Haniya Faisal

Word Count: 1982

Is nuclear energy a viable alternative to traditional forms of energy?

Nuclear energy is derived from the process of nuclear fission and fusion that are performed on
radioactive elements like uranium.1 With the ongoing global energy crisis and the demand for clean
energy being more urgent than ever, nuclear energy has been often brought forth as an alternative to
energy sources like coal and oil. The use of nuclear energy has significantly reduced global carbon
dioxide emissions by 60 gigatons (in 2019),2 helping with the goal to achieve clean energy, such as in
Switzerland, where the Beznau Nuclear Power Plant has been operational for decades now.

However, many experts deem nuclear energy slow, expensive and potentially unsafe. Unintentional
radiological releases and leaks, for example, may cause harm. Perhaps the most notorious incident of
such a leak is from the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine, where an explosion in 1986 claimed the lives of 30,
and caused considerable damage to the ecosystem, rendering the environment inhabitable. These
factors lead to skepticism regarding the viability of nuclear energy as an alternative to traditional forms
of energy such as oil and gas - and such skepticism is unfolded in the case of China, which invested only
$6.5 billion in nuclear energy programs but $91 billion in renewable energy ones as of 2018. 3

Thus, confusion remains, and a debate ensues as to whether nuclear energy is a better alternative to
coal, gas or renewable forms of energy. This essay aims to explore contrasting perspectives and provides
a conclusion to the debate.

Fisher and Liou argue that nuclear energy is a plausible alternative to other energy sources in their
article titled, “How Can Nuclear Replace Coal as Part of the Clean Energy Transition?” for the IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency). Fisher and Liou work for the IAEA in the departments of nuclear
energy, and Public Communication respectively. These facts lend credibility to the source and the
argument that it carries with IAEA being a globally known, well reputed organization working directly on
issues related to nuclear energy.

The IAEA ensures that the SOPs (standard operating procedures) for the usage of nuclear energy are
ensured to combat reservations of governments regarding safety procedures being followed. Being
available regardless of weather conditions makes them suitable as alternatives to solar and wind energy,
both of which are heavily reliant on the weather. The authors give the case of the Ontario government in
Canada which initiated the transition from coal to nuclear energy in 2003. By 2021, around 90% of
Ontario's electricity production came from (carbon-free) sources, nuclear plants in particular. As a result,
the provincial government is able to boast of a carbon-free energy transition and stable, dependable
electricity grids which was previously not the case as traditional forms of energy output were dependent
on the weather.4 This example strengthens the argument in the article by showing us that there is a

1
Encyclopedia Britannica. “Nuclear Energy | Definition, Sources, Uses, & Facts,” n.d.
https://www.britannica.com/science/nuclear-energy.
2
“Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System.” IEA, May, 2019. https://www.iea.org/reports/nuclear-power-in-a-
clean-energy-system.
3
“Nuclear Energy” IEA
4
How Can Nuclear Replace Coal in the Clean Energy Transition? “How Can Nuclear Replace Coal as Part of the
Clean Energy Transition?,” October 4, 2021. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/how-can-nuclear-replace-
possibility for a transition from coal to nuclear energy for countries around the world, especially those
from the developed world.

The provenance of this article is particularly commendable, being published by an international energy
organization. It also relies on various perspectives to the problem, considering how nuclear energy is a
better alternative to not only coal, but to solar and wind energy as well. These critical comparisons make
for a convincing case.

Meanwhile, we must acknowledge the areas where this article lacks. Although it takes examples of
Canada, China and Switzerland in terms of their nuclear projects, these examples alone hardly make the
article's argument applicable to other countries, especially those from the developing world which might
not have the capacity or resources to make this transition. Another key weakness is perhaps the fact that
the author only gives us the positive aspects and benefits of this shift to nuclear and doesn't consider
some of the challenges associated with development of nuclear energy - which may indicate the
possibility of a bias.

However, another report that carefully considers the pros and cons also arrives at the same conclusion
that nuclear energy is in fact a viable alternative. Published by the United Nations Economic Commission
for Europe (UNECE) the article tells us that nuclear power should be prioritized because of its reduced
carbon footprint therefore contributing to our efforts against climate change. The article carries special
weight since it has been published by the UNECE, which is a highly credible international organization.
The data and facts lined up in this document are not only limited to European countries, but also entail
perspectives from other regions of the world which are broadly in favor of adopting nuclear energy. For
instance, 20 states under the UNECE are operating nuclear power plants, 15 of which are either planning
for the development of those reactors or are constructing new ones.5 It refutes the claim of nuclear
energy being expensive by citing China, Japan, South Korea and the Russian Federation as countries that
have managed to minimize the cost of nuclear infrastructure, with Russia taking the lead with the
levelized cost of electricity from nuclear energy being less than 50 USD/MWh (in 2020). 6

Therefore, there is notable potential for cost reduction for construction of nuclear projects globally.
Learning from the practice of these countries will significantly reduce the cost of nuclear energy,
consequently helping cut costs of transitioning to low-decarbonized energy. However, the report does
not offer a comparative analysis of what these costs mean especially relative to other sources of energy.
To sum up, this perspective posits that nuclear energy has a significantly smaller carbon footprint and
transitioning to it might be economically feasible as well.

