Sebastian Graff
(UID010042444)
Gail Hanlon
WRI-101 — Section #3
Essay #3 Problem to Solution
21 April 2026
Nukes: They Might Save Us?
Climate, Disconnection, and the Central Question
While I am sure, like you, my experiences with nature have been influenced more so by the technological and infrastructural developments of man than by interactions with nature itself. Therefore, like many Americans, my experience with climate change has been relatively remote. I believe that this disconnection from nature illustrates a much larger societal trend in the U.S. Writer Daniel B. Smith describes a widespread psychological distance from environmental crisis, noting that many people sense something is wrong with the natural world but struggle to connect that feeling to action (Smith). Climate change is frequently discussed in the classroom, in the press, and during political debates rather than being recognized as an imminent threat. As weather patterns continue to become more unpredictable and as the need for energy increases, however, we are experiencing an increase in the number of times we are unable to ignore the physical impacts of unstable environments. No longer do we debate whether or not climate change is happening; we are now debating how to react to it.
In class, we have looked at ways of framing this problem through anthropocentrism, the practice of viewing environmental issues solely through a humanistic lens. Anthropocentrism may constrain our comprehension of ecosystemic systems; however, it also represents a significant fact: climate-related action typically takes place only when humans’ survival and/or stability is at risk. If that is true, then we should focus on finding solutions to climate change that serve both human systems and ecosystems.
Can nuclear energy realistically help the United States meet its climate goals despite concerns about cost, safety, and radioactive waste?
Despite the concerns relative to the cost, safety, and long-term disposal of nuclear waste related to nuclear energy, it is still one of the few realistic options to decrease carbon emissions in the U.S. In addition to renewable energy resources, nuclear energy offers the capacity for constant high-volume energy production required to support modern infrastructure while helping to create a pathway away from fossil fuels. By reframing nuclear energy as a means of addressing climate change instead of as a destructive device, we are able to address the problem of sustainability with a more practical and less anthropocentric approach that recognizes both human needs and ecological boundaries.
The Problem: Energy Demand and the Limits of Renewables
To understand why nuclear energy is being considered as a solution, it is first necessary to examine the current energy challenges facing the United States.
The United States is presently dealing with a rapidly escalating energy crisis. On the one hand, there exists an increasing electricity demand generated by expanding infrastructure, increased population demands, and the exponential growth in demand for new technologies (i.e., AI and data centers). On the other hand, the United States seeks to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, which currently account for nearly half of all greenhouse gas emissions produced by burning them.
Solar and wind energy represent some of the fastest-growing areas of renewable energy and will likely provide a substantial amount of the reductions in carbon emissions required to mitigate global warming. However, both solar- and wind-based energy sources are variable or unreliable because their output depends upon external factors beyond their control. For example, solar energy generation is dependent on sunshine. Wind energy generation is dependent upon wind speed and direction. As a result, renewable energy cannot produce a stable baseload level of electricity to meet peak electricity demand.
Due to differences in variability between electric demand and renewable energy supply, the electrical grid is still heavily reliant on fossil fuels (principally natural gas) to “fill in” for the intermittency of renewable supplies. Filling in for renewables using fossil fuels prevents a full transition to a low-carbon energy system. Although battery storage is evolving, it is far from being able to support a national electrical grid over an extended period during low levels of renewable output. Thus, there exists an urgent gap between climate objectives and present-day energy capabilities. Therefore, the U.S. requires an always-on, always-available source of low-carbon energy to bridge this gap. Even in countries with strong renewable commitments, energy systems still rely on consistent baseload power; for example, Switzerland continues to generate about 33% of its electricity from nuclear energy (World Nuclear Association). Until such a source is developed, renewable energy will continue to function as a supplemental resource rather than a replacement for fossil fuels.
The Solution: Nuclear Energy as a Reliable Alternative
Given these limitations, nuclear energy emerges as a potential solution capable of addressing the shortcomings of renewable energy.
Unlike solar and wind, nuclear plants run continuously, producing large amounts of electricity without emissions. The primary advantage of nuclear power lies in its ability to provide reliable baseload electricity to meet constant demand. Renewable sources such as solar and wind cannot do so because the output of those sources fluctuates based on weather conditions. For example, when sunlight fades or wind slows down, the output of solar panels and wind turbines decreases rapidly. This makes it difficult to maintain continuous production of electricity using renewable sources.
As an alternative to renewable sources, nuclear power provides a clean way to produce large amounts of electricity continuously. This includes electricity required to support daily life, such as powering homes, businesses, schools, and hospitals, as well as electricity needed to run factories that manufacture goods and products. Therefore, the scalability of nuclear power is superior to that of renewable sources.
