Bulletin From The Borderlands Special Report

The Nuclear Dilemma by Satvik Pendyala

Bulletin From The Borderlands is a joint project between Lethal Minds and some of the most talented OSINT analysts and independent journalists working today. Our goal is to provide you with a clear, accurate, and informative view of the world, free from censorship or bias. The Bulletin will bring you the facts, our analysis, and our evidence. We hope you find our work helps you better understand the complicated and increasingly volatile world in which we live.

Be informed, be prepared, be lethal.

The Nuclear Dilemma

In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its knock-on effects on global energy prices, energy security is a greater policy concern than ever. Managing the US’s energy transition is one of the Biden administration’s most important long-term policy goals. But the administration’s energy transition plan has a glaring weakness: the lack of emphasis on nuclear energy.

If the United States intends to transition sustainably and securely from fossil fuels, there is no better choice than massive investment into the construction of new nuclear plants. Currently, nuclear power comprises only 8% of total primary energy consumption in the US, lower than renewables and any fossil fuel. The Biden administration needs to increase existing investment in nuclear power to meet America’s energy target of “Net Zero by 2050.”

Currently, the Biden administration has offered a $6 billion credit program to assist aging reactors with rising maintenance and operational costs, but it is not sufficient funding for new power plants. Despite billions of dollars invested into solar and wind energy, these renewables only comprise slightly more than 10% of energy production, whereas nuclear energy contributes nearly 20%. As battery production struggles to keep up with demands, relying on solar and wind for energy security leaves the United States vulnerable to power disruption. Nuclear is the option that guarantees clean energy while offering stability for the US grid.

Unfortunately, nuclear power production has largely plateaued since the 1990s and many reactors are decades old. The US’s nuclear plants face increasing operating costs as they try to extend their lifetimes. Unable to face these costs, these nuclear plants elect to shut down instead. In 2022, the United States faced more plant shutdowns than any other country. Since the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine, policy has not been enthusiastic in supporting nuclear energy.

Concerns about nuclear safety, however, have been disproportionate to the risk. American nuclear reactors have excellent safety records and are designed with rigorous safety standards. Compared to fossil fuels, nuclear energy poses a much smaller risk to public health and when juxtaposed with renewables, nuclear energy can consistently provide more power. Investing in nuclear power combines the ideal of high energy production and low risk.

As climate change affects weather patterns, nuclear energy may also be the only way to provide stable, green power. One of the most important concepts in energy production is stable base power generation. As solar and wind energy are weather-dependent, hydropower and nuclear energy are the only ways to make stable base power without emitting carbon dioxide. Weakened rains across the world have put hydropower generation at risk. Record-breaking droughts have choked the Colorado river in the US and the Yellow River in China, impairing hydropower stations. As hydropower becomes vulnerable to disruption, nuclear is the natural choice for consistent, high volumes of electricity.

Nuclear power generation also carries an inherent geopolitical lens. China is on the way to build dozens of nuclear plants within the decade. By 2035, it plans to build nearly 150 reactors – a clear exaggeration, but it is demonstrative of the Chinese commitment to nuclear energy. If left unchallenged, China will become the global leader in nuclear technology and construction. Many countries have approached China to build reactors to reach their own climate goals. If the United States does not step up its own nuclear energy capacity, it concedes a major economic and strategic front to China. Biden must pivot the administration’s energy policy towards nuclear energy to maintain American energy leadership.

As many of the most common arguments against nuclear energy are based in anti-science alarmism, I will instead address a more nuanced critique of nuclear energy: its high per watt cost. Nuclear maintains a high per watt cost due to upfront investment in materials and specialized construction to ensure safety. Compared to the recent cost reductions for solar energy and wind, it does seem like an uneconomic choice at first glance. However, as solar and wind power are intransient energy providers, they require significant energy storage infrastructure to supplement them. High battery costs and safety issues plague large battery stations. It also means that consistent power generation and changing load bearing at different times of the day is difficult. Nuclear power does not have this weakness.

Tackling climate change will require widespread reforms to our energy infrastructure and needs massive government support. More than any other form of energy, nuclear power needs to be the bedrock on which the Biden administration builds US energy security. Since cracking the atom, the potential of nuclear energy has engendered wariness. But it is this very potential that can provide the vital power that is required for a sustainable future.

Satvik Pendyala is a Masters of International Relations candidate at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University focusing on Indo-Pacific Maritime Security and Nuclear Security.

All opinions expressed in a Bulletin Op-Ed are those of the author.