Future Hindsight's Look at Nuclear Power
We spent most of 2020 (so far) looking at climate changefrom various angles and talking to some of the world’s most passionateactivists, scientists, and public policy experts about how we can create agreen future. Many of our guests agree that the technology is there, and politicalwill is the main obstacle we face in the struggle against climate changeand sea-level rise.
Nuclear energy has been touted as a way to use existingtechnology to bridge the gap between fossil fuels and renewable energies thatwould satisfy demand and partisan hankerings. To that end, we set out todiscover if nuclear power was indeed the answer to our question. Can it help ususher in a green new age? Here is what we found.
We started our look at nuclear power with Professor JoshuaGoldstein. Goldstein is the co-author of the book A Bright Future: How Some CountriesSolved Climate Change and the Rest Can Follow.
Check out our interview with Joshua here:
·
A Nuclear Future: Joshua Goldstein
He talked with us about the potential to use nuclear energyto ween ourselves off of fossil fuels, which produce much more carbonemissions. He argued that nuclear is green, and the risks posed bymalfunctioning plants or waste byproducts are vastly outmatched by the healthrisks caused by coal power’s air pollution or the impending doom of someclimate change scenarios. He is right about the damaging impact of coal oncivilian populations; you can check out our blog poston it to learn more. He explained how Swedencut its emissions in half by transitioning to nuclear, and Germany—whotransitioned away from nuclear power—is seeing a rise in CO2 emissions thanksto their policies.
Goldstein also acknowledged some of the problems that laterguests would reference. The most important of these is the length of time ittakes to bring a nuclear power plant online, and the huge costs associated withthem. His nuclear future rests in the hands of smallmodular reactors currently in development in the US and China. Thesereactors, once fully developed, could be scaled quickly and moved to the partsof the world that need power most. It’s an enticing idea and one that very wellcould shape energy in the future, but they won’t ready until the middle of thisdecade before we’ll know for certain.
Next, we sat down with Professor MarkZ. Jacobson, a Senior Fellow of the Stanford Woods Institute for theEnvironment. He disagreed with Goldstein’s nuclear prognosis for a few keyreasons.
You can listen to Mila’s full conversation with him here:
·
A Renewable Future: Mark Z. Jacobson
The biggest issue with nuclear as a savior was thetimetable. According to Jacobson, nuclear reactors take between 10-19 years tocomplete and are often subject to cost and time overruns. If we startedbuilding new plants today, the earliest we would see even one completed reactoris 2030, and more likely 2035. Meanwhile, Jacobson noted the need to transitionto 80% green or renewable energy by 2030. Even if we fully pivoted from fossilto nuclear tomorrow, we would continue to burn fossil fuels while the newplants come online in the 2030s, at which point it’s too late.
Instead, Jacobson argued for a massive renewables buildout,coupled with aggressive electrification in industries like transportation,manufacturing, and construction. Moving away from gas-powered cars andgas-heated homes towards green electricity on the road, in factories, and inhomes is the best way forward. Even if small modular reactors work and arefully scalable, the delay in operation may be too much for us. Instead, we canuse existing technology to start electrification now, immediately cuttingfossil fuel emissions and saving money with renewable energy sources.
Jacobson admitted nuclear was the perfect energy source onpaper, much as Goldstein had said. In practice, however, nuclear took too long,cost too much, and brought with it the specters of nuclear meltdowns, wastedumps, and weapons.
Now that we’d looked at the potential future of nuclearenergy as an environmental savior, we wanted to see what the existing impactsof nuclear technology are in nature. For that, we turned to Woods HoleOceanographic Institution marine radiochemist KenBuesseler. Ken has made a career investigating the impact radiation has on ouroceans.
You can listen to our full episode with Ken here:
·
Our Radioactive Ocean: Ken Buesseler
He emphasized one of the points that Goldstein made—radiationin small doses is fine, and we all live with radiation. The problem withradiation comes when humans receive large doses of it, a relatively rareoccurrence. He also noted the compounds that release radiation varysignificantly, and many radioactive particles decay very quickly, meaning evenlarge concentrations of radiation may only be harmful for a short time.
