In 2021, the infamous Indian Point Energy Center, a nuclear power plant, shut down. The plant is in the lower Hudson Valley, just above New York City. For much of its history, protests were brought up against the site by environmentalists and New York state politicians. According to The New York Times, environmentalist groups “complained about Indian Point’s effects on local groundwater and the Hudson River.” However, many supporters of clean energy also began voicing concerns about what type of energy production would replace the plant. Their concerns were valid, as according to the Energy Information Administration, “three natural gas-fired power plants have been introduced over the past three years to help support the electric supply needed by New York City that Indian Point had been providing.”
It’s important to note that nuclear fission does not generate carbon dioxide emissions when producing energy for human usage, and many of the protests against nuclear energy are about safety concerns and the concern of radioactive high- and low-level waste. In contrast, the shift back to natural gas, which does generate a high number of pollutants compared to renewables, will lead to a rise in pollution over almost a decade as New York state switches toward half of its energy being provided by wind, solar and hydropower by 2030. I believe the decision to close Indian Point Energy Center was irrational for both the environment and our economy. Rather than choosing to close nuclear power plants across the state, the government should subsidize and open new plants.
First, I will go through how nuclear power works, as explained by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Essentially, nuclear power plants produce steam by heating water. The steam then works to spin turbines, generating the electricity we use in our homes. Next, atoms are split into even smaller atoms with radiation byproducts, and the reaction that occurs in the plant’s reactors generates the heat used to create electricity. The heat used to make steam comes from this nuclear fission reaction. As you can probably tell, this form of generating energy does not produce any greenhouse gas emission byproduct, and therefore the negative local and far-reaching externalities from something like a natural gas plant do not occur in the nuclear process. Rather, any risks stem from the radiation, which can be controlled if the process is overseen correctly and safely.
What are the concerns over nuclear power? Well, I think we can all recall some of the major nuclear disasters of the last century. The Fukushima nuclear disaster or Chernobyl disaster may specifically come to mind. I admit, watching the “Chernobyl” HBO miniseries made me afraid of some of the risks of nuclear energy. So, there are probably two primary reasons I would say most climate activists, politicians and average citizens are hesitant to support nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels: the risks of a radioactive disaster and the harms of nuclear waste produced from fission. Many environmentalists are concerned about the effects that a natural disaster, or simply an accident, would have on the ecosystems surrounding the plant. Indeed, when it comes to Chernobyl, the entirety of Europe saw varying effects of radioactive spread. To this day, the northern Kyiv Oblast of Ukraine maintains an exclusion zone for Chernobyl and protects the 1,000-square-mile area where the nuclear accident occurred. In terms of Fukushima, an earthquake-and-tsunami combination led to the collapse of the nuclear power plant (13). It is also fair to be skeptical of the waste byproduct from nuclear fission. According to the Energy Information Administration, “the creation of radioactive wastes such as uranium mill tailings [and] spent (used) reactor fuel … can remain radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years.”
I’ll respond to these concerns with some actual quantitative data. First, the air pollutants that lead to harm for both humans and the environment are byproducts of natural gas, coal and general fossil fuel energy production. According to the World Health Organization, “ambient (outdoor) air pollution in both cities and rural areas was estimated to cause 4.2 million premature deaths worldwide in 2016.” As of 2012, nuclear energy had the lowest mortality rate of all energy sources, with its global and U.S. mortality rate both being behind those of hydropower, the second lowest. What does this data tell us? Well, despite concerns over rare reactor breakdowns, the safety of nuclear workers is almost the very best in the energy sector. It is even safer for workers than wind and solar power. In terms of radioactive accidents, we are dealing with extreme rarities. On the International Nuclear Events Scale, which was created by the International Atomic Energy Authority, only six events in history have qualified at or above the rating of “accident with wider consequences.” While the risk certainly is there, I would argue that we should be much more worried about the known, impending risks of remaining on fossil fuels until we can switch to renewables such as wind and solar. And while the nuclear waste generated from plants does last for thousands of years, we have developed technologies to store the waste safely. While the risk of groundwater contamination exists, “an increasing number of reactor operators now store their older spent fuel in dry storage facilities using special outdoor concrete or steel containers,” according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and this process is safe.
Now, I’ll move on to why nuclear energy is the best temporary solution. As we transition from nonrenewable to renewable energy generation, we still need to rely heavily on fossil fuels to power cities such as New York City, Buffalo and Binghamton. If, however, the government decided to subsidize or incentivize the opening of nuclear power plants in Broome County, for example, we would have a clean and sustainable option to switch to until the grid can be updated to handle primarily solar, wind and hydropower electricity sources. Not only is nuclear energy a protector of air quality compared to fossil fuels, and is defined as a “zero-emission clean energy source” by the Office of Nuclear Energy, but it also has a small land footprint. According to energy.gov, “wind farms require 360 times more land area to produce the same amount of electricity and solar photovoltaic plants require 75 times more space.” I am not saying this to call nuclear a better option than solar and wind in the long term, but rather using it as a call for a short-term solution which doesn’t require as much land and infrastructure to be built. Again, I am saying that nuclear power can be an excellent temporary solution.
Until we can get enough capital and investment to build the solar and wind farms needed to substitute nonrenewable energy generation, nuclear power can help us rely less on coal, natural gas and oil. It’s also pretty obvious that opening new plants will lead to job generation in New York state, both in construction and in the energy sector. As we navigate the COVID-19 pandemic and continue to see population increases, it is vitally important that we also expand the job market with good-paying jobs in the state. For Broome County, engineering jobs at plants could play a role in bringing the county back to its industrial-powerhouse past.
If it is our primary goal to reduce emissions as fast as possible while keeping up high energy output as the population grows and technology improves, New York state could lead the way in nuclear energy in the United States. With an upstate economy in need of new jobs and industry, being able to rely on clean energy temporarily as solar and wind infrastructure is improved will help us to rely much less on fossil fuels. When it comes to nuclear energy, the risk is worth the reward.
Sean Reichbach is a freshman double-majoring in economics and philosophy, politics and law.