Op-Ed
- trobins9
- Nov 14, 2023
- 3 min read
Updated: Nov 30, 2023
The world economy is about to face a big problem. If handled correctly, we could set ourselves up for decades of growth, and if handled poorly, decades of hardship.
The problem is our worldwide helpless dependence on oil. How to overcome this vulnerability and what our world will look like post-fossil fuels is still unresolved.
The United States is the largest economy in the world, and 69% of Americans are in favor of their country becoming carbon neutral by 2050. If America can be successful in fulfilling this desire, it will no doubt spark change and create a blueprint for other worldwide superpowers to follow. But how can America accomplish this?
Currently, there are two options that can act as a substitute for oil, renewable energy and nuclear energy.
Technological strides have been made in both areas, with findings indicating nuclear energy as the clear choice to support America's energy needs. However public opinion and political action have surprisingly not correlated in line with these scientific findings. Rather, nearly 72% of Americans support renewable energy development over nuclear.
This is shocking when looking at the data, and a major problem in the way the energy is viewed in the public eye.
On paper, nuclear blows renewable out of the water. It is the most reliable energy source on the planet, with the ability to operate at maximum capacity 92% of the year. In relation, Wind and Solar renewable energy are hindered by the usage of natural elements and are estimated to only be fully operational 35% and 24% of the year.
Nuclear energy is also one of the cleanest sources of energy in today's modern when juxtaposed to the amount of energy produced. Nuclear energy creates nearly the same amount of emissions as renewable energy while being operational for a significantly longer period of time, and studies have found nuclear energy even produces 4 times less greenhouse gas emissions than solar energy.
Nuclear energy also requires significantly less land than renewable energy. Nuclear energy is condensed in a much smaller area, and on average takes up 1/2,000th the amount of a standard wind farm and 1/400th an area as a solar plant. Further research from the US government shows renewable energy's impact on wildlife estimating nearly 134,000 to 230,000 birds are maimed each year as a result of wind turbines. Nuclear is clearly an environmentally sustainable and safer energy source option for our future and growing population.
While clearly being the answer and fixing our oil dependence, nuclear energy struggles to gain substantial support from the worldwide media and often takes a back seat in the United States government's energy discussions. While both a clean and safe creation of energy, apprehension, and stigma brewing from historical nuclear incidents unfairly tarnish nuclear energy’s persona in the public eye. However, only three major disasters have occurred since nuclear creation, two of which have been human error and one due to external factors, in which the Fukushima nuclear powerplant was placed atop an active earthquake fault line. Governments have learned from this past mistake, and if nuclear power is to be developed on a large scale it is expected that enhanced management and careful selection of power plant locations will occur to diminish these risks significantly.
To successfully transition away from oil, relying solely on renewable energy is shortsighted. Nuclear energy emerges as the most viable and efficient alternative, and with the depletion of oil looming, taking proactive steps is essential to avert significant impacts on both the national and global economy. Integrating the development of nuclear energy facilities into our power grids and facilitating a seamless global transition of this energy is imperative for a sustainable and secure future of global energy. The USA will play a critical role in the direction of worldwide energy production post-oil and nuclear energy is the answer.
Work Cited
Matthews, R. (2022, May 17). Anthropogenic causes of bird mortality: Climate change, fossil fuels and renewable energy. Change Oracle. https://changeoracle.com/2014/10/17/environmental-causes-of-bird-mortality/
Nuclear power is the most reliable energy source and it’s not even close. Energy.gov. (n.d.-a). https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close
Nuclear power is the most reliable energy source and it’s not even close. Energy.gov. (n.d.-b). https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close
I believe the ultimate solution to the climate crisis is to move away from oil and coal, as you suggested, and to embrace nuclear energy while still relying on solar power. I recently read about Portugal's success in running solely on renewable energy (solar, wind, and hydro) for six days, meeting their consumption needs and even exporting surplus energy to Spain. Portugal exemplifies the feasibility of achieving zero carbon emissions. Although weather conditions in our countries may hinder similar achievements, incorporating nuclear energy could bridge this gap, provided its risks are managed.
I think this article was very interesting. I think move away from oil has to be interpreted as an opportunity to dominate the new phase of human energy production. America has always been on the forefront of innovation, and we now have the chance to revolutionize another antiquated industry.
I agree that it is unrealistic to rely on renewable energy as the sole replacement for oil and fossil fuels, especially since technology surrounding alternate forms of energy is still developing. Although there has been improvement in nuclear energy and the world has learned some lessons from past disasters, there is still a lot of discussion surrounding the ethical implications of nuclear energy. What is the best way for people to weigh if the potential benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the potential destruction it can cause?