You may be aware of the pressing issue of climate change. Humanity has been impacting the environment in ways that echo the mass extinctions of the past. To combat the consequences of our actions, significant measures must be taken. Yet, during this pivotal period, why has society distanced itself from the cleanest energy option available?

When asked to identify the energy source with the least carbon emissions, many might guess wind, solar, or hydroelectric power. However, the answer is nuclear energy. In fact, it significantly outperforms the alternatives, emitting nearly half the carbon per kilowatt-hour compared to wind or solar power.

So, how does this work?

Wind and solar facilities require extensive resources for their production and upkeep. For instance, large diesel vessels are necessary for the installation and maintenance of offshore wind turbines. Although these energy sources do not emit carbon during operation, their construction and maintenance contribute a considerable carbon footprint. Even so, they release less than 10% of the carbon emissions associated with coal or gas power plants.

Nuclear energy, on the other hand, does have a high carbon cost in the initial phases, such as plant construction and fuel extraction. However, due to the long operational lifespan of nuclear facilities, their overall carbon output is minimal.

Moreover, nuclear energy's advantages extend beyond its low carbon emissions. Most renewable energy sources, apart from future advancements like fusion, require vast expanses of land.

Wind energy is particularly inefficient in terms of land utilization. An acre of wind farm generates an average of about 16.67 kilowatts. In contrast, solar energy performs better, yielding around 435.6 kilowatts per acre. However, nuclear energy excels with a 1,000 MW plant occupying just a square mile while producing 1,562.5 kilowatts per acre!

Additionally, because wind and solar energy are intermittent, extensive energy storage solutions like large batteries are required, further increasing land use and carbon emissions. In contrast, nuclear energy provides a consistent power supply without necessitating such systems.

Habitat destruction is the leading cause of declining biodiversity on our planet. Therefore, occupying significant land areas with solar panels, turbines, and batteries is not a sustainable choice.

Beyond its environmental benefits, nuclear power boasts the lowest mortality rate per terawatt-hour (TWh) of energy generated, making it remarkably safe. This is true even when factoring in the fatalities associated with incidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Solar energy has an average of 440 deaths per TWh, while wind energy is better at 150 deaths per TWh. Most of these casualties result from mining accidents or mishaps during installation. In stark contrast, coal and gas contribute to 100,000 and 36,000 deaths per TWh, respectively, while nuclear's figure stands at just 90.

Nuclear energy can maintain this impressive safety record due to two factors. First, reactors are designed with exceptionally high safety standards, incorporating numerous fail-safe mechanisms to prevent radiation exposure in the event of an accident. Second, nuclear reactors require very little fuel; for instance, a 1,000 MW reactor consumes only 27 tonnes of uranium annually, significantly reducing the potential for fatal mining incidents compared to fossil fuels.

If nuclear energy is so advantageous, why is Germany decommissioning all its nuclear plants, and why is there a worldwide decline in nuclear energy usage?

While you might think nuclear waste is the main issue, that's not entirely accurate.

A 1,000 MW nuclear power station, capable of supplying energy to over a million residents, produces only three cubic meters of high-level radioactive waste annually. Although it generates a larger volume of low-level waste, this material can often be repurposed in various industries or safely stored short-term before being disposed of properly.

Currently, we are storing this waste in robust steel and concrete containers at designated sites globally. These containers are designed to prevent radiation leakage and withstand severe natural disasters.

Scientists and engineers are actively seeking long-term storage solutions. One promising approach involves Vitrifying, which transforms high-level waste into a stable glass-like substance, allowing for deep underground burial without the risk of leakage. However, researchers want to ensure the reliability of this method before applying it to the substantial quantities of nuclear waste already generated. Fortunately, advancements are underway to address this challenge.

While this waste remains hazardous for thousands of years, its overall volume is relatively small. The USA generates 19.7% of its energy from nuclear sources, resulting in only 2,000 tonnes of nuclear waste annually. In comparison, the country discards 139.6 million tonnes of toxic plastic in landfills each year. Hence, even if the US transitioned entirely to nuclear energy, its radioactive waste output would still be minimal.

Moreover, emerging technologies such as "fast reactors" and thorium reactors promise to produce even less waste (refer to my article 'The Other Clean Nuclear Energy').

If waste isn't the main concern, what is? Public perception and financial implications.

Germany's decision to phase out nuclear energy by 2022 followed the Fukushima disaster in 2011. This move seems misguided when considering the factors that led to the accident. A decade prior, the Hitachi nuclear facility had been advised to enhance its flood protection, as even a minor tsunami could lead to a meltdown. However, the management prioritized profits over safety and opted against the necessary improvements. The Fukushima incident was ultimately a result of natural disasters, poor planning, and corporate greed.

In contrast, Germany experiences far fewer natural disasters than Japan, and the government exercises stricter oversight of its nuclear power facilities. Thus, this decision appears more as a public relations strategy aimed at reassuring the German populace.

Over the past decade, public attitudes towards nuclear energy have shifted, with increasing recognition of its safety and environmental benefits. Yet, why are we not witnessing a surge in the construction of new nuclear reactors? The answer lies in the cost.

Even smaller nuclear facilities require significant investment and can take many years to complete. Furthermore, the energy they produce tends to be pricier per kilowatt-hour compared to wind or solar options. This financial reality renders nuclear energy less appealing to governments, investors, and consumers alike.

Consequently, if a government aims to rapidly enhance its green credentials without imposing substantial energy cost increases on its constituents or incurring billions in expenses for a power plant that won't be operational for years, supporting solar and wind initiatives becomes a logical choice. These projects can typically be completed within a single governmental term, presenting a more favorable public image. In essence, this reflects a public relations challenge, as governments are compelled to rapidly adopt low-carbon energy solutions without excessive spending.

Despite the evidence indicating that nuclear energy is the safest and most environmentally friendly option available, we are turning away from it due to its high costs and lengthy development time. However, this is not the end for nuclear power. Innovative projects are underway to tackle these challenges, such as India's thorium initiative and modular mini fast reactors developed by former SpaceX engineers, which promise to be more economical and quicker to deploy than current options. Thus, we may soon witness a revival of ultra-clean nuclear energy that is both affordable and sustainable.