Climate Change


It is often argued that nuclear energy is carbon neutral and an ideal alternative to fossil fuels in the fight against climate change. This has led to extensive government subsidization of nuclear power plants and significant political support for increasing our atomic energy usage. When investigated in detail, however, it becomes clear that nuclear energy is neither carbon neutral nor efficient in producing electricity.

Although the only outputs of a nuclear power plant are heat and radioactive waste, nuclear energy is not entirely carbon neutral. Nuclear energy’s carbon footprint is indirectly increased by the other steps involved in its production (construction, mining, transportation, storage, etc). While it is low-carbon compared to processes involving oil or coal, it generates far more greenhouse gases than electricity from sustainable sources like solar or wind.

Nuclear energy is also costly, and plants can almost only be built with government subsidies. In addition, nuclear power is neither sustainable nor finite. Investment in sustainable energy would be a much more efficient choice in the long run.

The other massive problem with nuclear energy is the dangers that go along with it. There is currently no ideal method of dealing with the radioactive waste. And, despite the precautions, accidents are always a threat, and a repeat of the Chernobyl disaster is not unlikely. This section uses these points to argue against using nuclear energy in the battle against climate change and push for further investment into sustainable energy production.

Additional Resources: