Is Nuclear Power a Viable Alternative to Fossil Fuels?

Introduction: The Climate Change Context

Is nuclear energy the best alternative to fossil fuels, given the world's growing energy needs and the dual imperatives of economic viability and environmental protection? This question encompasses several interconnected issues: global climate change, the science behind it, the politics surrounding it, and the continuing search for new energy sources. Available, credible research shows that nuclear power plants today are prohibitively expensive to build and, moreover, that public fear and skepticism of nuclear energy have intensified following the tsunami and radioactive disaster in Japan. Nuclear power does not therefore appear to be a valid alternative to fossil fuels at this time, notwithstanding the urgent need to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide.

There are still elected officials in the United States — and conservative media personalities — who do not accept the scientific evidence showing that the planet is warming and that human activities are the cause. These voices matter because they shape public opinion. The radio audience of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, for example, is estimated at fifteen to twenty million listeners per week, and the host has made statements such as: "They're liberals perpetuating a hoax… We're not getting warmer… [it's] a big fat lie" (Limbaugh, 2013).

U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma similarly denies that climate change is occurring or that humans are contributing to it. After President Barack Obama announced that his administration would set limits on emissions from coal-powered electrical generating plants, Inhofe said: "Their goal is not to protect the American people, it is to control them. They want top-down control, and carbon dioxide regulations will give this to them" (McAuliff, 2013). Despite such public denials, the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued reports asserting that the problem "is likely to grow substantially worse unless greenhouse emissions are brought under control" (Gillis, 2014).

A report reviewed by The New York Times identifies the burning of fossil fuels as the primary driver of planetary warming. "Ice caps are melting, sea ice in the Arctic is collapsing, water supplies are coming under stress, heat waves and heavy rains are intensifying, coral reefs are dying," and many species — including some fish — are becoming extinct (Gillis, p. 1). The oceans are rising, threatening coastal communities worldwide, and are becoming more acidic as they absorb carbon dioxide emitted by fossil-fueled power plants. According to the IPCC, the world's food supply is at "considerable risk — a threat that could have serious consequences for the poorest nations" (Gillis, p. 1). The report further warns that climate change will slow economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, and that its effects are already being felt rather than being a distant future concern.

Climate scientist Michael Mann, writing in Scientific American (April 2014), warns that "if the world keeps burning fossil fuels at the current rate, it will cross a threshold into environmental ruin by 2036" (Mann, 2014). Mann notes that the preindustrial level of CO2 was approximately 280 parts per million (ppm), and that in 2013 the CO2 level "briefly reached 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history." He adds that this level may have been reached "for the first time in millions of years, according to geologic evidence." The scientific consensus among the hundreds of researchers contributing to the IPCC is that if CO2 crosses the threshold of 405 ppm, "that will harm civilization" (Mann, p. 5). Moreover, if levels reach 450 ppm — which they will by 2036 if current emission rates continue — the atmosphere will warm by two degrees Celsius and "human civilization will suffer dangerous harm" (Mann, p. 5).