Within the European Community as in other parts of the world, the issue of sustainable and efficient energy is a growing concern. The existing global energy infrastructure, anchored by an ageing and environmentally unsustainable reliance on fossil fuels, will require new dynamic alternative forms of energy to support existing demand while simultaneously rising to accommodate the increasing energy demands of the world community. Current estimates indicate that the global demand for energy will increase by a factor of 2.5 by the year 2050
. New demand, concentrated largely in South and East Asia, has already compelled new considerations in energy policy at both the national and EU level.
The debate surrounding the large-scale adoption of nuclear energy as a central component of the future energy infrastructure has generated prolific, transnational debate among public officials, industry experts, academics, and private individuals. Distinct from other forms of energy due to its unique association with severe negative externalities and a historical legacy of widespread destruction, nuclear energy faces a number of challenges that its alternatives do not. Based on a mixture of empirical data from surveys, public reactions to new projects, political movements, and observation from new practices such as social media, it is evident that public reception to new nuclear developments varies substantially in terms of ideology. With industry representatives proclaiming a “nuclear renaissance” concurrent with opponents of the nuclear industry heralding its approaching inevitable demise, the multilayered and polarized nature of the debate is abundantly clear; rather than creating forums for bipartisan dialogue supporters and opponents of the industry prefer instead to continually undermine the opposite argument while pointedly refusing to make any concessions. Such a scenario has ignited the polar extremities of each side and crowded out moderate perspectives that seek sensible compromises. In order for the debate to be effectively resolved, neutral, accurate information must be made available to the general public, thereby giving it the opportunity to formulate its own opinion on the nuclear debate and pressure government officials to create a comprehensible overarching energy policy.
Despite attempts to clarify the nuclear debate, differing ideological perspectives and rhetorical dissonance have created a debate that is convoluted and disengaged. Debate at both the political and individual level must be organized to such an extent that arguments can be evaluated on merit rather than ideological bias. In its current context, the nuclear industry is championed, unsurprisingly, by energy utilities, various national governments, and a scattering of academic researchers and private citizens. The opposition to nuclear energy is composed primarily of ideologically opposed international organizations, environmentally focused political groups, and community level stakeholders. Given an objective examination of both sides, the clear, rational case presented by pro-nuclear advocates embodies a factually driven and compelling argument for supporting new nuclear developments. In contrast, the opposing argument given by anti-nuclear movements is largely oriented toward emotional appeals and fear-mongering tactics backed occasionally by hard statistics. In the attempt to objectively evaluate each argument, the case for nuclear energy holds considerably more merit than the opposing viewpoint.
In order to gain acceptance in the public sphere, the nuclear industry will first have to overcome solidly ingrained public misconceptions regarding the nature and function of nuclear energy. The nuclear industry faces the dual challenges of resurrecting its image and proving its long-term viability as a central component to the future global energy portfolio. To do so, it will have to develop an effective mechanism for external relations at the national and international level, while still maintaining representation in informal, individual channels of social media. Representation at the level of the consumer is still largely the domain of the anti-nuclear movement, as is clearly demonstrated by the success of highly visible public efforts by such entities as Greenpeace. For the nuclear industry, the challenge remains an uphill battle, one that, in the context of nuclear energy, remains severely underdeveloped. The following sections focus on different aspects of the nuclear debate, and provide an introductory case for the adoption of nuclear energy as an integral component of the future global energy infrastructure.
I. Context of Nuclear Energy
II. The Nuclear Debate in Social Media
III. Technical Analysis
IV. Interview with Mr Richard Ivens
V. Legislative Efforts
I. Context of Nuclear Energy
There are over 440 nuclear power plants (NPPs) worldwide operating in 31 countries. Globally, nuclear energy accounts for 16% of the electricity consumed. Currently, both France and Lithuania rely on nuclear energy for more than 75% of their total energy portfolio. Despite legal, social, and financial setbacks, the nuclear industry has established itself as a vital component of the global energy infrastructure, and offers the potential to enable governments to meet energy needs in the future while simultaneously contributing substantially to the reduction of climate change. The essential dilemma facing the nuclear industry is whether the industry is truly necessary in the long term energy infrastructure. Current reliance on oil will not last for an infinite period of time, yet less controversial alternatives than nuclear have not only been proposed but are also currently in use. Natural gas, viewed as the centerpiece of the global energy infrastructure by ExxonMobil, offers one such avenue of change, but more socially accepted are the renewable sources of energy; those of wind, hydro, and solar resources. Such alternatives are clean alternatives to the existing system, an energy infrastructure dominated by nonrenewable fossil fuels.
