carbon emissions and increases energy security by decreasing dependence on imported energy sources. Opponents believe that nuclear power poses many threats to people and the environment. While nuclear power has historically been opposed by many environmentalist
organisations, some support it, as do some scientists.
Nuclear energy is often considered to be a controversial area of public policy.[1][2] The debate about nuclear power peaked during the 1970s and 1980s, when it "reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies", in some countries.[3][4]
Proponents of nuclear energy point to the fact that nuclear power produces very little conventional air pollution,
fossil fuels
in the ground, or because fossil fuels become depleted.
Globally, there are dozens of companies with an interest in the nuclear industry, including
public relation activities, petition government authorities, as well as influence public policy through referendum campaigns and involvement in elections.[7][8][9][10][11]
The nuclear industry has "tried a variety of strategies to persuade the public to accept nuclear power", including the publication of numerous "fact sheets" that discuss issues of public concern.
Small Modular Reactors
.
Since 2000 the nuclear industry has undertaken an international media and
radioactive waste management
– use fossil fuels and hence emit carbon dioxide.
The
USEPA has also been involved. Clean Energy America is another group also sponsored by the NEI.[13]
As of 2014, the U.S. nuclear industry has begun a new lobbying effort, hiring three former senators — Evan Bayh, a Democrat; Judd Gregg, a Republican; and Spencer Abraham, a Republican — as well as William M. Daley, a former staffer to President Obama. The initiative is called Nuclear Matters, and it has begun a newspaper advertising campaign.[14]
Organizations supporting nuclear power
In March 2017, a bipartisan group of eight senators, including five Republicans and three Democrats introduced S. 512, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA). The legislation would help to modernize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), support the advancement of the nation's nuclear industry and develop the regulatory framework to enable the licensing of advanced nuclear reactors, while improving the efficiency of uranium regulation. Letters of support for this legislation were provided by thirty-six organizations, including for profit enterprises, non-profit organizations and educational institutions. The most prominent entities from that group and other well-known organizations actively supporting the continued or expanded use of nuclear power as a solution for providing clean, reliable energy include:
Nuclear Institute[citation needed] (Formerly the British Nuclear Energy Society (BNES) and the Institution of Nuclear Engineers (INucE), representing nuclear professionals in the U.K.)
The United States generates about 19% of its electricity from nuclear power plants. Nearly 60% of all clean energy generated in the U.S. comes from nuclear power.[
passive safety features. Although government labs research the same areas as industry, they also study a myriad of other issues such as nuclear fuels and nuclear fuel cycles, advanced reactor designs, and nuclear weapon design and maintenance. A principal pipeline for trained personnel for US reactor facilities is the Navy Nuclear Power Program. The job outlook for nuclear engineering from the year 2012 to the year 2022 is predicted to grow 9% due to many elder nuclear engineers retiring, safety systems needing to be updated in power plants, and the advancements made in nuclear medicine.[18]
A pragmatic need for secure energy supply is a leading reason for many to support nuclear energy. Many people, including former opponents of nuclear energy, now say that nuclear energy is necessary for reducing
carbon dioxide emissions. They recognize that the threat to humanity from climate change is far worse than any risk associated with nuclear energy. Many nuclear energy supporters, but not all, acknowledge that renewable energy is also important to the effort to eliminate emissions. Early environmentalists who publicly voiced support for nuclear power include James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia hypothesis, Patrick Moore, an early member of Greenpeace and former president of Greenpeace Canada, George Monbiot and Stewart Brand, creator of the Whole Earth Catalog.[19][20] Lovelock goes further to refute claims about the danger of nuclear energy and its waste products.[21] In a January 2008 interview, Moore said that "It wasn't until after I'd left Greenpeace and the climate change issue started coming to the forefront that I started rethinking energy policy in general and realized that I had been incorrect in my analysis of nuclear as being some kind of evil plot."[22] There are increasing numbers of scientists and laymen who are environmentalists with views that depart from the mainstream environmental stance that rejects a role for nuclear power in the climate fight (once labelled "Nuclear Greens,"[23] some now consider themselves Ecomodernists
).
