Since the 1950s the world has had a carbon-free, weather-independent energy source.

It works with our existing grid and infrastructure, and it isn’t dependent on batteries or back-up power from fossil fuels.

If the goal is to slow down climate change, shouldn’t we be building more nuclear?

But instead of installing this power generation everywhere we can, it’s on the decline around the world.

What happened?

[OPEN] Historically, nuclear power has been the world’s largest source of carbon-free energy.

Of course, nothing is completely carbon-free.

Fossil fuels were undoubtedly used to build every nuclear plant on Earth.

You need trucks to deliver the fuel rods, construction materials, and that kind of stuff, but that trade-off applies to all carbon free energy, at least until we get those sweet Tesla trucks.

Globally, nuclear generates 11% of power, and in the US it provides 20% of our energy.

But since 2013, six nuclear power plants in the US have closed, with dozens more looking like they may retire in coming years.

After the reactor in Fukushima, Japan melted down in 2011, Germany, China, and Italy all shut down or stopped construction on reactors.

People often cite safety as the big reason for shutting down nuclear power plants.

But when you actually look at the numbers nuclear is among the safest power technologies we have.

But despite high profile accidents like Chernobyl or 3-mile-island, nuclear power generation causes less illness and death than all other fuel-based energy production, by a lot.

Those deaths are just more spread out, they aren’t tied to one event, so we don’t hear about them.

Most countries have continued decommissioning.

Germany plans to completely phase out nuclear by 2022, And when those plants go offline, you’ve gotta make up for that lost power with something, and most of the time we replace nuclear with natural gas or coal, not renewables.

The thing is, a lot of this is economics: even before the Fukushima disaster, nuclear power looked like it was on its way out.

Nuclear is expensive and can’t keep up with cheap energy from natural gas.

But wind and solar started out expensive too, and only became cheaper after decades worth of innovation and government policies.

So why isn’t there as big of a push behind nuclear?

For one thing, big environmental organizations are solidly anti-nuclear.

The Sierra Club for example, says they are “unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy” - they point to disasters, risks of nuclear proliferation and the dangers of nuclear waste.

Nuclear energy is an area where a climate change solution is at odds with other things people care about.

The Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor may have to close because they can’t afford to meet new regulations designed to protect local fish populations.

And in particular, the impacts of nuclear energy have disproportionately fallen on indigenous peoples around the world.

Since the discovery of Uranium ore in the southwest states, communities have been relocated and hundreds of barrels of radioactive waste have ended up on Native American reservations.

Should our top priority be reducing carbon emissions or protecting people and biodiversity?

Like most climate change solutions, nuclear energy is full of difficult choices.

But besides nuclear we currently don’t have any carbon-free power generation that operates on big scales.

The closest we can get is hydropower, which supplies 7% of the energy in the US, primarily in the West.

But if you think nuclear is expensive and holds risks for ecosystems, just wait til you hear about dams.

These days it’s easier to install smaller, more flexible renewables than big, expensive power plants.

Some companies and researchers are trying to tackle a lot of these issues we’ve mentioned here with cool futuristic technology like smaller reactors that are easier to build, eliminate the possibility of a meltdown or reduce fuel waste – but most of these are just concepts years away from deployment.

It's hard to even say if new designs will win over people that are currently afraid of or worried about nuclear.

Or if they’ll manage to get through the strict regulations nuclear power has to contend with in many countries.

And as long as fuels like natural gas are cheaper than nuclear, they’ll remain more popular.

But if our goal is to stop climate change, using fossil fuels is not a solution.

Is it possible to keep global temperatures under control without nuclear?

Probably.

Is it a heck of lot harder?

Definitely.

Funding for this episode is provided by these funders: P. Roy and Diana T. Vagelos, the Marc Haas Foundation, and Sue and Edgar Wachenheim the third, in support of Peril and Promise, a public media initiative from WNET in New York, reporting on the stories of climate