Building a sustainable society from scratch is a complex task. However, as pioneers from Freeman Dyson to Greta Thunberg have advocated, sustainable technological solutions exist but are simply not being utilized. One of these proposed solutions is nuclear fusion, chosen for this analysis because of its potential to accomplish the extensive change our environment needs. Evaluating the implementation of nuclear fusion from various perspectives, we are exploring how we can mobilize American residents and institutions to support scientific technologies that can help to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Nuclear fusion is the same type of energy as what is generated in stars. Under normal conditions, hydrogen atoms are kept apart due to strong repulsive forces. However, at very high temperatures (150 million degrees Celsius) and correspondingly high pressures, atoms are able to overcome this repulsive electrostatic force and bind their nuclei together to form heavier helium atoms. The fusion of hydrogen nuclei releases huge amounts of energy — the energy return is expected to be tenfold the energy input (so if 50 megawatts are used to achieve the high temperatures necessary for fusion, the return is expected to be 500 megawatts). Note that nuclear fusion is not the same thing as nuclear fission. While both of these processes release energy, they are actually opposite processes: fission generates energy by splitting an unstable isotope into smaller particles, while fusion joins nuclei. Fission can degrade into chain reactions, making it much less safe than nuclear fusion.
Achieving high enough temperatures for fusion to occur is so expensive that at this point, it can only be funded through the collaboration of many nations. Thirty-five nations are currently involved in ITER, a project to build the world’s largest magnetic fusion device in order to prove the feasibility of fusion as a large-scale, carbon-free source of energy. While the project is not set to be completed until 2035, preliminary reports look promising. A study from Maissonier et al. in 2015 demonstrated that nuclear waste from power plants remains at acceptable and manageable levels, dispelling fears about the safety of using fusion at a large-scale. However, the cost of nuclear fusion is controversial because it will be a burden on taxpayers, and there is always a potential that nuclear fusion won’t work in the long run. There are other sustainable energy sources such as windmills and solar panels that are known and certain. As an example, ITER is predicted to cost $22 billion to construct, although estimates vary depending on who is calculating these numbers. Either way, these new sustainable approaches to nuclear fusion will be costly and may be detrimental to an individual’s pay. However, this method of producing energy could help future generations and allow the Earth to live that much longer.
The other issue associated with using fusion as a large-scale source of energy rests in whether or not it can be considered truly “sustainable”. The easiest and most feasible fuels to use for fusion on Earth are lithium and deuterium, which are found in seawater. There is enough lithium present in the oceans to fuel fusion for fourteen million years, which seems promising. Actually, extracting the lithium from seawater, however, presents cost, time, and, most importantly, environmental challenges. In order to extract 10,000 tons of lithium (estimated to be the annual requirement for large-scale use of fusion), at least 5 x 1010 tons of seawater would be needed. The debate now is whether nuclear fusion is truly sustainable and a potential solution for climate change if its large-scale use demands disrupting the ocean’s ecosystem.
Should ITER and other attempts to use nuclear fusion on a large-scale be successful, governmental regulation may be necessary in order to convert the United States to a system where fusion is the main energy source. The importance of the role of creating and carrying through by affecting climate change policy, or the potential destructiveness of not doing so can be seen through the US’s varied history with policy regarding climate change. Initially, Bill Clinton was the first president to take the initiative in combating climate change. He signed the Kyoto Protocol and allocated funding for environmental policies. Many countries that also signed this agreement successfully met the proposed carbon emission limits, however, as this was not ratified by the president and thus nonbinding, the US actually significantly increased their emissions, and fell short of the proposed goals (Henson, 2011). Later, George W. Bush denounced the Kyoto Protocol, and withdrew the United States from the agreement. At the same time, other major powers, including China, Russia, and Japan refused to accept portions of the protocol. As a consequence of inaction and an inability to commit to such regulations, the climate crisis has continued rapidly, with sea levels reportedly rising more than 2.5 inches and the number of weather disasters across the globe increasing 42% since the signing, according to the Associated Press (Beggin, 2017).
