The idea behind global warming is simple enough. Earth’s atmosphere retains some of the heat that Earth receives from the Sun. The amount of heat retained depends upon the chemical composition of the atmosphere. If the chemical properties of Earth’s atmosphere are changed, then the thermal properties of the atmosphere—that is, its heat-retention properties—change as well.
Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The combustion reaction in which fossil fuels are consumed produces, in the main, two products: carbon dioxide and water. At ordinary temperatures and pressures, carbon dioxide is a gas, and so burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide gas into the air. There is ample evidence that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased as a result. Consequently, the thermal properties of the atmosphere have changed. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means more of the energy that Earth receives from the Sun is retained. Temperatures are, as a consequence, rising.
Many questions about the effects of a warmer atmosphere on storm systems, ocean currents, and rainfall patterns have yet to be resolved. But there will be effects—there have, in fact, already been numerous easy-to-measure effects—and over time these effects will increase in magnitude as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to increase. In fact, the rate of fossil fuel consumption continues to increase as more of the world’s population becomes accustomed to lifestyles previously identified only with developed nations. The reason? Western lifestyles are heavily dependent on the consumption of enormous quantities of fossil fuels.
Nuclear power plants produce no carbon dioxide. They depend, instead, on an entirely different mechanism for producing heat than the chemical processes associated with burning fossil fuels. Nuclear plants are, therefore, capable of producing large amounts of electricity without affecting the global climate. By contrast, replacing an average size nuclear plant with coal-burning power stations would entail burning 2.8 million tons (2.5 million metric tons) of coal each year. Nuclear power plants are, therefore, one possible answer to the questions posed by Raymond L. Orbach, Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy, in a 2007 speech at Iowa State University: “We must find a way to meet the increasing demand for energy without adding catastrophically to atmospheric carbon dioxide. The world, therefore, has a twofold problem: Where will this new energy come from, and how can it be carbon-free?”
To see the impact of nuclear plants on carbon emissions, consider what has happened in France: Between 1970 and 1995 France’s population increased by 13 percent; the size of its economy increased by 71 percent; the amount of electricity it produced increased by 214 percent, and its carbon dioxide emissions decreased by 16 percent. This happened because during this same period of time the percentage of electricity generated by nuclear power in France rose from 6 percent to 77 percent. Nuclear output has since held steady at about 80 percent of France’s total electrical output. The remaining 20 percent is evenly divided between hydroelectric and fossil fuels. Despite much debate about the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions among the major developed nations, only France has managed to make substantial reductions in emissions, because only France has almost eliminated its dependence on fossil fuels for electricity generation.