Even within the nuclear industry, opposition to renewable energy is uncommon. The rationale for advocating nuclear energy is due to the view that renewable energy, though an ideal solution, will not alone be able to meet global energy needs that are expected to rise by a factor of 2.5 by the year 2050. The next best scenario is one that will incorporate other energy alternatives into the global energy infrastructure that are equally environmentally efficient. Though nuclear energy entails a greater operating cost than its alternatives, it holds two critical advantages: fuel costs for nuclear energy are lower than for alternative sources of energy, and nuclear energy does not emit carbon dioxide. Given the perpetuation of the current legal framework, in which carbon emissions are subject to taxation, the ability of nuclear power plants to generate electricity without producing carbon dioxide is an advantage that strengthens the case for a long term nuclear component in international energy policy.
Critics of nuclear energy have also cited the potential for nuclear proliferation, as well as its associated security threats, as a valid reason for opposing the continued expansion of nuclear energy. Nuclear plants appear to present potential targets for terrorist networks to execute large scale acts of destruction, and additionally to undermine the national energy grid by eliminating primary electrical producers. There is a tendency to associate nuclear power plants as energy oriented nuclear arsenals, but in reality there exists a clear distinction between the two. Nuclear power plants rely on the U235 isotope, which contains 92 protons and 143 neutrons. In its natural state, uranium is composed of only .7% U235, with the remaining 99.3% being U238, an isotope with 92 protons and 146 neutrons. For sufficient levels for energy production, uranium must be enriched to 20-30% U235. Weapons grade uranium, in contrast, requires an enrichment level of above 90%, well above the level required for energy purposes. It is therefore inaccurate to equate the destruction of a nuclear plant with the detonation of weapons grade nuclear material. In its worst case, the destruction of a nuclear plant would potentially release radioactivity into the surrounding atmosphere, contaminating the surrounding environment. Due to advances in safety features and plant designs, including a cladding layer around the fuel assembly and a containment structure made of reinforced concrete, such an outcome is unlikely. An additional criticism of the nuclear industry is due to its high capital costs. Each Western built nuclear power plant costs several billion dollars to construct, an expenditure that is outside the abilities of most private utilities. Energy companies are typically larger in Europe than in the United States, due in part to the fact that some of the largest utilities in Europe are state owned (i.e., EdF). Opposition to the nuclear industry also highlights prior construction projects, many of which exceeded both their initial cost estimates and their construction timetables by a substantial margin. The economic considerations in financing a nuclear power plant are still under development. Critics of the industry have a strong point in referring to high capital costs, but several points on the recent progress of the nuclear industry must also be considered. Firstly, during the era of escalating costs and expanding construction timelines, nuclear plants were constructed on a ´cost-plus` basis in which the companies building the plants were not subject to a fixed price. Consequently, there was an incentive for inefficiency, as the construction companies would increase their revenue by prolonging the project. Secondly, in some cases, construction was begun while construction plans were still underway. Nuclear power plants now are subject to regulation ensuring that plans are completed prior to beginning the actual construction in order to prevent costs from overrunning initial estimates. Furthermore, nuclear plants also now follow one of several common design patterns approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, making construction easier and more efficient. Previously plants had been custom built.
The final and most significant cause of opposition to the nuclear industry is the lack of a long term disposal strategy. While solutions exist for low and medium level radioactive substances, the current practice of underground storage for high-level radioactive materials is unsustainable in the long term. Critics view such a practice as an unethical means of transferring the problems and waste of the current generation on to its successors. While it is important to acknowledge that the current practice of underground storage is safe, at best this system is only a solution in the interim. A better, long term and sustainable solution has yet to be developed.