In contrast, during his 2008 presidency, Barack Obama was a major activist against climate change and global warming and believed these issues were the biggest threat to future generations. Throughout 2009 and 2010, Obama launched the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate and made a joint press statement with President Hu of China that called for a successful discussion of climate change at the UN climate summit. Resulting from this initiative, 17 of the world’s major economies candidly discussed the terms of the Copenhagen Conference of the United Nations in an attempt to expand clean energy production and reduce fossil fuel dependence (U.S. Dept. of State, 2017). President Obama also signed a Global Climate change initiative that fostered a low-carbon future and promoted sustainable communities and technologies, and throughout the rest of his presidency, President Obama continued to inform, educate and combat climate change by using his federal power. Upon exiting his second term, the United States appeared to be on its way to becoming an integral part of Western nation’s organization efforts to mitigate global climate challenges.
However, two years ago, like former-President George W. Bush, President Trump pulled the United States out of the 2015 Paris Climate Accord and has continued removing barriers to environmental protection and climate change reversal through harmful policies or the removal of beneficial ones. Trump’s replacement for the Clean Power Plan under Obama, the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, allows states to determine their own clean energy and emission standards. According to the EPA, these rollbacks could lead to 1,400 climate-related premature deaths than the standards set by the previous administration (Kann, 2019). Not only has President Trump openly opposed climate change activism, he reversed US business emissions regulations passed under the Obama Administration and would predictably oppose any sustainable, alternative energy platform that contradicts his campaign promises to reinvigorate the “clean coal” industry and to sell public land to private oil and natural gas companies. Looking forward, in order to pioneer a major investment in nuclear fusion or a similar potentially groundbreaking venture in sustainable technology, the President must lay out a visionary legislative platform willing to spend taxpayer dollars on research and development in the field similar to the ITER proposal, and be willing to provide economic incentives such as tax breaks and subsidies to encourage the innovation.
Nevertheless, there are several challenges that come with transitioning from fossil fuels to nuclear energy, and these vary from country to country. Depending on where one lives, the energy sector may sometimes be completely state-owned, which can be problematic given that these people can be more sensitive to government policies and different administrations (OECD). This can cause instability in the overall nuclear energy sector, and more significantly, reduce innovation and investment to make nuclear energy more affordable and productive. One example of this is in the United States, where the federal government supports nuclear energy efforts and decisions about the plants are made by the private sector; however, the individual States have major roles in the approval process (OECD 2004, 34). As supposed to maximizing efficiency and scalability, state-run or state influenced companies are instead affected by the policy at the time. The future of nuclear energy would have to be devoid of government intervention, aside from regulation and safety measures, and would have to include investment from both the public and private sector (OECD). As more money pours into researching nuclear energy, it becomes a more viable source of sustainable energy for large swaths of people around the world.
One of the largest governmental concerns regarding nuclear fusion is the cost, as construction and negative externality costs seemingly consistently pose a threat to the legislation of any expensive initiative. However, a popular idea over the past decade has been for the government to provide tax incentives and subsidies for the research and development phase of private companies attempting to harness this technology. For example, scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have recently founded Commonwealth Fusion Systems, a Boston startup exploring the commercialization of nuclear fusion (Shieber, 2019). Despite the successful testing of their technology, investors from over a dozen private investment firms have only been able to raise roughly $64 million, several billions of dollars short of what would be required for commercialization (Shieber). Here, the government may be perhaps the only entity with a designated budget worth millions of dollars per year that concerns energy and environmental matters with enough power to help fund or at least minimize the indebtedness of similar companies. Given that this funding could otherwise be allocated in more certain sustainable energy initiatives that are proven to be effective, the bureaucratic obstacles and red tape surrounding government spending may make this task especially challenging.
