Climate change is a major issue in the current world. The major cause of climate change is industrial emission, transportation, and burning of coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels. Although some may argue otherwise, I believe the generation and use of nuclear energy are more friendly to climatic changes. Although the generation of this energy may have a challenge on waste disposal, its generation and use balances the eco-system safety. Nuclear energy generating produces nearly no direct greenhouse gas emissions; nevertheless, like with any generation technique, there are indirect emissions related to mining, fuel manufacture, power plant building and decommissioning, and waste management (Ağbulut et al., 2021). Some of these operations can be highly energy-intensive and, based on the carbon footprint of the power system in which they occur, result in insignificant greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear reactors generate around 20% of the US’s electrical power and are by far the biggest source of carbon-free electricity in the country. According to Verbruggen and Yurchenko, (2017), nuclear power generates over fifty percent of all carbon-free electricity in the United States. These reactors generate power around the clock, for between eighteen and twenty-four months between refueling outages, and reached an all-time high capacity factor of 93.4 percent as of 2019. This makes nuclear power reactors a perfect carbon-free, round-the-clock partner for wind turbines and solar panels in a decarbonized energy system; in reality, services that have committed to decarbonizing are currently making investments in license renewals for their nuclear plants to keep these zero-carbon generators operational until 2050 and beyond (MUELLNER et al., 2012). Nuclear energy can help the United States achieve both environmental and economic goals locally and globally. This adds to why I believe that more countries have to shun fossil fuels and go the nuclear energy way.
The development of new reactors in the United States and elsewhere presents a fantastic chance to create even more American employment while reaping the rewards from international nuclear energy development. For instance, the construction workforce of Georgia’s Vogtle 3 and 4 nuclear reactors just surpassed 9,000 persons. Throughout the project, approximately 12,000 union craft members have been engaged at the site, with additional union members working in the Vogtle project’s manufacturing supply networks. Essentially Nuclear energy comes with more benefits.
As states, towns, and major electricity consumers and producers promise to significantly or decarbonize their electricity supply, energy decision-makers are realizing the full value of what nuclear energy brings to the US energy system. As a result, nuclear plant operators are committing to maintaining existing reactors until the mid-century mark and are considering adding additional nuclear generation to supplement considerable increases in solar and wind generation. Energies firms and end-users are working on future nuclear energy structures that may offer a wide range of energy-related products and services, such as hydrogen production, heat processing for uses in industry, and water for consumption desalination, to decarbonize non-electric segments of the energy system. A reinvigorated nuclear energy sector in the United States can help to create jobs, decarbonize energy systems, and ensure the country’s continued leadership in global nuclear energy challenges (Verbruggen & Yurchenko, 2017).
Nuclear power has been vilified for decades as being destructive to the environment. However, as climate change emerges as the world’s most pressing environmental issue, the nuclear industry is gaining a reputation as a green power source able to produce massive amounts of electricity with little or no carbon emissions. As a consequence, the sector is getting new traction. Both presidential candidates in the United States see nuclear power as a component of the future energy mix. The US government is not alone in its support for nuclear facility construction. In August, Japan pledged a $4 billion investment in green technology, including nuclear power facilities. Other technologies, critics argue, might reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions more radically and cost-efficiently. According to Jim Riccio, a nuclear policy expert for Greenpeace in Washington, DC, there’s nothing such as a carbon-free lunch for any type of energy source. According to the nuclear industry and many independent analysts, the numbers prove differently. Even when considering the complete lifecycle of the plant, they claim that nuclear energy rates with other green technologies such as solar panels and wind turbines (Zhan et al., 2021).
It is critical to reconsider the role of nuclear energy in reducing GHG emissions from the electricity sector. It is critical to solve challenges that will decide nuclear energy’s role in tomorrow’s low-carbon future. It is critical to have factual responses to criticisms about nuclear energy’s practical involvement in climate change mitigation. Some have stated that nuclear is mainly irrelevant to decreasing emissions because capacity could not be extended quickly enough, or because of uranium supplies or other input limits. Others have stated that emissions of carbon dioxide from the use of fossil energy in the nuclear fuel cycle might become significant, resulting in overall emissions similar to those from fossil power plants (Zhan et al., 2021).
One of the most difficult tasks of our day is addressing climate change. Success will necessitate not only more dedication and resources but also innovation and flexibility in considering all available tools, including nuclear energy. It will play a critical role in moving to net-zero emissions by 2050 (MUELLNER et al., 2012). Nuclear energy generation presently produces one-tenth of worldwide electricity without emitting CO2. Nuclear energy is the greatest source of low-carbon power in OECD economies and ranks as the second biggest in the globe after hydroelectric power, with 444 reactors functioning across thirty nations.
