To be environmentally conscious, you need to consider nuclear power

Amy McDonald, Contributing Writer

I never thought I would be called a Republican by a classmate. It was thrown to me as an insult because I was sharing my understanding of a progressive solution for global climate change.

It would not be a stretch to say the majority of VCU’s student body agrees that global warming is an issue, but they will not consider all the possible steps to address it.

During K-12, I was taught that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and bovine flatulence. The fix? Renewable energy; solar panels, wind turbines, hydro-electric power and geothermal sources.

My wonderful physics nerd of a father, however, said differently. He said the real “fix” was nuclear power.

When I came to VCU, I had a tough time finding similarly-viewed students within the largely liberal student body. 

Nuclear power can seem daunting when recalling the disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima — but many people have interacted with nuclear technology unknowingly. For example, the popular summer destination of Lake Anna in Louisa County — just northwest of Richmond — was originally created as a reservoir to act as a water coolant for the North Anna Power Station, a nuclear plant. 

We might want to get used to nuclear power in our daily life, considering Commonwealth Fusion Systems aims to build the world’s first fusion power plant in Chesterfield.

I understand the reluctance to consider nuclear power. Finding unbiased interpretations of information on energy production and consumption is difficult. There are powerful parties interested in discounting nuclear energy as a viable primary source. Why invest billions into nuclear power infrastructure when paying only millions towards renewable energy has better positive social capital? 

Growing up, my father taught me about the misunderstood necessity of nuclear power. His sources included the various books and studies he read, the podcasts he listened to and even a subreddit he was banned from for using foul language while advocating for nuclear energy. 

He told me about nuclear power’s low lifetime cost, energy abundance and low carbon emissions. There are plot holes found in anti-nuclear arguments. As the waste is actually very manageable and even recyclable. The danger of radiation is overestimated and reactor disasters are misunderstood.

It is also important to recognize the shortcomings of renewable resources aiming to reduce the use of fossil fuels. The sun not always shining on solar panels and wind not always spinning wind turbines can cause big issues. Issues that need to be fixed with the rare earth minerals that are also put in solar panels, wind turbines, and hydroelectric generators. Mining these rare earth elements produces environmental and public health issues of their own.

Nuclear energy costs so much money, but sustainability requires a large upfront capital investment. Instead, billions are being invested by people, people who will likely never feel the visceral impacts of global warming, into the environmental terrors of generative AI and the bombing of innocent civilians in Gaza.

Nuclear power can be done badly. This is why we need a regulatory infrastructure of career civil servants devoted to nuclear power for the advancement of humanity — not at its expense.

The next time you feel an unprecedented gust of wind blasting you while walking to class, or sweat dripping down your back while sitting in Monroe Park despite it being autumn, I hope that you consider nuclear power as a sustainable solution to carbon neutrality.