Nuclear energy is seen as a bogeyman in the public consciousness. It instantly brings to mind images of the disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima and with the aid of media, many see it as an unsafe source of energy that could easily spell disaster. Unsurprisingly, for a concept feared so much in the public imagination this is not the case. 

First of all, though, it would be best to explain how nuclear energy generates electricity so we’re all on the same page. Initially, many rods of fissionable material (usually a type of Uranium) are placed into water inside a reactor vessel. Here, by firing a neutron into a larger Uranium atom, a large amount of energy is released. This, in most cases, heats up a pool of water that then becomes steam, which turns a turbine and hence generates electricity. However, due to this process, various forms of radiation are emitted which causes the creation of the other thing most associated with nuclear energy, radioactive waste products. 

While there have always been fears of mismanaged nuclear waste causing environmental catastrophes and horrible mutations (familiar to fans of Fallout), this simply does not happen. Since it is an issue you would want to keep an eye on, all waste is stored securely, often near plants. Only nations such as Finland have built permanent waste reservoirs deep in the ground, sealed in lead and concrete. 

Nuclear energy possesses a trait that most other environmentally friendly energy sources don’t possess: its energy production can be controlled and changed when needed. In an age of ever-more unpredictable weather, this is a major advantage over sources such as wind and solar. Due to the sheer amount of energy one plant reduces, a sizeable investment in nuclear power can help rapidly reduce emissions produced while powering a nation, such as France. In 1970, France was like most of Europe at the time, mainly dependent on coal and oil for electricity production; this resulted in a surge in carbon dioxide emissions as its economy developed after the second world war, causing energy-related C02 emissions per capita from fossil fuels and large industry to go from 4.8 tonnes in 1950 to 9.1 Tonnes by 1970. 

However, after the oil crisis of 1973 and the associated surge in energy prices prompted the French government to invest into nuclear power as the fluctuations in fossil fuel prices proved too risky for the French economy. Sound familiar? In 1974, the government announced plans to build thirteen new reactors, producing 13000 Megawatts of electricity. The first of these reactors, Fessenheim came online in 1977 and by 1985 CO2 emissions from oil were down by a third, and coal down by 40%. All of this happened before solar or wind power was even considered a serious suggestion. 

Now, moving onto what the public consciousness immediately associates with nuclear energy - Chernobyl and Fukushima. Here, I would like to quell a few fears. First of all, Chernobyl’s reactor was an old Soviet design that had several safety flaws. After the disaster, funds from an international effort identified the other active RBMK reactors and upgraded them by installing safeguards such as a better shutoff system, and to eliminate previous design deficiencies. Even so, only eight RBMK reactors are still operational today, all within Russia. 

Regarding Fukushima, the reactors were of a safe design, but it was the force of nature that was the primary cause of the incident. On March 11, 2011, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck Japan, the strongest in nearly 90 years. This triggered an automatic shutoff for Fukushima’s reactors, but emergency diesel generators kept coolant flowing. It was the following tsunami, however, that helped cause the real damage. The earthquake-triggered tsunami had a wave height of 14m when it hit the plant and overwhelmed the sea defences. Water flowed into the plant, forced off the coolant generators and three reactors went into meltdown. In comparison to Chernobyl, the damage to the surrounding environment was much less severe, but an exclusion zone was created for people’s safety. 

Since the vast majority of the world’s nuclear reactors are built to high safety standards and not at severe risk of natural disasters we can have faith in their safety protocols. There is a slight irony in the relation between nuclear energy and helping to prevent climate change: the groups that now champion climate causes were born out of the anti-nuclear movement in the aftermath of Chernobyl. Many of Europe’s Green Parties want the complete abolition of nuclear power generation. If you look back to the sheer amount of fear these events caused, you could see their anti-nuclear opinions as completely justified. Sadly, currently with the climate crisis, they will have to accept an inconvenient truth: while the world is being weaned off fossil fuels, nuclear energy is the only power source that is both consistent and cheap. These groups remain anti-nuclear to this day, but they will need to pick one of two mutually exclusive roads to go down: remain anti-nuclear but accept a slower transition towards net zero, one that may take too long, or swallow a bitter pill and embrace nuclear energy as our quicker pathway to a greener, sustainable future. 

In summation, nuclear energy is many things: it’s a source of plentiful cheap energy; it’s feared by many in the public and green movements due to sensationalised images of nuclear disasters and missile exchanges; it has allowed nations to become more energy independent (France has cut the amount of energy it imports from 80% of its total supply in 1973 to only 45% today) and yet has also caused some of the disasters most burned into our collective consciousnesses. It may not be the perfect solution, but there are no true solutions, only trade-offs. But nuclear energy’s benefits to nations and the environment far outweigh its negatives. What we need to do is invest in it to bring down energy prices and help get us to net zero, so we can help stop climate change.