Nuclear:
A Biased View Fueled By Oil
Nuclear energy, in layman's terms is making use of the natural decay of certain elements to boil water and spin turbines. In short, it’s a steam engine.
Nuclear power has been around since the 50’s and in that time frame we’ve seen 30 global accidents, in comparison we had at least 44 large scale oil spills in the USA alone since 1969. Given this most of us would still believe the 30 nuclear accidents have had a major impact on us, all because we still remember and associate nuclear energy to both Chernobyl and Fukushima, undoubtedly two horrible events.
Going over Chernobyl, the worse case scenario, it can be boiled down to a few reasons of why it happened:
· Old technology;
· Lack of preparation for emergencies;
· Lack of initiative from the government;
· A focus on public image and not on damage control;
In the article “Geist E., Political Fallout: The Failure of Emergency Management at Chernobyl’, 2015” we explore how the USSR decided to mainly inform the population and try to save their image from being associated with the implications rather than contain this man made horror. Despite their slow response and lack of effort the disaster is still much less impactful then we usually believe. Ask yourself, “How many died due to Chernobyl?”. 100? 200? The truth is that the numbers are much, much lower. A 2002 study by the Nuclear Energy Agency found that the total deaths directly linked to Chernobyl where only 31. For comparison a Forbes article from 2020 shows us that every day 10 000 people die directly from air pollution from fossil fuels, and that’s only thinking about the pollution and not facturing in the accidents and other death causes.
Looking at the Fukushima disaster we get higher numbers, 573 direct deaths. Here we see the example of a better equipped, safer reactor and faster response. So, why are the numbers higher? The main issue here is not radiation but the evacuation of the area around the reactor. Given its location, densely populated areas were evacuated as expected. The issue is the age group within those areas. Mainly elderly people died due to stress and complications with evacuations. Despite this, we should and must count them as direct deaths due to the reactor
All other nuclear energy related disasters we’ve had since the 50’s either didn’t kill anyone or killed very few people, while fossil fuels have killed around 100 million people in the last 50 years from pollution alone.
So why aren’t we using nuclear if less people died in disasters?
Simple, those who profit from fossil fuels don't want us too.
In the above image we can see both the death rate and the greenhouse emissions several energy production methods cause. As we can see the best would be solar or wind power, the issue is that these are costly to make and the energy production isn't sufficient to phase out fossil fuels. Given this, why don’t we switch to nuclear? A much more energy efficient power production system and one of the least impactful?
To answer this we must first understand the worth of the fossil fuel industry, which for example, according to Statista, is worth 181 billion dollars in the USA alone.The fact is, we have a small number of companies worldwide that employ millions of people that run the energy business, and for them it’s simply not profitable to switch to nuclear. This is simply because nuclear costs less to produce and is much more energy efficient, so in the end we would have to pay much less for it.
To combat the advancements of nuclear energy programs the oil industry has consistently paid for and created anti-nuclear campaigns. In the USA the American Petroleum Institute has funded countles campaigns to slow down the progress of nuclear, by constantly destroying its public perception.
Here we can see one of the many examples of the Oil industry pushing for an anti-nuclear world. In an article by The Guardian we are made aware that the world's top oil companies have and still do manipulate the policies that would push for a green energy production by lobbying politicians and entire states.
“We make no apology for talking to policymakers and regulators around the world to make our voice heard on crucial topics such as climate change and how to address it.” — Shell
With this quote by the oil company Shell we see how the oil industry is unapologetic when it comes to their actions to stop a green world. While healthy competition between sectors and companies in the same industries should be welcomed, the clear political manipulation should be frowned upon when what's at stake is the future of our world.
Why you should care.
In closing, although many topics haven’t been touched on in this article, such as nuclear waste, the data is clear on one thing, nuclear is better and it’s getting better by the day despite the pushback from the fossil industry.
Whether you care for the environment, the loss of human life or simply for the money, nuclear energy is for you. It’s ok to think firstly about your own pocket, the world is harsh and you should take care of yourself, but then, why not use a cheaper and more efficient way of energy production that's also safer for you and others? Research and choose the future when possible.