While viable sustainable solutions do exist, it is clear that sustainable technologies are not being implemented, partly due to poor advertising practices. When researching environmental advertising, the US has been found to stress associative claims for environmental facts and communicate less information about consumer benefits that come from tangible environmental benefits. U.S. consumers were found to be confused and suspicious of environmental claims which proves the link between environmental advertising and public receptiveness to green marketing. According to a study done by Carlson et al, organizations that produce products that are less environmentally harmful have a competitive edge over other methods of advertising sustainability. US advertisements had been found to make claims that are less beneficial to environmentally astute customers that not only will be ignored by the market audience, but miseducates the public about environmentalism. This study was produced in 1996 which may seem outdated, but a similar study in 2011 shows that the best way to advertise is to focus on loss and beneficial gain for current generations. Therefore, steps can be taken to better educate the individual citizen on sustainable technology, making them more likely to embrace these changes.
Once individuals begin adopting and promoting sustainable technology on a small scale, the challenge becomes how to get big technological innovations such as nuclear fusion into widespread use. While much of the implementation of sustainable technologies falls into the realm of logistics, it is equally important for American society to popularize nuclear fusion as a new normal in order for massive change to occur. Understanding how the current structure in the US prevents sustainable solutions from being competitive is important to consider. According to Laura Anadon from the National Academy of Sciences, “Existing institutions tend to drive innovative activity toward the areas of greatest financial prospect rather than the areas of greatest human need. Economic incentives propel much innovation to meet the needs of those who can exert “market” or “demand pull” (Anadon, et al.). But, do innovation and sustainability have to be mutually exclusive? Utilizing existing economic and social structures in the US, sustainable technology needs to be viewed as innovative, and from there a new competitive market can form.
However, it is important to acknowledge that we can only move forward with sustainable technology once it becomes more affordable and more convenient, key social incentives for the everyday American. Eventually, creating a competitive market for sustainable technology will also allow climate change deniers to exert less power as they would have to go out of their way to buy unsustainable technology. People can adapt to sustainable technology and even come to embrace it as a new normal but will only be possible if sustainable technology floods the market.
Largely driven by fossil fuel industries, energy production is a significant contributor to the sustenance of modern communities and is subject to vigilant observation as such. Specifically, the byproducts of various methods of energy generation have severe implications on the climate and extent of global warming and have been under closer scrutinization from both financial and social perspectives. As such, it is crucial to investigate the ways in which Americans can be mobilized to confront and combat climate change through sustainable initiatives. Perhaps the most salient obstacle in limiting the success of this endeavor is the economic interest of fossil fuel industries which do contribute to global warming and are continuously harnessed due to relatively cheap energy prices. However, there are many ways to remedy this issue, including the use of cleaner nuclear energy by reallocating subsidies more evenly among industries and incentivizing fossil fuel industries to support sustainable energy as well.
To the oil and gas industry, nuclear energy is a huge threat. When operated and built correctly, nuclear power plants have the potential to be significantly less costly and environmentally harmful than oil and natural gas plants. Thus, the oil and gas industries have always been large supporters of the anti-nuclear energy movement. In 1970, a big player in the oil industry donated 200,000 dollars to an organization known for campaigning against nuclear energy (Silverstein). They have also been known to support the argument that using atomic fission is extremely dangerous as the technology was originally developed for warfare and can have catastrophic effects (Silverstein). This anti-nuclear sentiment has had widespread effects on the nuclear industry. Many countries have opted to close down their nuclear plants because of the large pushback influenced by the oil and gas industries. However, in reality if people really knew about the advantages of nuclear power over fossil fuels, the movement would lose significant momentum.
Nuclear energy is much more environmentally friendly and sustainable than other energy practices used today. While an uncontained nuclear reaction could result in widespread water and air contamination, modern-day nuclear power plants are well-equipped with safety features that make the likelihood of a “nuclear disaster” occurring extremely small. Otherwise, nuclear energy produces zero carbon emissions, which are the main threat to the environment today. Nuclear energy does produce radioactive waste, but this is not an issue to human health if it is properly contained and the radioactivity of the waste decreases with time. Other common energy sources, like fossil fuels and natural gas, produce greenhouse gases (mainly CO2 and CH4), which are much more detrimental to the environment in the long run. And while the consequences of nuclear energy are well understood, the effects of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) are not. Fracking has the potential to be extremely environmentally detrimental, as it releases large amounts of CH4 into the atmosphere, can contaminate water supplies and possibly cause earthquakes. When considering different forms of energy, it is most important to choose forms of energy that do not contribute to global warming, as it is the biggest environmental threat. Nuclear energy is also much more reliable, as there is enough uranium to let humans use nuclear energy for another 220 years. There is only enough oil to last 53 more years, so nuclear energy is much more long-lasting.
Nuclear power is currently not a mainstream source of energy in the United States because of fear and the belief that it is uneconomical. In order to reverse or reduce the effects of climate change, fossil fuel industries will have to be incentivized to become involved in nuclear energy. However, fossil fuel industries will not turn to nuclear until producing and selling nuclear energy is profitable and beneficial for big oil and gas companies. Further, while fossil fuel industries are still profiting off of coal and oil, they will continue to fund and support the efforts to make sure nuclear power does not become a main energy source in the United States. According to Forbes, “In 1970, a leader of the petroleum industry and the head of the Atlantic Richfield Co… contributed $200,000 to fund Friends of the Earth, an organization that is strident in its opposition to nuclear energy, citing both safety and cost issues” (Forbes). The fear infiltrating the American population regarding nuclear energy has made it uneconomical; however, the fear factor mentioned is not supported by sufficient evidence. In comparison to the lives lost to coal and oil accidents, the production of nuclear energy is, in fact, relatively safe. According to the Italian Business and Investment Initiative, “In the 60 plus years the world has been operating nuclear plants, less than 50 people have died from radiation and none of them were Americans. In that same time period, over 7,500 Americans died in coal accidents” (Italian Business and Investment Initiative). Additionally, nuclear energy does not need to be uneconomical. The expensive nature of nuclear energy in the United States is largely because of the fear discussed and the efforts of fossil fuel industries. The Italian Business and Investment initiative stated that, “Korea is building well-designed nuclear plants for half the price of a modern coal plant” (Italian Business and Investment Initiative). Korea’s efforts should show the United States, and specifically big oil and coal companies, that making nuclear energy a reality will be profitable and sustainable.
In order to make nuclear energy less expensive in the United States, it needs to be seen as a safe and economically beneficial choice for the American population and fossil fuel industries. Specifically, fossil fuel industries need to be incentivized to invest in or get involved in using nuclear power. Many steps must be taken in order to reduce the effects of the fear factor. For example, the public must be educated on the effects of historic nuclear meltdowns in comparison to the oil and coal disasters that happen frequently. Other steps can be taken in order to reduce the amount of fear in American regarding nuclear energy. If successful, the increase in trust, desire, and therefore consumption of nuclear energy will drive the sustainable option to be economically favorable for fossil fuel industries. Additionally, in order to make nuclear energy economically favorable, Pigouvian subsidies and taxes should be implemented so that it can compete with big oil and gas companies.
Nuclear power cannot compete with coal, and particularly in Trump’s America, with Natural Gas that has been given a huge helping hand from an economics perspective. First off, federal subsidies to oil and natural gas companies totaling 3.2 billion are almost triple nuclear’s 1.1 billion dollars. Also, it is important to remember that nuclear companies face many more costs in terms of hopping through bureaucratic federal red tape in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in addition to local and state protocols. These companies have to go three times as far with ⅓ the resources at hand. To this end, “a decade ago, nuclear power plants in the U.S. were cash cows. Now more than half of them are bleeding cash. Five nuclear plants were closed prematurely in the past five years, and more are on the chopping block.” (Bloomberg) This is largely due to rock bottom natural gas prices. Natural gas prices are forcing Nuclear plants to run at a loss and eventually close down, only offering natural gas companies more room to expand and enrich themselves in. However, states like New York and Illinois are stepping up to the table and are providing these subsidies to at least prevent the immediate closure for nuclear reactors in their states. But energy industry leaders need to not only need to save the sinking energy ship but work on expanding the nuclear energy sector to provide thousands of jobs and provide clean, non-carbon energy to the people of the United States at an affordable price. Altogether it is likely that incentivizing fossil fuel industries to become involved in nuclear energy will help solve climate change.