To illustrate this, he examined the Pacific Ocean in theaftermath of the 2011 Fukushima reactor meltdown. Immediately after theaccident, high levels of radioactive cesium leaked into the Pacific Ocean offthe coast of Japan. By 2014, levels of radioactivity had decreased to the pointthat all fish caught off Japanese waters were below the safe threshold forhuman consumption. Today, the Pacific Ocean is less radioactive than it was inthe 1960s after the weapons tests conducted by the US government in theMarshall Islands. Swimming in the Pacific Ocean for 8 hours a day is stillsignificantly less risky than one dental x-ray, he told us.
Of course, radiation in places like the Chernobyl exclusionzone or a waste dump is dangerous for humans, but radiation shouldn’t concernus much in our everyday lives. A common theme through all of our interviews onnuclear technology was the fear it elicits in civilians. We should be afraid ofnuclear war or catastrophic meltdowns, but the current and historical threatcaused by radiation is low.Finally, we wanted to inspect the legacy ofnuclear power. For this, we turned to FredPearce, a renowned environmental journalist and author of Fallout:Disasters, Lies, and the Legacy of the Nuclear Age.
·
Ending the Nuclear Era: Fred Pearce
He opened the interview by proclaiming the end of theNuclear Era. The societal fear of nuclear technology thanks to the Cold War, accidentslike Chernobyl, and the culture of misinformation surrounding nuclear technologywere the largest nails in its coffin. Nuclear has a bad public reputation, anddemocratic nations are opting for other green energy sources that come withoutstigma.
The three largest legacies for nuclear technology are radioactive waste dumps, weapons stockpiles, and an atmosphere of secrecy and distrust in scientists. The first two are obvious—waste is a factor in any nuclear reaction, and nuclear technology was, after all, invented in bomb form. Pearce hopes disarmament can occur in the next 30-40 years to purge the world of what he calls “a Faustian pact.” The distrust in scientists comes from the mixed messages, lies, hidden information, and mistakes nuclear technology has spawned over the last 70 years. Pearce hypothesizes that much of the mistrust leveled at science these days can trace its roots back to the nuclear movement. In fact, the distrust of science may be the most damaging part of the Nuclear Era.
Thanks to these four authors and scientists, we have a broadoverview of the science, and its benefits and detriments. In the end, we agreethat nuclear power looks great on paper but leaves a lot to be desired inactuality. Although most plants are safe and radiation levels are low, therisks are large. The most damning arguments against powering the world withuranium are simply time and money. Using current nuclear systems and climateprojections, we simply do not have enough time to transition without devastatingconsequences. Renewable energy like solar or wind is cheap and getting cheaper,while nuclear power is becoming more costly. If small modular reactors enterthe market and are proven viable, we will revisit our determination. Until then,we must advocate for the rapid expansion of renewable energy and theelectrification of market sectors, before it’s too late.
Works Cited
“Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).” Energy.gov, www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors.
“A BRIGHT FUTURE.” A Bright Future, www.brightfuturebook.com/.
“Ending the Nuclear Era: Fred Pearce.” Future Hindsight, www.futurehindsight.com/episode/ending-the-nuclear-era-fred-pearce/.
“A Nuclear Future: Joshua Goldstein.” Future Hindsight, www.futurehindsight.com/episode/a-nuclear-future-joshua-goldstein/.
“Our Radioactive Ocean: Ken Buesseler.” Future Hindsight, www.futurehindsight.com/episode/our-radioactive-ocean-ken-buesseler/.
Pearce, Fred. “Fallout by Fred Pearce: 9780807092491: PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books.” PenguinRandomhouse.com, Beacon Press, www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/561465/fallout-by-fred-pearce/.
“A Renewable Future: Mark Z. Jacobson.” Future Hindsight, www.futurehindsight.com/episode/a-renewable-future-mark-z-jacobson/.
“Why Do We Still Use Coal?” Future Hindsight, 2 Apr. 2020, www.futurehindsight.com/why-do-we-still-use-coal/.