As our world struggles with the urgent need to address climate change, the debate over nuclear power is heating up. Advocates argue that nuclear energy could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions since it doesn’t produce these harmful gases like fossil fuels do. However, nuclear power also comes with significant drawbacks related to safety and environmental impact.

One major issue with nuclear power is the problem of radioactive waste. This waste remains highly dangerous for thousands of years. Currently, the plan in Canada is to store this waste in deep geological repositories. These are facilities built deep underground, designed to safely contain and isolate the waste using multiple barriers. While the idea is to keep the waste secure, there are risks. There is always a chance that these repositories could leak or experience accidents, potentially contaminating the environment and posing long-term health risks. Experts point out that this problem has been passed down from previous generations and will be inherited by future ones if not properly addressed. With over a quarter million metric tons of radioactive waste already, it is crucial to find a long-term solution before the situation worsens.

Another concern is the risk of catastrophic accidents. The memories of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and the Fukushima Daiichi accident in 2011 serve as stark reminders of the dangers associated with nuclear power. These disasters not only endangered workers but also released harmful radiation into the environment, leading to long-term damage and health issues for nearby communities. Such accidents highlight the need for extreme caution and rigorous safety measures in the nuclear industry. Despite the potential benefits, the high costs of building and maintaining safe nuclear power plants make them less attractive compared to renewable energy sources. Nuclear power can cost between $112 and $189 per megawatt hour (MWh), whereas wind and solar power are significantly cheaper, costing between $26 and $56 MWh and $36 and $44 MWh respectively. The slow construction of nuclear plants also delays the transition away from fossil fuels, which are still used for much of our energy needs.

The risk of nuclear power being used for destructive purposes is another serious concern. Nuclear weapons have the potential for mass destruction, and their existence fuels international tensions. As Zambia’s speaker noted at a UN debate, the destructive power of nuclear weapons has no place in today’s world. The possibility of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities adds another layer of risk. These attacks could lead to the theft of radioactive materials or even sabotage, posing significant national security threats.

While nuclear power plants are built to withstand natural disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes, they are not designed to resist attacks from missiles or airstrikes. Recent events, such as the Russian and Ukrainian airstrikes on each other’s energy infrastructure, show how vulnerable energy systems can be to modern warfare tactics. Nuclear plants, if targeted, could lead to catastrophic outcomes, including radiation release. This highlights the need for energy sources that are less vulnerable to such attacks and geopolitical conflicts.

As we look for sustainable energy solutions, it’s important to weigh the pros and cons of nuclear power carefully. We need to develop strategies that address climate change while ensuring environmental safety and security. Although nuclear energy may not be the perfect solution, it is essential to recognize that current methods, such as burning fossil fuels, also have serious environmental and health consequences. As we move forward, finding a balance between different energy sources and prioritizing safety and sustainability will be key to creating a greener and more secure future.