According to an NEA evaluation of over 90 approaches to net-zero emissions assessed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, existing nuclear energy output has to triple to 1,160 gigawatts by 2050 to reduce global warming to 1.5°C. The world is falling short of these goals. Despite the approximately 50 nuclear energy reactors currently under development and the 100 scheduled, worldwide nuclear energy capacity will remain relatively constant as older reactors are resigned (MUELLNER et al., 2012).
One significant advantage of the nuclear power sector is that it is an established sector with tested innovations and supply lines. Nuclear power already offsets 1.6 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions each year. The nuclear industry is capable of displacing carbon dioxide for years to come by remodeling and long-term maintenance of operational reactors: up to 50 gigatonnes of combined carbon emissions between 2020 and 2050 (MUELLNER et al., 2012). There is also tremendous potential for new massive nuclear energy reactor construction, which may eliminate 23 gigatonnes of pollution by replacing fossil power output between 2020 and 2050. It involves substituting coal power, which is one of the most intense carbon dioxide polluters but is especially prevalent in emerging countries, where the need for energy is expected to expand rapidly as more of their economies connect to the electricity grid. Non-OECD nations China and India currently account for the majority of such new initiatives.
Nuclear power would save revenue as a crucial component of worldwide decarbonization strategies: reaching the Paris Objectives without the use of nuclear power would require the world approximately USD 1.6 trillion more, based on the International Energy Agency. However, the nuclear sector has the potential to play a considerably larger role. As governments build up other carbon-free energy generation, such as solar or wind, nuclear power may act as a baseload that supports renewables and ensures a consistent, predictable, and dispatchable electricity supply (Verbruggen & Yurchenko, 2017). The significance of this has been highlighted by the recent experiences of various countries that have experienced power disruptions or price increases in energy. Where nuclear facilities are being phased down, administrations have been forced to reactivate fossil fuel-powered plants, including coal, to guarantee a continuous supply of power, a direct step back in the effort to decrease carbon emissions and pollution.
At the same time, a wave of short-term innovation in tiny modular reactors is opening up new applications for nuclear energy and prospects to accelerate the global economy’s transition to net-zero emissions. Small modular reactors, the first that will be available in a few years, have the potential to displace 15 gigatonnes of pollutants between 2020 and 2050. This might include creating electricity both on and off the grid, providing power for desalination, supplying low-carbon energy to heavy industries such as steel production and other difficult-to-abate sectors, and generating hydrogen and other synthetic fuels to aid in the elimination of pollution in the transport industry (MUELLNER et al., 2012).
To be successful, regulatory structures that encourage innovation will be required. Governments must also take steps to speed up nuclear energy implementation and promote additional private investor investment by including nuclear energy in the realm of climate and growth financing, categorizing it as an environmentally conscious source, and incorporating it into ESG financing structures (Caglar & Ulug, 2022).
COP26 was a significant step toward net-zero emissions. According to Caglar and Ulug, (2022), many global gatherings prioritize politics over science, and nuclear energy is excluded from the discussion, leaving huge gaps in the dialogue. This relationship is troubling. Nuclear energy must be discussed alongside every other possibility in energy transition debates to retain the authenticity of the policy discussion. While policymakers can make distinct values-based choices about the usage of nuclear energy in their specific national contexts, the evaluations and examinations that inform those decisions have to be complete and evidence-based to properly comprehend the intricate trade-offs between alternates.
References
MUELLNER, N., D’HAESELEER, W., RANTAMAKI, R., DEBES, M., THAIS, F., KUPITZ, J., … & DÉRY, H. (2012). The Role of Nuclear Energy in a Low-carbon Energy Future. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC72017
Verbruggen, A., & Yurchenko, Y. (2017). Positioning nuclear power in the low-carbon electricity transition. Sustainability, 9(1), 163. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/1/163
Zhan, L., Bo, Y., Lin, T., & Fan, Z. (2021). Development and outlook of advanced nuclear energy technology. Energy Strategy Reviews, 34, 100630. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X2100016X
Ağbulut, Ü., Ceylan, İ., Gürel, A. E., & Ergün, A. (2021). The history of greenhouse gas emissions and its relation with the nuclear energy policy for Turkey. International Journal of Ambient Energy, 42(12), 1447-1455. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01430750.2018.1563818
Caglar, A. E., & Ulug, M. (2022). The role of government spending on energy efficiency R&D budgets in the green transformation process: insight from the top-five countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(50), 76472-76484. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-21133-w
write