Behind every successful industry is the solution applied through science and technology. Scientists have done the unthinkable, surpassed every expectation, and awed the human race with their ingenious inventions, theories and ideas. However, one answer eludes even the greatest thinkers: what are we going to do when we use up fossil fuels? We cannot even begin to describe our dependence on fossil fuels. Many scientists and international agencies have predicted that Peak Oil Production will happen around 2010. We are fast-approaching the wane of what will soon be known as the “Oil Age.” Are we to abandon all hope of retaining our modern comforts and return to life, caveman-style? Or do we have access to a feasible alternative?

Global nuclear energy consumption and production
The use of nuclear power, once a taboo subject especially after World War Two, is spreading. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, as of July 2008, “30 countries are operating 439 nuclear reactors for electricity generation and 14 countries are investing in the current construction of 37 new nuclear plants.” Nuclear reactors generate a good 14% of the world’s electricity. France leads the way by producing 77% of its electricity through nuclear means. The largest global consumer of energy, the United States, currently produces 20% of its power from 104 nuclear reactors.

The developing world isn’t very far behind. China produced around 60 billion kWh of nuclear power in 2007 and has plans to build 90 more reactors. India only has 13 operating reactors right now, but the recently signed Indo-US Civilian Nuclear Agreement opens her doors to a huge market of previously unattainable nuclear reactor technology and fuels.

Does this mean we have found a safe, reliable, and sustainable
alternative energy source to keep the world running? Not necessarily.

Quality, not quantity
“All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk.” – Ronald Reagan

One of nuclear power’s main attractions is that the most commonly used nuclear fuel, uranium, can be found on every continent and is 40 times more abundant than silver. Further, a very small amount of refined fuel is enough to produce huge amounts of nuclear energy. Although nuclear power production produces much less waste than fossil fuels, this waste is highly toxic in nature and could lead to major safety issues if not disposed of properly. Painstaking steps have to be undertaken to ensure protection against the high levels of harmful radiation from the energy production process.

The process of spent nuclear fuel disposal
When removed from the reactor, spent nuclear fuel has to be cooled in large pools of water stored in steel-lined concrete basins. After cooling, they are transferred into dry-storage containers made of steel and concrete. If the spent nuclear fuel is reprocessed, a highly radioactive, sludge-like residue remains. The residue has to be solidified and stored in a similar way within stainless steel metal canisters.

None of the waste can be moved until they are stable and safely stored in this state. While these canisters can be stored above ground temporarily, this is not a permanent storage option. Environmental factors, like wind and rain, could compromise the measures taken against emission of harmful radiation.

The only globally accepted safe and permanent storage option available is in deep underground repositories. Even after the waste is stored underground, it has to be monitored constantly against leaks at least until its radiation decreases to safe levels.

Between a rock and a hard place
Although global warming is one of mankind’s biggest environmental problems right now, replacing fossil fuels with nuclear fuel wouldn’t make our lives necessarily any easier. Even though policy makers and politicians constantly remind us that our safety will not be compromised and that nuclear waste disposal techniques have been tried and tested, most people are unwilling to accept their reassurances.

Will the human race be giving up the evils of fossil fuel waste for an even bigger one? Global warming crept up on us when the economy was riding the highs of sweet crude. Countries have struggled since then to keep their carbon emissions under Kyoto Protocol-mandated levels. Will we face the same problems with nuclear fuels?

World War Two, the Cold War. What next?
Even if we don’t, the propagation of nuclear power production presents a much bigger, more violent problem. When “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” were unleashed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War Two, the world saw the horrific capabilities of nuclear power. To this day, people living in these areas are still being affected by the radiation from those bombs.

Then came the nuclear arms race between the superpowers during the Cold War. The Americans had confidence in what they thought was their monopoly on nuclear knowledge and uranium. But, in 1949, the Soviets shocked them by detonating a bomb that was similar in destructive power to Fat Man. It wasn’t long before both governments were investing billions of dollars in the race to declare nuclear supremacy.

Although nothing terrible ever happened, the Cold War irreparably changed the face of nuclear power. It made us fully appreciate what could happen in a war fuelled by the technology we have now; it also allowed scientists to discover new, more destructive nuclear weapons.

The world has become like a ticking nuclear bomb. Developed nations can launch an attack on any part of the world with the special air-strike nuclear missiles developed during the Cold War; together, the United States and Russia have 24,000 nuclear weapons. Developing nations like India and China are expanding their nuclear power sectors and dabbling in nuclear weapon testing. Some countries like Iran are trying to spend large amounts of money and attention on nuclear fuel usage and development. And with ever-increasing tensions along the India-Pakistan border, who is to say that nuclear weapons will not feature in a possible war between two countries belonging to the ‘Nuclear Club’?

The Future
If the past is anything to go by, the future of nuclear power doesn’t seem very promising. Disasters like Chernobyl and the nuclear weapon testing scandal at Bikini Atoll are prime examples of what can go wrong and how badly innocent people could get hurt.
On the other hand, nuclear power does seem like a perfect alternative to fossil fuels – nuclear fuel is abundant, energy production capabilities are high, and very small quantities of wastes are produced. What’s not to like about nuclear energy?
Pose that question to the people who discovered the energy capabilities of fossil fuels. Crude oil and coal were the cornerstones in a then- emerging high-tech, industrialised era. Developing countries depended heavily on coal to fire up their industrial economies and wealthy countries became the largest consumers of crude. This intense usage of fossil fuels, however, led to a phenomenon that is rapidly becoming a household name: global warming.

It is evident that everything we do has environmental ramifications and we must bear these in mind. We need to develop a globally standardised, safe and reliable method of disposing radioactive wastes resulting from nuclear power production. This process must be continually and closely monitored. We cannot affordany slip-up, not in a world which electricity needs could potentially be solely dependent on nuclear power.

And what about nuclear power plants? When these structures become common, it is of utmost importance that we are able to ensure that what happened at Chernobyl never happens again. Who will regulate individual plants’ safety procedures with thousands of nuclear power plants dotting Earth’s landscape?

Then there is the possibility of nuclear warfare. A nuclear war would devastate the environment, kill thousands of people and make regions of Earth uninhabitable for prolonged periods of time. If and when nuclear fuels become more widespread, how can we be sure that all countries are going to be equally responsible with the resources they have access to? For example, they will need to prevent nuclear materials from falling into terrorists’ hands. They will also need to present a united front against the possibility of a nuclear arms race, which could lead to possible nuclear attacks.

Unfortunately, as of today, these questions and problems remain unanswered. However one thing is for sure: if the above concerns cannot be adequately addressed, nuclear power cannot be a reliable answer to the world’s energy problems.