seriously our efforts to cut emissions, while continuing to provide light to over seven billion people, we cannot simply write off nuclear power simply because it may be uncomfortable to do so.
It’s complex; it’s imperfect; and it’s no magic bullet.
And as I have recently realized, neither is anything else.