Moving towards an alternate perspective of why nuclear energy is not a suitable replacement for other
energy forms, first we look at an article by Greenpeace, “6 reasons why nuclear energy is not the way to
a green and peaceful world”. Greenpeace is an international campaigning platform for environmentalists
which has over 50 years of research and activism experience on environmental challenges - this lends
credibility to the source. Mehdi Leman, the author for this article is also a content editor for Greenpeace,
he has 5 years of experience in environment and health related work. He argues that doubling the global

coal-as-part-of-the-clean-energy-transition.
5
“Technology brief Nuclear power.” UNECE, https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/Nuclear%20power
%20brief_EN_0.pdf.
6
“Technology brief” UNECE
nuclear energy capacity by 2050 would cut down the global carbon emissions only by 4%, 7 a figure that is
not nearly sufficient to avert the climate crisis. In addition, nuclear vessels containing radioactive fuel are
vulnerable to causing accidents in times of terrorist activities, natural disasters, or war in the case of
Ukraine, where the Russia-Ukraine war poses a threat to the 15 Ukrainian nuclear power plants situated
near the conflict zone. The use of a current example helps establish the possibility of such a scenario in
addition to the magnitude of the devastation that can be caused. Leman notes that In addition to
requiring heavy capital investment, nuclear energy releases a lot of toxic waste that is difficult to dispose
of, which is why the EU Commission’s Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance disapproved of it in
March 2022. The use of another source with authority adds weight to the author’s apprehensions about
the viability of nuclear energy as an alternative.

It also reiterates the central claim of the article at the end, providing the argument a sound structure,
“Nuclear energy has no place in a safe, clean, sustainable future. It is more important than ever that we
steer away from false solutions and leave nuclear power in the past”. While this source highlights the
issues with adopting nuclear energy, it does not make for a convincing perspective as it is devoid of any
real solution to the problem of depleting energy sources. Just being critical of nuclear energy does not
solve the problem.

While the perspective in favor argued that nuclear energy might be economically feasible, an article
published in Financial Review, “Nuclear energy too expensive to replace fossil fuels: CSIRO” challenges
this notion as well. It was written by Mark Ludlow, the bureau chief of Queensland, Australia. Ludlow
writes often about energy alongside politics and infrastructure, and his affiliation with the Financial
Review allows him to be a credible source for speaking on nuclear energy. He also integrates the
perspective of the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) into his
argument and being an Australian Government agency responsible for scientific research, the inclusion
of the CSIRO’s perspective makes Ludlow’s argument more reliable.

He explains that nuclear power is by far too expensive to attain a foothold in the Australian energy
industry, where the Gencost report by the CSIRO found that where a small nuclear reactor costs $16,000
per kilowatt-hour, wind and solar cost around $2000 per kilowatt-hour,8 rendering the former a far less
affordable and viable option than the latter two.

In addition to arguing against nuclear energy, Ludlow also speaks in favor of other energy forms to
support his case. He states that even in the face of inflation, solar and wind power in Australia were
expected to become cheaper. This well-rounded approach serves as a strength of the argument, coupled
with the numerous testimonies from relevant organizations and authority figures that are a major
component of the article, such as the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering
(ATSE) and the CSIRO’s chief executive. This source is particularly strong as it offers a solution however
support for that solution is based on speculative figures as it says they are “expected to become
cheaper”.

7
Greenpeace International. “6 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy Is Not the Way to a Green and Peaceful World -
Greenpeace International,” n.d. https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/52758/reasons-why-nuclear-
energy-not-way-green-and-peaceful-world.
8
Australian Financial Review. “Nuclear Energy Too Expensive to Replace Fossil Fuels: CSIRO,” July 11, 2022.
https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/nuclear-energy-too-expensive-to-replace-fossil-fuels-20220711-p5b0pd.
Contingent upon the extensive evaluation provided, I am personally of the opinion that nuclear energy is
not a viable option in comparison to other energy forms due to many reasons. For instance, the
arguments opposing the viability of nuclear energy are well-rounded and provide sufficient rebuttals as
they directly challenge the premise of the arguments in favor that it is significant enough for fighting
climate change and that it is not that expensive to do so - through a quantifiable analysis, the
perspective against the view has exposed the flaws in this argument.

The first source shows that there is ample possibility for decarbonization via nuclear power and is
accompanied by factual, representative cases from China, Switzerland and the Canadian province of
Ontario. On the other hand, though, the sources battling this argument, such as that of Leman, demean
the viability of nuclear energy and discuss the heavy capital involved and the hazards associated with in-
disposable radioactive waste which is a by-product from the generation of nuclear energy, giving this
side of the perspective an upper-hand.

In conclusion, I believe nuclear energy could be considered as a viable energy option and investing in it
could prove fruitful in the long run. However, at present, other energy forms such as solar and wind
should take precedence over nuclear by way of their affordability, comparatively low initial capital
required and minimal environmental impact.

Though initially I was of the perspective that nuclear energy was the way forward in terms of global
energy and climate crises, my opinion now has severely deviated from what it was prior to working on
this report. Looking through different lenses to the energy options at hand via the articles and
documents cited in this report has allowed me to reconsider my stance on the viability of nuclear energy
and has made me more open to accepting other energy options instead. This is primarily because almost
every argument in favor of nuclear energy happens to have limitations associated with it and is pitted
against well-constructed rebuttals from articles like that from Greenpeace.

Naturally, my research does consist of loopholes. My research on nuclear energy programs could have
been more diverse with the inclusion of those from developing and underdeveloped countries in order
to derive a conclusion more thorough and generalizable to all parts of the world. Considering this, it
would be interesting to carry out a specific research on the feasibility of developing countries to adopt
nuclear energy across the criterias of environmental impact and economic viability.