Successful implementation of nuclear power exists in many countries. Countries such as France, Sweden, and Canada derive a substantial portion of their electricity from nuclear power. Switzerland, for instance, operates four nuclear reactors that generate up to 40% of its electricity, demonstrating the scalability of nuclear energy (World Nuclear Association). Public opinion also reflects this viability, as “54% of respondents believed Switzerland should continue to use nuclear energy alongside renewables” (World Nuclear Association). These countries demonstrate that nuclear power is both feasible and scalable.
Although nuclear energy is often associated with weapons, many nations demonstrate that this connection is not inevitable. As one report explains, “nuclear power and nuclear weapons might be rooted in the same technology, but not all nations pursue both” (NDTV News Desk). Nations such as Japan and Sweden have maintained nuclear energy programs while rejecting nuclear weapons, reinforcing the idea that nuclear technology can be used responsibly and peacefully.
Advances in nuclear technology have made the deployment of nuclear power more attractive. A recent advancement is the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). SMRs offer the benefits of reduced risk, greater flexibility, and lower capital costs than traditional large-scale nuclear reactors. Because SMRs are smaller in size, they can be built in a modular fashion and located closer to load centers, thereby reducing transmission losses. The design features and characteristics of SMRs make them more suitable for small electrical grids and remote communities. This makes SMRs more accessible to regions where larger-scale nuclear reactors would be impractical.
Counterarguments: Safety, Waste, and Cost
However, despite these advantages, nuclear energy remains controversial due to several significant concerns that must be addressed.
Although nuclear energy appears to be an effective means of addressing global warming, there are still three concerns regarding nuclear energy that are widely known. Those concerns include the possibility of accidents occurring at nuclear reactors, the long-term management of radioactive waste, and the expense of constructing nuclear generating facilities.
A second concern is related to the disposal of radioactive wastes. Radioactive wastes pose a unique challenge due to their extremely long half-lives and, therefore, the difficulty in storing them for extended periods. One of the most concerning isotopes, iodine-129, “has a half-life of 15.7 million years” and can pose risks if released into the environment (Winn). Although this is a legitimate concern, current disposal strategies are designed to minimize environmental impact. In fact, “direct disposal of spent fuel releases around 1/100,000,000” of potential contaminants over long timescales (Winn). Additionally, in the U.S., nuclear waste is planned to be stored in deep underground repositories, which scientists argue will sufficiently isolate it from the environment (Winn). Some researchers further argue that rejecting nuclear energy over waste concerns may unintentionally promote “industries with much lower environmental standards” (Winn).
The final concern relates to the cost of constructing nuclear generating facilities. It requires considerable upfront investment and typically takes years to construct. Large-scale projects can cost billions of dollars, reflecting the complexity of nuclear infrastructure (U.S. International Trade Commission). However, emerging technologies may reduce these costs; for example, laser enrichment is considered “more cost-effective… due to its lower energy inputs” (U.S. International Trade Commission). Once completed, however, a single facility can produce millions of kilowatt-hours of electricity over a long period of time at relatively stable costs.
Barriers: Why the U.S. Has Not Expanded Nuclear Energy
Even with these solutions available, the United States has been slow to adopt nuclear energy on a larger scale, and understanding why is critical to addressing the problem.
Although nuclear energy appears to be a viable solution for mitigating global warming, there are reasons why the U.S. has failed to expand its utilization. One primary reason is rooted in a lasting association with nuclear weapons since World War II. Due to the destruction wrought by atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, “the atom” was transformed into something synonymous with death rather than energy. This public perception has influenced both politicians and everyday citizens alike in regard to their willingness to consider expanding the use of nuclear energy.
Conclusion: The Path Forward
Given these challenges and opportunities, the most realistic path forward involves integrating multiple energy solutions rather than relying on a single source.
Combining nuclear energy with renewable energy (such as solar and wind) provides an opportunity to utilize each resource’s strengths. When there is ample sunlight or wind, renewable energy can be used; however, when those resources do not provide enough electricity, nuclear power plants can generate constant levels of electricity. The benefits of combining these two forms of energy will help to significantly reduce dependence on fossil fuels while providing stable and reliable energy to the grid. As global examples show, nuclear energy is already an essential component of many national energy systems, particularly when combined with renewables (World Nuclear Association).
Creating a system like this will require changes in policies related to energy production, investments in new technology, and changes in public opinion regarding nuclear energy. If the United States fails to embrace nuclear energy alongside renewables, it risks falling short of its climate goals and prolonging its dependence on fossil fuels.
Works Cited
“Low Enriched Uranium from France: Investigation No. 731-TA-909 (Second Review).” U.S. International Trade Commission, Dec. 2013.
“Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons Might Be Rooted in the Same Technology, but Not All Nations Pursue Both.” NDTV, 20 June 2025.
“Nuclear Power in Switzerland.” World Nuclear Association, 11 Feb. 2026.
Smith, Daniel B. “Is There an Ecological Unconscious?” The New York Times, 27 Jan. 2010.
Winn, Zach. “New Insights into Nuclear Waste and Environmental Impact.” MIT News, 5. Nov. 2025.
Leave a Reply