Nuclear power: It’s the major power-source of the atomic age.

First seen as innovative–albeit costly–to being demonized, it is commonly regarded as the most dangerous power source. And, its future resides in a strange state of limbo: not popular, but also refusing to become obsolete, with only murmurs of expanding on it here and there. 

However, it possibly is the single-best form of green energy there is…but also the least popular, by far. And, why is that? Honestly, it’s complicated.  From politics to propaganda and from money to fear-mongering by opponents, nuclear power  it a hot topic. As a result, what could be a large step in humanity’s future and development is halted by humanity itself. Yet, why? And, how could this change?

For one, it’s best to look at the many factors that make nuclear power so divisive. Many do not recognize it as a source of green energy. Yet, it is–with the U.S. Department of Energy itself stating that “nuclear is a zero-emission clean energy source.” Then, the size of the facility is called into question. However, the land it takes to install a power plant is comparatively small. The average medium-sized nuclear facility requires 360 times less land than the average wind farm. Even the average solar facility needs far more land than a nuclear facility–which equates to more trees being cut down and more ecosystems being destroyed just to exist. Both stress the land itself and the surrounding ecosystem.

Of course, no power source works without a process to generate energy. So, to quickly summarize, nuclear power uses Nuclear fission, where radioactive atoms are split to create energy. The energy then spins turbines, which then generate electricity, with the added bonus of not having harmful byproducts! Except for one….

Nuclear waste–one of the major talking points when it comes to the utilization and efficiency of nuclear power–has been a source of contention, an issue that admittedly has been blown out of proportion.

Peter C. Burns, a Professor at Notre Dame who researches environmental chemistry, including disposal of nuclear waste, has said as much, stating this: “The backend of the nuclear fuel cycle–i.e. everything after the reactor–has been very well managed with an excellent safety record in the USA and elsewhere. Spent nuclear fuel from the nation’s commercial power plants has been safely stored at or near reactor sites.”

Granted, this isn’t a permanent solution, but it does show that there is a clear effort to ensure fuel is disposed of accordingly, not like the poorly buried barrels of nuclear waste often depicted in the media. 

This is, of course, in contrast to the backend of fossil fuels, which Burns states “have been poorly (or not at all) managed and is causing global warming and other problems.”

Unfortunately, the USA is starting to backpedal on the problem of nuclear waste, with Burns stating, “At the moment, there seems to be very little emphasis on taking care of the problem. And that, of course, plays right into the hands of the opponents of nuclear power, who claim there is no solution to the nuclear waste problem.”

There is also the issue of nuclear weapons, and the impact they have. Yet, nuclear power and nuclear armaments are completely different. Much like fossil fuels, radioactive materials can be used offensively in the form of bombs, such as the two dropped upon Nagasaki and Hiroshima during the final days of World War II.

Continuing on with issues in expanding nuclear power is its demonization at the hands of the media. One need look no further than reports on disasters such as Chernobyl, Three-Mile Island, Fukushima Daiichi. These incidents are prime targets by opponents of nuclear power, exploiting these accidents on account of their destructive power. But, here’s the kicker: Only one nuclear accident has left such an impact that it is still felt today. That being Chernobyl.

Chernobyl, even among nuclear supporters, is something that is a prime example of what happens when management of a nuclear power plant is poor, safety measures are ignored, and processes are overlooked. The entire accident was caused by human error. Design flaws in Reactor No. 4,  ignoring safety measures, and overall poor construction led to Reactor No. 4 exploding, thus resulting in one of the worst nuclear accidents recorded.

It’s important to understand the danger of such sciences as nuclear power and nuclear physics in general, even when looking at the good. Today, the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, and the surrounding city of Pripyat, remain abandoned. Stuck in the past, and being swallowed by nature, the radiation there still remains. Although not as strong as it once was, it is still very much there.

It is a prime example of why nuclear power is so powerful, and why it’s important to truly understand it. Much like airplanes, nuclear power plants in reality are much safer than they seem, despite meltdowns like Chernobyl.

As stated, Chernobyl was not a freak accident; it was a consequence of extreme human error–just as with most airplane accidents. Of course, there is the occasional natural disaster, as seen with Fukushima Daiichi, but most nuclear accidents are directly attributed to humans. Yet, much like airplanes, nuclear power plants are becoming safer with advancements in safety measures, containment of radioactive material, and innovation.

Burns expanded on this idea, stating, “This is because we learn from mistakes and constantly improve the designs of airplanes, to the point that they are now the safest way to travel. Quietly, the same has been done with nuclear reactors–we can build new reactors that are safer, more efficient, and produce less waste than earlier generations.”

Finally, take a long look into the future. Nuclear power itself could very well replace fossil fuels as a dominant energy source if enough resources are put towards it. Nuclear fusion, especially, is a focal point. It’s a process where two atomic nuclei are fused into a single heavier one, creating a massive amount of energy. The sun is perhaps the best example of this: a giant, natural fusion reactor.

The problem with fusion is simply the cost and resources involved, as well as the fact that it’s just currently an extremely experimental process to create artificially. But, if focus were pointed towards research, then perhaps one day, fusion could become the dominant power source–especially since a fusion reactor could potentially sustain itself without fuel.

In the end, nuclear power is an unrecognized greener future. The potential is indeed there, but the support and funding remains minimal. Yet, with modern technology, and reoccurring interest in nuclear technology, perhaps a revival will soon emerge–especially as the effects of climate change become more and more apparent in the 21st century.