Nuclear energy often elicits negative impressions, rooted in its applications as a burgeoning weapon. Perhaps the most catastrophic instance of human warfare occurred during the 1945 nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, resulting in over 100,000 deaths across both areas. For weaponry purposes, nuclear science poses immense threats to the preservation of humankind, inflicting mass degradation across world powers and citizens alike. Undeniably, the measures taken to prevent nuclear weaponry are justifiable, given the inimical threat of violence they contain. Nevertheless, nuclear energy proves to be the most beneficial form of energy to tackle the climate crisis, and thus strive for a cleaner and more efficient world. Various properties of nuclear energy enable immense benefits for industrialization, as it exceeds the effects of standard energy production by colossal lengths. Nevertheless, the implementation of nuclear energy is often avoided, due to its past associations with violence and turmoil, and there are many arguments criticizing the further potential d
angers of nuclear systems. The lack of implemented nuclear energy indicates a collective psychological defiance, grounded on its unfavorable connotations alongside a universal human inability to reject the imposition of past dissent. Yet, the incorporation of nuclear energy may be instrumental for the overall preservation of Earth during frequent energy crises and should not be negated solely on the premise of its potential dangers.
In short, nuclear energy relates to the production of energy from an atom’s nucleus, which is centralized around two central processes, fusion and fission. Fission refers to the separation of an atom into smaller components, whereas fusion is the merging of lighter atoms to form a singular larger one. Nuclear fission is more commonly used in various nuclear power plants for the production of powerful energy. Upon separation, high amounts of radiation and energy are produced by the atom, which is then quantified by electric generators to produce electricity and other forms of energy. Fusion is less commonly used as it requires immense amounts of pressure to occur, which is difficult to replicate on Earth. Both processes use isotopes, such as uranium and plutonium, to enable high amounts of energy production. While generally associated with warfare, nuclear energy can be manipulated for sustainable electricity production, incorporating greater benefits than standard greenhouse gasses. For example, nuclear energy produces zero emissions, preventing an over-polluted atmosphere harmed by incessant emissions from other greenhouse gasses. For example, the usage of nuclear energy prevented the United States from acquiring over 471 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020, which incriminate air qualities and, thus, contribute to the climate crisis. Additionally, nuclear energy has a minuscule footprint compared to other energy sources, producing over 1,000 megawatts of energy over less than one square mile. Nuclear energy also has a greater capacity factor, meaning it does not expend large reliance on external conditions as done by many other intermittent energy sources. As a whole, the benefits of nuclear energy cultivate a portrait of robust industrialization development and encouragement for increased sustainability during the climate crisis.
Yet, despite its countless benefits, nuclear energy is continuously avoided and, unfortunately, declared a perpetrator of further safety implications. Alas, all effective science has its dangers, and all works of art have their faults. Essentially, the threats of nuclear energy can be combated given viable safety measures and implemented elements of construction designated to avail public distress. The main implication assigned to nuclear energy is the question of its safety. Various incidents, such as the infamous Chernobyl nuclear failure in 1986, have become preeminent in the minds of skeptics. Nonetheless, studies have inferred the impacts of Chernobyl to be less detrimental than other industrial failures, which had caused death rates nearly 50 times higher than those at Chernobyl. Another avid concern of nuclear energy is nuclear waste, a byproduct of nuclear production that is often stored in large underground facilities. Nuclear waste poses threats due to the potential emission of radioactive particles intrinsic to its composition and, therefore, cannot be disposed of into the environment. Yet, numerous technological advancements have enabled the effective storage of nuclear waste, as well as the possibility of recycled waste for further nuclear production. For example, Finland stores its nuclear waste in a bedrock repository, containing the waste with alloys and clay that are useful to prevent any of the waste from escaping, thus diminishing any health threats to humankind.
The final criticism of nuclear energy derives from capital intensity, as its numerous benefits convey a hefty price for energy production. In truth, nuclear energy is indeed highly expensive in terms of construction but proves cost-effective during its later operation and maintenance. Substantially, nuclear energy is an immensely valuable solution for the climate crisis, acting as an indicator of growth, development, and enhancement for a more renewable world. Industrialization can only grow with the permittance of unconventional sources of energy and must prioritize the statistics for success over infringing psychological preconceived notions. Despite its collective distrust and avoidance, nuclear energy must be assessed from a well-rounded view of all its benefits and relevant properties, as opposed to its mere implications of safety. In turn, nuclear energy may act as a verifiable tool for climate repose, with innumerable impacts on the development of renewable energy and technology for modern industrialization.