II. The Nuclear Debate in Social Media
Recently in the context of corporate strategies and commercial activity, the concept of social media has made a widespread and far-reaching debut. Commonly incorporated into corporate practices as a medium for informal relations between business and the consumer, social media effectively bridges the communicatory divide between the two by serving as an outlet in which companies can become a part of the conversation regarding their product/service at the level of the individual consumer. The use of social media is a necessary component of integrating the political and strategic objectives of corporate or non-governmental entities with their corresponding stakeholders. Distinct from marketing and public relations, social media represents a new, dynamic form of communication in which the entity adopts a medium for dialogue with other members and interests relevant to the issue. Corporate social media has been effectively implemented to fill in the gap between public relations and the previously un-integrated dialogue that existed exclusively in the consumer domain, with companies now able to participate in that dialogue as an informal source of information, or even as an impartial observer. By creating outlets for the discussion within its own sphere of influence (i.e., a company website, Blog, online forum, etc.), companies now have the ability to analyze the consumer perspective at the level of the individual. This new apparatus constitutes a fundamental change in relations between the entity and the consumer by narrowing the gap in communication between the two. In essence, the entity now has the capacity for an active role in informal interaction relating to its perception at the community level.
The practical application of social media is not limited to corporate interests. Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) have great potential to incorporate social media for similar uses. Social media can spread awareness on an issue, serve as a link between organizations with common objectives, or assist in raising funds and fostering stakeholder engagement. With other types of entities, such as political firms, social media can provide clarity or rationale on the necessity of specific modifications to pieces of legislation. Because of its versatile role, the importance of social media should not be lightly regarded in the formulation and exercise of corporate relations.
The context of the European nuclear energy industry deviates slightly from purely commercial considerations. Debate surrounding the issue of nuclear energy is additionally subject to discrimination motivated by ideology rather than consumer preference alone, and the very nature of consumption itself varies substantially between an individual consumer product and a regional public utility. Nuclear energy firms therefore not only face competition from their peers but also resistance from politically motivated activist organizations that aim to prohibit further expansion of the industry and seek the replacement of nuclear power plants with less controversial alternatives.
Effective use of social media has been more visible and more influential on the anti-nuclear side. While pro-nuclear literature does exist in blogs, industry websites, and neutral forums, anti-nuclear campaigns have demonstrated a far greater aptitude for harnessing the creative capacities of online social media to attract new supporters and launch productive, highly publicized campaigns. As the nuclear energy industry in Europe is still familiarizing itself to social media, anti-nuclear organizations such as Greenpeace have already built a loyal volunteer community with global reach and support. The greater achievement by the opposition to nuclear energy is not solely due to their tremendous effort in dominating the social media landscape; anti-nuclear organizations, especially NGOs and non-profit organizations, have an intrinsic advantage in their personal and emotive appeal. Large energy firms and corporations suffer in social media because they lack a human component in their consumer relations, a void that NGOs embody. Whereas energy firms appear impersonal and distant, the appeal of NGOs is their grassroots level of interaction. A member of the general public wishing to contribute toward promoting the expansion of nuclear projects would likely be prevented from doing so due to their lack of professional experience and/or training in the field of nuclear energy: Within the highly organized field of nuclear energy, an individual without any formal training or knowledge of the energy sector would be sidelined. In the case of anti-nuclear organizations, many of which are NGOs, lay individuals are both welcome and useful, as such organizations rely on volunteer labor to accomplish their objectives. The nuclear industry therefore suffers from the lack of an outlet for volunteer labor, whereas the anti-nuclear effort flourishes precisely because of its energized, passionate, and globally based volunteer network.
A fully integrated social media campaign is necessary for the nuclear industry to dispel its close association to adverse health impacts and negative externalities in the public mentality. In nearly two and a half decades of successful operation the nuclear industry still has not been able to disassociate itself from the incidents of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Technological developments that have improved safety standards and plant operation have been largely overlooked by the general public and ignored entirely by the industry’s opposition. Though increasingly acknowledged as an important topic, in order to engage members of the public in a discussion on nuclear energy, energy firms must adopt a proactive approach toward involving the general public in industry related campaigns and forums.
III. Technical Analysis
Uranium occurs naturally in a solid state, as uranium oxice, with .7% composed of the U235 isotope (92 protons and 143 neutrons). The remaining 99.3% is composed of the U238 isotope, which contains 92 protons and 146 neutrons. Most reactors currently require the isotope U235 to generate electricity, thus requiring the enrichment of uranium up to levels featuring 4-5% up to 20-30% of the U235 isotope. In order enrich the uranium, it first must undergo a process entitled fuel fabrication, which requires the conversion of uranium oxice into the gas known as uranium hexafluoride (UF6). To convert the solid uranium oxide into a gaseous state, the solid rock must be heated to temperatures in excess of 1000 degrees Celsius. The gas, when cooled, will turn back into a solid in the form of ceramic pellets. These pellets will then be enriched to the necessary levels for the desired U235 isotope.
