Why We Can’t Go Green Without Nuclear Energy

The topic of green energy has been prominent for many years, with wind and solar power dominating the conversation. Despite this, it is impossible to have a serious discussion about green energy without acknowledging nuclear power.

According to CNBC, in 2021, only 20% of the electricity in the US came from renewables, while a staggering 61% came from burning coal, natural gas, or petroleum. 19% came from nuclear power.

Nuclear power produces energy via nuclear fission, which generates baseload electricity with no output of carbon, the primary contributor to global warming. Switching from coal to nuclear power is a significant step towards decarbonizing energy systems. Richard Rhodes, an author and historian, points out that nuclear power plants only release greenhouse gases during their construction, mining, fuel processing, maintenance, and decommissioning, which is about the same as solar power.

The International Energy Agency reported in 2019 that over the past five decades, nuclear power has reduced CO2 emissions by more than 60 gigatons, which is nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions.

In addition, nuclear power is incredibly inexpensive. According to Encore Uranium, the cost of nuclear power was $35/MWh in 2018, which is less than half the cost of coal- and gas-fired power plants.

Concerns about the dangers and threats of nuclear power are unfounded. Bill Gates, a vocal proponent of nuclear energy, states that in terms of overall safety record, nuclear energy is better than other types of energy. In nuclear power’s history as an energy source, there have only been three significant incidents worldwide, which is relatively low when you consider more than 17,000 cumulative reactor years in 33 nations.

Going 100% green is not feasible. According to Bloomberg, achieving President Biden’s goal of an emission-free grid by 2035 would require the US to increase its carbon-free capacity by at least 150%. Expanding wind and solar by 10% annually until 2030 would require land equivalent to the size of South Dakota. By 2050, when the entire economy should be carbon-free, the US would need up to four additional areas like South Dakota to develop enough clean power to run all the electric vehicles, factories, etc. Nuclear energy would require a much smaller footprint.

Furthermore, there is enough energy in nuclear waste in the United States to power the entire country for 100 years. The technology required to convert nuclear waste into energy, known as a nuclear fast reactor, has existed for decades but has never been developed at commercial scale due to political and economic reasons.

Nuclear power is not the only solution, and a balanced energy policy should include every available source: coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, and hydroelectric. Nuclear power must be considered a necessary and vital part of any plan to transition to renewable and green energy if we are to achieve a sustainable future.

Jim Nelles, a Navy veteran and supply chain consultant based in Chicago, authored this article.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

‘From “Why We Can’t Go Green Without Nuclear Energy”‘

“The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author of the article and not necessarily shared or endorsed by Conservative News Daily”

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases