The age of fossil fuels will soon be over. The doomsday predictions of all of the world’s oil wells running dry are coming to fruition. Worldwide oil production hit its peak in 2005 and has been declining since, as the world’s oil consumption continues to escalate. Reserves of natural gas and coal are likewise shrinking, with what’s left becoming increasingly expensive to extract. We need to turn to a new energy source, nuclear power.

 The value of fossil fuels is easy to understand. They contain significant amounts of energy in a very small volume, making them easy to transport. The energy stored within fossil fuels can be accessed independent of weather or time of day. Fossil fuel power plants do not require any special landmarks or environmental features; a power plant can be built anywhere.

Nuclear power exhibits similar characteristics in contrast to other renewable energy sources. Unlike a wind farm, a nuclear power plant does not depend on weather to generate energy, and unlike solar power, a nuclear plant can produce power during both during daylight and night hours. A nuclear plant can be built anywhere, provided there is a small natural or man-made body of water nearby, in contrast to geothermal plants, which require a very special topology to be efficient. Also, unlike solar and wind power, nuclear energy produces huge amounts of energy – even more than fossil fuel plants of similar scope. Simply put, nuclear power is similar to that of fossil fuels, except the amount of energy contained per volume is much larger. A switch to nuclear power is therefore a no-brainer.

“But it is not safe!” cry the opponents of nuclear power. They point to the Three Mile Island accident as well as the Chernobyl tragedy. However, simply raising those unfortunate events is not a valid argument. The Three Mile Island incident occurred merely a year after Ford recalled the Pinto. By similar logic, we should be scared of Ford automobiles, if not of all cars, to this day.

 Since the Chernobyl meltdown there have been approximately 50 nuclear accidents in the world, with less than 10 situations dangerous enough to be deemed serious accidents. Comparing that to the previous example, there have been over 500 automobile recalls in 2010 alone. Furthermore, only one such nuclear accident was fatal, killing merely two people. To date, no American civilian nuclear incident was fatal. On the other hand, living near a heavily polluted site, such as a coal-burning power plant is very dangerous. In fact, it is not only more dangerous to a person’s health, but is more radioactive as well. A 2007 Scientific American study found ash from coal-burning plants, which is just vented into the air, to be more radioactive than waste from a nuclear power plant, which is deposited into heavily shielded sites.

The most important argument for nuclear power, however, is money. Coal and gas power plants are inexpensive to build compared to nuclear plants. However, as the world’s supply of fossil fuels continues to decrease, the price of coal, and therefore the cost of producing electricity, will increase. Power companies respond by increasing the price of electricity. On the other hand, the world supplies of uranium and plutonium vastly exceed the demand for them, especially since the end of the Cold War has decreased nations’ desire to build up nuclear warhead stockpiles.

Not only that, but nuclear power is also far more efficient than fossil fuel combustion, allowing more of the energy stored within uranium or plutonium to be put to use than could ever be possible with oil or coal. In short, nuclear power is more expensive in the short run, but much cheaper over time, since one nuclear plant can produce much more electricity with overall cheaper inputs.

Nuclear power is the future. It is superior to all other methods of energy production available to us at this time. So why are we not yet riding around in electric cars powered by cheap electricity from nuclear plants? The fossil fuel industry, since its initial birth during the Industrial Revolution, has grown into an ancient behemoth that is afraid of giving up the power it currently holds. A switch to nuclear power would reduce the economic power of the likes of ExxonMobil and BP, requiring them to innovate, and opening them to challenges from younger and more adaptable companies. Therefore, the fossil fuel industry seeks to delay the shift to nuclear power by exercising its influence and playing on the fears of another Chernobyl incident. However it bears repeating, nuclear power is the future. Whether or not we will go nuclear is no longer a question. All that remains in question now is how long it will take us to do so.

Yaroslav Mikhaylov is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].