The Dangers of Climate Change Don't Exceed The Risks of a Nuclear Accident

"I oversee the US nuclear power industry. Now I think it should be banned" - Gregory
Jaczko (Chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2009 to 2012). This statement is
based on his experience as a physicist who admires science and industrial technological
innovation especially nuclear power, which can produce large amounts of electricity without
pollution. But in the end, many countries have reduced or even eliminated nuclear reactors,
such as Japan, Germany, the US and France. There are several reasons behind the actions of
these countries.

The main reason for doubts about nuclear power is the huge risk involved in a nuclear
accident. Prior to the Chernobyl accident on April 26, 1986, nuclear power had prevented the
construction of hundreds of fossil fuel plants, meaning less people who suffered or died from
their emissions. In addition to the Chernobyl tragedy, an earthquake and tsunami destroyed
four nuclear reactors in Japan. Thanks to that, comes the dark side of nuclear reactors: if the
energy they produce is not tightly controlled, they can fail in a way that kills people and
makes most of the land uninhabitable. On March 11, 2011, the Fukushima Daiichi crisis
occurred which released massive radiation from the plant, because four reactors failed. More
than 100,000 people were evacuated from their homes and communities. The crisis caused
Japan's economy to decline for years. There are clear consequences for the entire industry.
Because of this, the US nuclear reactor is threatened not be built. Germany closed some of its
older factories and asked for the rest to close by 2022. Japan closed most of its factories.
France, which gets about 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, is proposing
reducing that figure to 50 percent by 2035 because safety cannot be guaranteed.

The second reason is of course the high cost of nuclear construction. Renewable
energies such as solar, wind and hydroelectric power produce electricity at a lower cost, let
alone safer than nuclear. Coal and natural gas do not pose an acute accident hazard, although
they do present different types of hazards. Large dams for hydroelectric plants require
evacuation of neighboring communities if they fail, but without the long-lasting effects of
radiation contamination. Solar, wind and geothermal energy poses absolutely no threat to
safety.

In conclusion, nuclear accidents and the huge amount of operating costs are the price
that must be paid if the nuclear power industry fails. The risk is too great because there are
other, more effective alternative energies. Nuclear technology is no longer a viable strategy
for dealing with climate change, nor is it a competitive resource. It is dangerous, expensive,
and leaving it will not bring climate havoc. The real choice now is between saving the planet
or the dying nuclear industry. Now, the world prefers to save the planet with alternative
energy than nuclear power.