Works Cited
Anadon, L. D., Chan, G., Harley, A. G., Matus, K., Moon, S., Murthy, S. L., & Clark, W. C.
(2016). Making technological innovation work for sustainable development. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(35), 9682–9690. doi:10.1073/pnas.1525004113.
Beggin, Riley. “The last time a US president dumped a global climate deal.” ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/time-us-president-dumped-global-climate-deal/story?id=47771005.
Bortree, D. , Ahern, L. , Dou, X. and Smith, A. N. (2012), Denise Bortree et al.. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., 17: 77-91. doi:10.1002/nvsm.437.
Bradshaw, A.M., Hamacher, T., Fischer, U. “Is nuclear fusion a sustainable energy form?” Fusion Engineering and Design, vol. 86, no. 9-11, 2011, pp. 2770-2773. doi: 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2010.11.040.
Budinger, Bill. “Nuclear, the Only Large Scale Solution to Replace Fossil Fuel.” Italian Business & Investment Initiative, 22 Apr. 2019, www.italianbusiness.org/nuclear-solution-fossil-fuel/.
Buford, Talia. “In a Time of Cheap Fossil Fuels, Nuclear Power Companies Are Seeking – and Getting – Big Subsidies.” ProPublica, 16 May 2019, www.propublica.org/article/in-a-time-of-cheap-fossil-fuels-nuclear-power-companies-are-seeking-and-getting-big-subsidies.
Carlson, L., Grove, S. J., Kangun, N., & Polonsky, M. J. (1996). An International Comparison of Environmental Advertising: Substantive versus Associative Claims. Journal of Macromarketing, 16(2), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/027614679601600205.
Drew Kann, C. (2019). Trump’s rollback of climate change regulations will be felt far beyond his presidency. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/04/politics/trump-climate-change-policy-rollbacks/index.html.
Goldstein, Joshua S., and Staffan A. Qvist. “Only Nuclear Energy Can Save the Planet.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 11 Jan. 2019, www.wsj.com/articles/only-nuclear-energy-can-save-the-planet-11547225861.
Government and Nuclear Energy. Nuclear Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2004.
Kharecha, Pushker, and James Hansen. “Coal and Gas Are Far More Harmful than Nuclear Power.” NASA, NASA, 22 Apr. 2013,
climate.nasa.gov/news/903/coal-and-gas-are-far-more-harmful-than-nuclear-power/.
Maisonnier, D. et al. “The European power plant conceptual study.” Fusion Engineering and Design, vol. 75, 2005, pp. 1173-1179. doi: 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2005.06.095.
Mueller, Mike. “Nuclear Power Is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It’s Not Even Close.” Energy, 27 Feb. 2018, www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even close.
Polson, Jim. “Why Nuclear Power, Once Cash Cow, Now Has Tin Cup.” Bloomberg, Bloomberg, 14 July 2017,
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-14/why-nuclear-power-once-cash-cow-now-has-tin-cup-quicktake-q-a.
Rhodes, Richard. “Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution.” Yale Environment 360, 19 July 2018, e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate.
Silverstein, Ken. “Are Fossil Fuel Interests Bankrolling The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 13 July 2016, www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the- anti-nuclear-energy-movement/#6c9468d27453.
United States Department of State. “Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate.” Office of Global Change. July 2009.
“What is ITER?” ITER, https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines, 2019.
World Nuclear Association. “Nuclear Fusion Power.” World Nuclear Association: Current and Future Generation. July 2019.