TRAN MAXIME HX2

Nuclear Power: a saviour or a danger for climate change?

In today’s society, climate change raises questions around the energy issue. Nowadays the necessity is about using
‘green’ energies, in particular the nuclear power. In fact, a strong debate animates both partisans and opposants of the
nuclear, suggested by the survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for instance. Although, Jason Bordoff in
Foreign Policy advances the multiples reasons of the emergence of nuclear despite of its risks; Matthew Yglesias
encourages its use on behalf NIMBYISM, some think on the contrary that it should be banned because of the danger it
represents.

Due to the rise of global warming, the urgency of answering climatical aims is mandatory. The journalist from Foreign
Policy suggests that in a society in which everything is electrified, where energy from the sun and wind are not
sufficient, nuclear power is a necessity. Being able to produce net-zero emissions, it stands out by its simplicity, speed
of production and low-cost. This statement is also shared by Matthew Yglesias who expresses the idea of a cheaper
mass production of this type of energy. Besides, the journalist evokes especially its efficiency in terms of land-use,
alongside geothermal power, by being capable to generate the same amount of energy but in the smaller place,
compared to wind and solar farms that required a huge area. Thus, not only the nuclear power takes part of the
NIMBY (or not in my backyard) cause, that previously brought to closures and cancellations by the opposition of
several projects, but its enables advantages concerning the cooling of reactors.

Responding to climate goals, the nuclear power is all the more important today. Indeed, Jason Bordoff says that its
return in the Energy debate is correlated to the development of nuclear innovations such as diverse types of coolants
and the use of nuclear fusion, allowing to decrease outgoings, loss but also safety concerns, in a geopolitical context in
which the emergence of energy-providing countries as Russia and China can represent a danger, showing again the
urgency of using nuclear energy.

However, even though Gregory Jaczko from the Washington Post, while being a physicist, partly relates to the ability
of nuclear power to produce a massive quantity of electricity without any pollution, he advocates for the ban of the US
nuclear power industry. Indeed, nuclear power is the source of multiple dangers, firstly linked to risk of accidents, as
previously was shown by the Chernobyl and Fukushima catastrophes, while according to him, any type of energy
shouldn’t infect populations for decades in opposition of green energies such as solar, wind and geothermal energies
that represent absolutely no threat for society. This led countries to shut down and cancel plants projects. Moreover,
the journalist highlights the huge cost that benefit only a few electricity plants. The Japan example used by Jaczko
testifies that relying on nuclear power really is a bad tactic for facing global warming, whereas the use of other
renewables energies is. Therefore, given that nuclear power is unpredictable and risky, the journalist suggest that it’s
not supposed to save the planet.

Regarding all point of view, as pros as cons of the nuclear energy debate, the survey conducted by the Pew Research
Center reveals the persistent reluctance of the US pollution concerning the nuclear power industry. While, the majority
of the American society advocates for the use of renewable energies based on wind, solar and electric power, in
opposition of fossils fuels like oil, gas and coal which represent a danger for the greenhouse effect, the population
supporting the production of nuclear power stands in the middle, showing that nuclear power is still not fully approved
by people.

The debate around nuclear is still on! If some encourage it as a savior to the climate crisis being described as a green
energy and innovative as being simple fast and inexpensive in money and space, others fear its the dangers and risks
energy; justifying the persistent reluctance of the society