In the grand thermodynamic scheme of things, all of our energy comes from the same source: the sun (okay, and a minor geothermal contribution). Fossil fuels store energy captured from the sun by carbon-based life, namely plants, plankton, algae, etc. Solar power cuts out the middleman, which in theory is useful because it takes an impractically long time for the energy from sunlight to be converted into fossil fuels; this explanation doesn't count biofuels, which can be made from plants that mature within a few years/decades and can be replanted after harvest, but I'm not here to defend biofuels. I'm here to make the pitch for nuclear.
(1). Nuclear is environmentally friendly
Like solar, nuclear is a green energy source. In fact, its total life cycle greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are lower than solar. One source has it that photovoltaic (conventional solar) produces 43 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour of energy produced. A more efficient method, "concentrating (ed) solar power", produces 28. Nuclear produces a meager 13.
https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf
But of course, pro might say, greenhouse gases aren't the only factor. Nuclear consumes water, after all. True, but so does solar; namely, to clean dust, bird droppings, etc. off solar panels, which if left unchecked can greatly reduce efficiency. Now, to be fair, this source has it that photovoltaic power (re: conventional solar panels) consumes significantly less water than nuclear, and concentrated nuclear power (a different method) consumes marginally less.
https://poweralliance.org/2024/11/16/is-the-solar-farm-going-to-use-our-water-or-use-dangerous-chemicals-for-cleaning/
By the source's admission, however, this depends upon normal levels of rainfall. But with droughts becoming more common over the next century, the need to tap into groundwater reserves to make up the difference could increase solar consumption without affecting nuclear, potentially closing or at least significantly narrowing the gap.
"But what about nuclear meltdowns?", pro might say. Well, this source has nuclear's total death rate (from accidents or air pollution) at 0.03 people per terawatt-hour of electricity produced, compared to 0.02 for solar.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Now to be clear, I don't know if this counts all nuclear accidents since its inception in the 1940s; if so, then it significantly overestimates nuclear's death rate today since past accidents in a bygone era of looser regulations and less safe technology are unduly baked into the calculation (by this 2020 source's own admission it factors in the 2011 Fukushima disaster, which was caused by an earthquake and tsunami hitting a plant commissioned in 1971). If what I'm saying is correct then modern nuclear power has a significantly lower death rate than solar.
"But nuclear produces waste products!"
Yes, 97 percent of which is classified as low or intermediate level waste, and can be safely be disposed of in "near-surface repositories". In fact, 95% of all radioactivity found in nuclear waste comes from spent fuel, which with emerging technologies can be reused (see below). What this leaves us with is a truly minuscule share of all nuclear waste that's both unrecyclable and hazardous enough to warrant expensive sequestering.
https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities
(2). Nuclear has advantages over solar
The perennial issue of nuclear power, which is the long time it takes to commission a plant, is increasingly a non-problem with the small modular reactor (SMR) boom. One estimate has it that 262 SMRs will be online by 2040, producing a cumulative 42 gigawatts of electricity (a figure that could no doubt be scaled up much faster with deregulation). This is up from the current 2.
https://www.abiresearch.com/blog/small-modular-reactors-pros-and-cons
Which is to say, it's increasingly hard to argue that nuclear is a pipe dream. It can be done; the pertinent question is, should we?
To which I would answer, yes. You see, solar's most glaring problem is its lack of energy density. Gasoline is 10 quadrillion times more energy dense than solar radiation, with the former producing 10 billion joules of energy per cubic meter vs. the latter's 0.0000015. A perfectly efficient nuclear reactor, which admittedly isn't viable at this time, would realize the full potential of uranium, which over 10 billion times more energy dense than petroleum.
https://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/greatworks/pdf_sum10/WK8_Layton_EnergyDensities.ashx
This figure also presumably reflects the global average, which is 1,400 watts of power per square meter of surface area. At even modestly northern latitudes (including both Bosnia and most of the US), this is as low as 100-150 watts. What this means is that it would take 0.5% of the United States' total land area to supply the grid with 100% solar, a number that would have to scale up with any increases in electricity consumption.
https://patentpc.com/blog/how-much-land-is-needed-for-100-renewable-energy-latest-research-stats
While in theory 0.5% doesn't sound like a lot, a 2022 study found that 44% of utility-scale solar acreage in the state of Maryland was located on "prime farmland", 48% on "farmland of statewide importance", and only 8% "not (on?) prime farmland".
https://southernagtoday.org/2022/12/the-potential-implications-of-large-scale-solar-development-a-case-study-on-marylands-agricultural-industry/
Prime farmland is a term used by the US Department of Agriculture to describe the most valuable farmland in the country. And it disproportionately isn't virgin land that's used for solar enterprises but already cleared plots previously used for agriculture, which farmers have every incentive to do at present since the rent per acre for solar farms is more lucrative than the payout for using the same land for actual farms. What this could result in is a contraction of land already in use, causing either food shortages or forcing the clearance of currently uncultivated land for farming purposes (which means chopping down trees, destroying wildlife habitats, pumping more CO2 in the atmosphere in the process, etc).
This could all be avoided, of course, by covering our electricity needs with nuclear power. I could go on about battery capacity challenges (i.e. the sun only shines in the day) but frankly it's getting late and my opponent wrote a single paragraph so I'll wrap this up below.
(3). Nuclear is a viable solution for the foreseeable future
Like solar, nuclear energy could last us for as long as we could realistically bring ourselves to care about; while c. 2009 the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) said that global uranium reserves would only last roughly 230 years given then-current levels of consumption, this was assuming conventional extraction technologies in use at the time. Steve Fetter, dean of the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, estimated that a transition to fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors could increase that outlook to 30,000 years. Likewise, the untapped 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium found in seawater could last us 60,000 years even with then-current reactor technologies.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/
Combining these two methods, and even after adjusting for (a). higher consumption today than in 2009; and (b). an increase of nuclear's share of the world's power supply from ~ 9 to 100 percent, we're probably talking well over ten thousand years.
Mind you, recorded history goes back some 5-6,000 years. We have no guarantees that mankind will still be around in another ten thousand, and it's certainly outside the scope of policy discussions today. If they are, and if solar technology can adequately provide for the needs of their civilization, then I see no reason they can't make the switch then. Conversely, if they are and solar cannot, then it's a question of us versus them. The problem, of course, is infinite regress; by that reasoning we could be guilt tripped for any unnecessary expenditure of energy whatsoever, regardless of power source, that hastens the heat death of the universe, or at least our solar system, by whatever minute degree. I think this is a road that we are collectively unwilling to go down, so I'll consider it outside the scope of this debate.
Anyway, thank you for reading!
Pro
#1
