Climate change is becoming an increasingly serious and complicated problem. The three hottest years on record happen to be the last three calendar years: 2015, 2016, and 2017. Even worse, 2018 is projected to be the fourth hottest year on record. Nations of the world have already come together at the Paris Climate Accord back in 2015. The Paris agreement has 195 signatories, sending a strong message that climate change is an international issue worthy of our attention. Three years after meeting in Paris, we still have yet to take strong action on the issue. The longer we wait to take action, the harder it will be to avert crisis.

The general consensus is that in order to combat climate change, we must develop and consume more renewable energy. Those concerned about climate change seem to mostly agree that solar and wind are desirable forms of renewable energy that help to significantly cut carbon emissions, are competitively priced with fossil-fuel derived energy, and are relatively safe for people and for the environment.

Nuclear energy, although not technically classified as a renewable energy, is another form of low-carbon energy that has total carbon emissions comparable to solar energy and wind energy. It has the potential to be competitively priced with fossil fuels and with renewable energies. Plus, nuclear energy isn’t intermittent like wind and solar power are. Given all of these benefits, should implementing nuclear energy be one of the strong actions we take against climate change?

To understand the roots of the anti-nuclear energy movement, we need to first look at history. The movement arises partly from fear of nuclear weaponry and war during the Cold War era, and partly from the worst nuclear disasters in history, such as those in Fukushima and Chernobyl. Besides this, opponents often criticize nuclear power’s high costs. And, there are unanswered questions about how we can safely dispose nuclear waste. Many prominent environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, Environment America, and Greenpeace have been known to be anti-nuclear energy. In fact, Greenpeace was first established to oppose U.S. nuclear weapon tests of the late 1960s.

But recently, a growing number of environmentalists and technical experts have begun to come around to the idea of using nuclear energy to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative released a groundbreaking study called “The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World”. According to the report, nuclear energy could become less expensive and safer with newer and more cost-effective reactors. It also argues that fighting climate change will be slower, more difficult, and more expensive if we do not include nuclear power as one climate change solution of many.

So, should we give nuclear energy a chance? Do we even have a choice? To answer these questions, I will explore the promising qualities of nuclear energy and the recent growing support for developing it as an important part of climate action plans.