Other academics and professionals, alarmed by the impact of disproportionate media coverage of nuclear accidents have formed a group called Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information (SARI).[24] This was formed after a tsunami in Japan in 2011 caused an accidental release at Fukushima Daiichi, local people were unnecessarily relocated and psychologically stressed by false fears. This evacuation is estimated to have produced increased mortality rates equivalent to 2,313 deaths.[25] This effective suffering is known as the ‘nocebo’ effect, and describes a situation where a negative outcome occurs due to a belief that an intervention will cause harm.
Others who have spoken publicly on the benefits of nuclear power include:
Carol Browner[36][37] (Former EPA administrator and ECCP (White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy) director in the Obama administration, author of "Comments on Proposed Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada," Leadership Council, Nuclear Matters)
Climate and energy scientists in 2013: there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power[65][66][67][68]
Conservation biologists in 2014: to replace the burning of fossil fuels, if we are to have any chance of mitigating severe climate change […we] need to accept a substantial role for advanced nuclear power systems with complete fuel recycling[69][70][71]
The following is a list of people that signed the open letter:[72]
nuclear fusion reactor project. A collaboration between the European Union (EU), India, Japan, China, Russia, South Korea and the United States, the project aims to make a transition from experimental studies of plasma physics to electricity-producing fusion power plants. However, the World Nuclear Association says that nuclear fusion "presents so far insurmountable scientific and engineering challenges".[74] Construction of the ITER facility began in 2007, but the project has run into many delays and budget overruns. The facility is now not expected to begin operations until the year 2027 – 11 years after initially anticipated.[75]
Another nuclear power program is the Energy Impact Center's OPEN100 project. OPEN100 was launched in 2020 and has published open-source blueprints for a nuclear power plant with a 100-megawatt pressurized water reactor.[76] The project aims to minimize the costs and duration of construction to increase nuclear power supply and potentially reverse the effects of climate change.[77]
^Diane Farseta (September 1, 2008). "The Campaign to Sell Nuclear". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. pp. 38–56. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
^Jonathan Leake. "The Nuclear Charm Offensive" New Statesman, 23 May 2005.
^ abSharon Beder (2014). Lobbying, greenwash and deliberate confusion: how vested interests undermine climate change. In M. C-T. Huang and R. R-C Huang (Eds.), Green Thoughts and Environmental Politics: Green Trends and Environmental Politics (pp. 297-328), Taipei, Taiwan: Asia-seok Digital Technology.
^"2015 Emerging Explorers » Leslie Dewan, Nuclear Engineer". National Geographic Society. Archived from the original on June 12, 2015. Retrieved 14 June 2015. At the most fundamental level I'm an environmentalist. I'm doing this because I think nuclear power is the best way of producing large amounts of carbon-free electricity. I think the world needs nuclear power, alongside solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal, if we want to have any hope of reducing fossil fuel emissions and preventing global climate change.
^as of the most recent access date, Brook and Bradshaw's letter had an additional 75 signatories; only those with biographical Wikipedia articles are displayed here however.
Reese Palley, The Answer: Why Only Mini Nuclear Power Plants Can Save Our World, (2011)
Rauli Partanen and Janne M. Korhonen, Climate Gamble: Is Anti-Nuclear Activism Endangering Our Future? (2015)
Joseph M. Shuster, Beyond Fossil Fools: The Roadmap to Energy Independence by 2040 (2008)
Charles E. Till and Yoon Il Chang, Plentiful Energy: The Story of the Integral Fast Reactor, (2011)
Ialenti, Vincent (2016-11-14). "Alter-Ecologies: Envisioning Papal & Ecomodernist Nuclear Energy Policy Futures". Laudato Si': Reflections on the Legal, Political and Moral Authority of Catholic Social Thought in an Era of Climate Crisis (Eds Frank Pasquale & Michael Perry). Forthcoming. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
