Be it resolved, Go Green! Go Nuclear!

Zero emissions by 2050 and at the latest 2060. That has been the rallying cry for many of the world’s largest economies, including the US, UK, Japan, Canada, and most notably, China. But with almost 80% of carbon emissions coming from energy, demand for electricity continuing to grow by leaps and bounds, and storage batteries still in their infancy, it’s not clear how these countries will live up to their promises. The answer, say an increasing number of environmentalists and energy experts, lies with nuclear energy. They say this much vilified generator of power requires fewer materials and produces the least amount of carbon of any energy source – all with a geographic footprint 50 times smaller than solar. Nuclear energy has also proven itself for almost 70 years, and currently supplies 10% of the world’s energy mix.

Critics say that this seemingly simple solution to the climate change challenge comes with potentially catastrophic costs that far outweigh the benefits. As the accident at the Fukushima Daiichii reactors in Japan demonstrated ten years ago, the radioactive energy released by fission can wreak havoc on the surrounding environment, threatening the long-term health and lives of surrounding populations, and contaminating vast areas of land so that they are no longer habitable. The cost to build but also decommission nuclear plants makes them a far more expensive source of energy than green alternatives. Far better to address the climate change crisis and the world’s energy needs with solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal energy.