There are two methods used to enrich the uranium to the necessary levels. The first occurs through a process known as gaseous diffusion. In the gaseous diffusion method, the gas uranium hexafluoride is passed through a series of porous membranes. The U235 isotope, having fewer neutrons than the U238 isotope, travels farther through the membranes, leading to an outcome in which the concentration of the U235 isotope is greater further on in the membranes and the U238 concentration is stronger closer to its starting point. This process, known as a cascade, is repeated in numerous stages to further increase the concentration of U235 further from the starting position. In order to reach the necessary enrichment, the uranium hexafluoride will have to undergo some 1,400 stages.
The second method of enrichment uses centrifugal force to separate the U235 isotope from U238. UF6 is pumped into vacuum tubes around a centrifuge, which is then rotated at speeds of 500 meters per second, giving it a force equivalent to one million times the force of gravity. The tubes are facing outward, and the heavier U238 molecule moves further from the center of the centrifuge. The U235 molecule remains closer to the center.
Once the uranium hexafluoride has been adequately enriched, the gas is then cooled into ceramic pellets. These pellets are approximately the size of a large tablet. The pellets are lined up and placed inside long, slender tubes made from zirconium alloy. These alloy tubes are then bundled together in clusters, which form the fuel assembly. The fuel assembly is then placed at the center of the nuclear core, which is encapsulated by a containment structure made from reinforced concrete to guarantee worker safety.
Nuclear reactors produce energy by heating water to produce steam. The steam is used to drive turbines that generate electricity. Nuclear chain reactions are responsible for converting the water into steam via the heat that they release. The heat occurs when the U235 atoms split (fission). Specifically, neutrons from the U235 molecule split off and collide with other neutrons attached to U235 molecules. The collision causes the neutrons to detach from the molecule, giving off energy in the form of heat as it breaks loose. Nuclear reactions are long chains of fissile reactions that are slowed by a moderator, usually composed of water, heavy water, or graphite. In addition, control rods are used to ensure that the chain reaction is tightly controlled.
The current average longevity of a nuclear reactor is 40 to 60 years. In the United States, much of the existing nuclear infrastructure was completed in the 1970s and 1980s. A large percentage of reactors currently in use are ageing, and many reactors are scheduled to begin closing in the next decade. An increasing number of reactors are operating on extended licenses, meaning that they have already exceeded their initial intended period of operation, and are operating under licenses that allow them another 20 years.
IV Interview with Mr Richard Ivens
Public perception of nuclear energy has been steadily shifting toward a more receptive position, according to Mr Richard Ivens, now the Institutional Affairs Director at the European Atomic Forum (FORATOM). Ivens provided a strong case for new outreach initiatives in the nuclear industry that are designed to foster a relationship between nuclear power plants and their surrounding communities. Nuclear facilities, Ivens claimed, attempt to engage their surrounding communities in order to involved community members in important decision making processes. While part of this new movement is the direct result of recent legislation, Ivens cited the rise of integrated stakeholder groups and increased traffic to visitor centers as indicators of the nuclear industry’s success in engaging the general public. He also referred to more tangible indicators, such as the creation of employment opportunities and increased tax revenues for municipalities to support his argument.
Building nuclear power plants is a capital intensive, long-term process that requires large amounts of capital, time, resources, and specialized workers. Allocating new areas for nuclear power plants has in the past been met with skepticism and even outright opposition. In order to eliminate any negative relations, Ivens pointed out that a new strategy is to continue new nuclear developments at existing facilities. Eliminating the potential for negative confrontation, using existing facilities has the added bonus of occurring in an area where the local community already has a strong relationship to the nuclear plants.
Mr Ivens also alluded to the Eurobarometer survey, published in June 2008, as an empirical data set supporting the claim that support for nuclear energy is growing. The survey also made several critical observations about the nuclear debate, with seemingly positive implications for the pro-nuclear argument. The final percentages showed 44% of surveyed individuals in support in nuclear energy, with 45% remaining opposed. Though appearing to be a victory for the anti-nuclear campaign, such results indicate a gain in support for the nuclear industry, having exhibited only a 37% rate of support and a 55% rate of opposition only three years prior. This data clearly indicates that support for nuclear energy is on the rise, and additionally coincides with a universal increase in global attentiveness to climate change.
