America Should Adopt Renewable Energy, But Only If It's Nuclear

The Premise

The increasing popularity of electric vehicles in the United States represents a watershed moment in the country's energy policy. In 2011, electric vehicles accounted for "one-tenth of one percent of all new light-duty vehicle sales,"¹ and their sales increased by over 1000 percent through 2019. This suggests the increasing popularity of switching away from fossil fuels, which made up "62% of total U.S. transportation energy use in 2020"². This shift in the popularity of automobile energy sources, paired with anticipated legislation, could further disincentivize the use of fossil fuels. Consumers need natural alternatives that could fill the energy gap left by moving away from fossil fuels. Energy sources like solar, hydroelectric, wind and nuclear fall under that umbrella. Those alternatives mostly fall within the umbrella of "renewable".

The Argument

I would like to explore these different energy solutions, specifically solar and nuclear power, and show the pros and cons of each option. My hope is to create a compelling argument as to why nuclear power, combined with renewables other than solar power, is the best solution for the United States and its people, while also showing the advantages nuclear power will have over traditional fossil fuel methods.

Caveats

The shift away from fossil fuels for the United States is going to be a long and tedious process. I will not be covering the logistics of the United States' shift toward renewables; there are just too many factors to fit into a post of this nature. The close ties between oil and the value of the American dollar, the infrastructure in place that caters to fossil fuels, and the broader macroeconomic consequences of a world power giving up an energy source are just a few factors that begin to scratch the surface of the United States' connection to fossil fuels.

Solar Power

Solar power has come into the spotlight for its potential as a renewable energy source. Tremendous hype has been generated around solar-powered cars, starting in 2009 with the Tokai Challenger's win. The solar-powered car's team advisor said "that a car using silicon solar cells would be able to achieve an average speed of only 86 km/h compared with the Tokai Challenger's 100 km/h."³ Along with statistics that alluded to a solar-powered world, many major companies in recent years have linked the popular topics of sustainable energy, independence from power companies, and electric cars. Tesla is one of the most popular companies to do this. Tesla has shown keen interest in solar energy by selling the "Solar Roof" ⁴ alongside its cars: a set of roof tiles with integrated solar panels that would fit into the Tesla suite of cars, batteries and, of course, a way to charge them.

Despite solar energy creating a positive mainstream view of renewables that could fill the void left by fossil fuels, I believe that it takes attention away from the more suitable long-term solution of nuclear power. This shift in worldview is shortsighted and doesn't take into account the pros and cons of solar power compared with those of its nuclear counterpart. However, before we dive in, let's explore what solar has done right.

As mentioned before, there has been a massive shift in popularity toward clean energy, and with that has come an increase in demand and jobs. "As of 2020, more than 230,000 Americans work in solar at more than 10,000 companies in every U.S. state" ⁵, which is supported by the expected "Growth rate from 2016 to 2026: 105 percent"⁶. Additionally, there have been massive efficiency improvements: "Solar panel efficiency has increased from 6% in 1954 to over 40% on high-efficiency panels today."⁷ Among the many other positives that solar power brings, we also see growth in the amount of power it can produce: "U.S. solar power capacity has grown to an estimated 97.2 gigawatts"⁸.

Although all of these factors have massive positive repercussions for the United States, I believe that the use of these solar systems, also known as photovoltaics, sets the stage for history to repeat itself. As of June 2021, the countries that produce the most silicon, the main ingredient in making photovoltaic systems, are as follows:

(scale is in terms of thousands of tons per year)^{9 10}

I question why the United States would, upon looking at the new horizon of renewables, willingly base its energy infrastructure on resources that would come from its leading competitor and a potential future major world superpower. This conundrum seems awfully similar to the United States' need for fossil fuels and its resulting efforts to secure them over the past 2-3 decades. General Frank's remarks on the eight objectives of the United States' invasion of Iraq included the objective "to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources"¹¹.

Would it not seem intuitive to avoid such conflict with another leading power, like China, by avoiding reliance on its resources and thus preemptively avoiding future conflict?

However, let's say you are willing to bear the cost of worsening international relations with a country that has less than favorable relations with the United States. What could incentivize you to avoid using solar power as a major resource for the United States?

Nuclear Power

The use of nuclear power seems like an obvious transition that can quite easily fill the position fossil fuels currently hold while also having advantages that outshine competing renewable energy solutions. However, there is a social stigma surrounding nuclear power; obvious disputes arise around issues like plant safety, what to do with the waste, and the infrastructure changes needed to implement nuclear power.

First, let me introduce or perhaps re-introduce you to the unparalleled benefits of nuclear power. Nuclear "generates nearly 800 billion kilowatt hours of electricity each year"² compared with its solar counterpart, which, as of 2018, could generate only 66 billion kilowatt hours¹². Additionally, due to the reliability that comes with nuclear power, power plants are able to run significantly longer; "In the United States in 2016, nuclear power plants, which generated almost 20 percent of U.S. electricity, had an average capacity factor of 92.3 percent, meaning they operated at full power on 336 out of 365 days per year"¹. These statistics completely dwarf those of solar power, described as follows: "solar electricity arrays only (delivered power) 25.1 percent of the time (92 days per year)"¹. This massive difference in efficiency and energy output is also coupled with the ratio of land use to power output, in which nuclear power excels: "A typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility in the United States needs a little more than 1 square mile to operate... and solar photovoltaic plants require 75 times more space."¹³ The same resource continues with "To put that in perspective, you would need more than 3 million solar panels to produce the same amount of power as a typical commercial reactor" ¹³.

Much like solar power, nuclear power has many other benefits for the public. All of these are important, but they show a less critical difference between nuclear and solar power.

Of course, nuclear power comes with concerns and disadvantages. One concerns the number of jobs it can maintain. There is concern that, as safer, more modular reactor alternatives begin to overtake traditional larger reactors, there will be fewer potential jobs. This couldn't be further from the truth: currently, nuclear power and secondary jobs surrounding it employ 475,000 people ¹⁴. Additionally, we see that during the construction phase of these power plants, modular or otherwise, there can be up to 3,500 people employed², resulting in 800 permanent jobs for modular facilities² and up to 1,000 for traditional larger facilities¹⁴. There are also obvious concerns about the safety, use and disposal of radioactive material. Due in part to uranium's incredible potential energy, a uranium pellet (about an inch tall) has the same potential energy as 1 ton of coal or 120 gallons of gasoline¹³. This massive difference in physical waste results in a surprisingly small amount of waste: "All of the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry over the last 60 years could fit on a football field at a depth of less than 10 yards!"¹³ Furthermore, this waste can be reprocessed to fuel reactors, or even recycled ¹⁵. However, let's say that we want to compare the radiation released by nuclear reactors with that released by fossil fuels used in mining materials for photovoltaics. It is found that burning coal releases more radiation than a nuclear power plant, due in part to nuclear power's self-contained, non-pollutant system ¹.

Conclusion

As we transition into an age that is not powered by fossil fuels but is predominantly electric, I believe that it should be clear that renewables should power us into this electric age. However, not all renewables are created equal, and whichever resource we adopt will define how we power ourselves and shape our relations in this new age. However, regardless of which renewable we decide upon, it should be understood that we will—and should—never rely on just one resource. There is strength in diversity, and energy is no exception to this rule. My only hope is that nuclear power will not remain a 20% contributor to the net energy produced.