The survey also exposed several noteworthy trends. According to the Eurobarometer survey: “citizens in countries that have operational nuclear power plants are considerably more likely to support nuclear energy than citizens in other countries.” Countries that support this claim include the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Sweden, Finland, and Slovakia. It should be noted that this trend is not without exceptions; the two caveats are manifest in Romania and Spain, which the latter exhibiting a 57% rate of opposition. In Romania, the irregularity is due to a large percentage of the public professing indifference to the issue.
Eurobarometer 2008 also exposed interesting socio-economic trends on the participants surveyed. The study displayed a correlation between gender and position on nuclear energy, with persons of the male gender more likely to support nuclear developments, and females more likely to oppose further expansion. It also indicated a correlation between education level and position, with individuals who had a greater level of education more disposed toward supporting nuclear energy. Lastly, in terms of political ideology, individuals whose views tended toward the right were generally more supportive of nuclear energy, while those whose views tended toward the left were less likely to be as supportive.
During the interview, Ivens had provided brief remarks on the challenges posed by high capital costs for new nuclear power plants. Addressing them in greater detail, he acknowledged that financing is a critical hurdle for many energy utilities. In this respect, the issue is as dependent on geographic location as it is local reception, but for purely political reasons. In the United States, for example, utilities are much smaller than their European counterparts. Consequently, the multi-billion dollar investment required for new nuclear power plants is typically beyond their financial resources. Project financing, or a financial arrangement in which the new plant itself is used as collateral, has proven ineffective. Current financial arrangements commonly rely on a combination of financing via debt and equity. Other firms have used bond issues to raise a portion of the necessary capital.
Nuclear companies operating across the Atlantic are sometimes state owned or operated under a joint venture between the public and private sector. An example of a state owned utility is EdF (Energie de France), one of the largest utilities in the world. Because such utilities are operated by the state, they have a number of advantages that US based companies do not. Firstly they typically have access to much greater amounts of capital, and often have valuable assets that they can leverage as collateral for investments in new projects. State owned enterprises are also intrinsically linked to their governments, whereas energy firms in the United States often are subject to bureaucratic constraints when applying for construction and operating licenses. Energy firms in the United States may also face governments that are not supportive of nuclear expansion, a factor that state owned enterprises can bypass.
In China, construction costs are substantially lower than that of Western nuclear projects, and are also completed in a much shorter duration. China is currently constructing more nuclear reactors than any other country, and is believed to have reached economies of scale in construction of nuclear plants. The speed at which Chinese reactors are built, however, comes at the expense of vital safety standards, a sacrifice that would be unthinkable in Western design and practice.
V Legislative Efforts
The debate between industry representatives and anti-nuclear advocates has transcended the confines of the commercial arena into the general public and, more significantly, into circles of political officials around the world. In the United States, recent attempts to pass a major piece of legislation that would have included a significant role for nuclear almost reached fruition. An unlikely team of three Senators, John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut), and Lindsay Graham (R-South Carolina) met with high ranking members in the White House, among them David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, to discuss a climate change bill that had strong support among the democrats and a small but sufficient number of committed Republicans. This was several months before the November elections, in which Democrats suffered substantial losses, and it looked as though the bill would succeed. Debate over climate change had been pushed toward a compromise enabling Democrats to pursue their agenda of taxing carbon emissions, with Republicans receiving favorable conditions for promoting natural gas and nuclear energy.
The triumvirate, or three amigos, as they were sometimes labeled, was from the start an unlikely alliance; Graham had publicly denounced Kerry, who had endorsed an opponent of Lieberman during one of Lieberman’s campaigns; yet the three politicians were genuinely committed towards producing a piece of legislation that would potentially be a monumental step in political efforts to reduce climate change. Praise was quick for Graham, who was now working in tandem with representatives and organizations traditionally found at the opposite end of the political spectrum relative to Graham’s own conservative leaning. Though the attention was initially helpful for his political career in the campaign donations he attracted, mounting pressure from his own constituency began to haunt his legitimacy in the Republican Party. Graham especially realized the need for expediency in passing the climate change legislation. Their efforts took them into contact with moderate Republicans, officials in the Chamber of Commerce, private hedge fund billionaires, sponsors of competing energy bills, and T Boone Pickens, the Texan natural gas tycoon. Along the way, Democrats made large concessions for loan guarantees for nuclear developments, something that Graham was immensely supportive. Their greatest challenge, however, proved to be the oil industry. Representatives from the oil industry had advocated the opening of national parks and new zones in the Gulf of Mexico for drilling, something that Democrats resolutely opposed. President Obama, however, coincidentally gave a speech in later March in which he stated his approval in allowing oil companies to drill in certain areas of the Gulf of Mexico. To Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham, the President had just freely conceded a crucial bargaining chip. To complicate matters, a story leaked to Fox was aired portraying Graham as playing a crucial role in a Democratic bill. Though the ideas were not Graham’s, the very idea that Graham was collaborating with Democrats provoked a serious backlash in his home constituency.
Ultimately, the pressure forced Graham to withdraw from the bill, which by that time had been subject to numerous demands from the oil, natural gas, and nuclear industries. Earlier, Graham had had to meet with an electrical utility that demanded delays in the cap and trade system. The meeting took place on April 22nd, Earth day. On that day, the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig sank to the bottom of the Gulf, leaving the three amigos with a bill that conceded more territory for oil drilling as sixty thousand barrels of oil were being released into the Gulf of Mexico. Graham, who had been the last Republican negotiating on climate change, was out. The bill, having had the potential to become a landmark ruling that altered the political landscape on climate change and nuclear energy, was effectively over. The political narrative in Europe was less colorful and further along than in the United States. With many countries already using nuclear energy for a considerable amount of their electricity, the debate was less over the incorporation of new nuclear programs and more relevant to ensuring safety standards and effective waste disposal. Recently, on 03 November 2010, a directive was issued requesting member states to issue comprehensive accounts on their procedures for managing spent nuclear fuel. The next step in European Union level legislation is a uniform standard on waste management that will require all member states to follow one procedure. Common standards have already been disclosed in documentation from the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), which sets a standard for developing plans for final repositories within four years of adopting the directive. In the context of waste management, Europe is more advanced than the United States, which currently stores its spent nuclear fuel on site in separate facilities connected to the nuclear plant. Developments at Yucca Mountain have been contested, with Senator Harry Reid staunchly opposing its use in the interim storage of nuclear waste. Europe, in contrast, has fully functioning underground waste depositories, but will need to expand to meet future requirements.
The continued expansion of nuclear energy is more a reality than a possibility, however the success of its political reception is conditional on its public perception. The nuclear industry must engage in more substantial initiatives to dispel widespread negative misconceptions and promote the tangible benefits that it offers to the community. The current conception of nuclear energy is still slightly negatively oriented; by increasing public awareness of the benefits of nuclear energy the industry could greatly reduce both political and community level opposition. The debate over nuclear energy can be advanced via social media initiatives that target consumers at the informal, individual level.
Given a technical introduction to the nuclear fuel cycle and a basic explanation of its real function, it becomes clear that many of the risks commonly associated with the nuclear industry are unrealistic and overstated. The challenge for the industry will require pro-nuclear advocates to continue to make this information more readily available, especially to individuals with a genuine interest in learning about the nuclear industry.
As was indicated by Mr Richard Ivens, the overall social perceptions and attitudes towards nuclear energy are changing in favor of the pro-nuclear side, according to the Eurobarometer Survey from June 2008. That survey is the most up to date information on the social perspectives currently available, and it clearly indicates a trend towards public acceptance and support of nuclear expansion.
Finally, current and future legislative efforts on both sides of the Atlantic are oriented towards increasing safety standards in order to make nuclear energy a more efficient, effective, and morally acceptable practice. While energy policy differs substantially in different regions, the industry is globally recognized as presenting a clean, effective solution to the looming problem of climate change. Though renewable energy is an ideal scenario, many industry experts do not believe that it will be possible to implement sufficient renewable energy infrastructure to meet growing energy demands. Nuclear energy can supplement the renewable energy in the interim period.
The nuclear energy industry remains a controversial and increasingly important issue in international politics. Further development is necessary to ensure its long-term safety, but nuclear energy sources have already been in full operation for decades, having only suffered two major incidents in its entirety. In ensuring the safety and sustainability of the industry, nuclear energy will ultimately realize its full potential as a central part of the global energy infrastructure.
