When the Nuclear Option is the only Option
Why is it that, as a species, we are so poor at choosing the correct path? The way ahead should be clear and yet often we fail to see the wood for the trees.
Abundant Energy
We have a developing crisis of climate and biodiversity which, in the worst-case scenarios, present an existential threat to our way of life, if not our entire species. The facts speak for themselves. At the heart of the matter is a single idea which can be summed up as follows:
The modern world needs abundant energy (we’re not ready to give that up any time soon and nor could we), however, the burning of fossil fuel energy sources we have been relying on to provide this energy emits Carbon Dioxide, which is leading to potentially catastrophic global warming. At the same time, the developing world needs abundant sources of clean energy to lift them out of poverty.
The issue, to put it simply, is energy.
The Renewable Gap
In recent years renewable energy has made significant and rapid gains with wind and solar becoming an ever-greater part of our energy mix. However, even with the best predictions issues of intermittency, efficiency and storage mean that these technologies will never provide all the answers. The sun and wind are not available 24hrs a day 365 days of the year.
Seasonal changes and local weather conditions mean that wind turbines can only generate electricity for part of the year, while solar cells produce no electricity for at least half of any 24h period (more in UK summers, but considerably less during the winter months).
In addition, the relatively low efficiencies and therefore energy densities of both technologies mean that they have to be deployed on a large scale and therefore consume enormous amounts of energy and resources in production.
Grid-scale storage whilst developing rapidly is currently unable to cover these shortfalls. Batteries discharge too rapidly to meet demand and long term storage solutions have yet to be proven to work at scale.
The Nuclear Option
And yet….
Since the 1940s, there has been a source of abundant carbon-free energy available to us. What is more, this technology has been improved over time andproved reliable and safe. Yet often the very people who should be advocating for it are pushing in the opposite direction.
I am of course talking about nuclear power. Few topics provoke a reaction as strongly divided as nuclear energy and yet the facts speak for themselves.
Let me start by saying that it’s not perfect and that yes, there are unresolved issues with regards to waste, but these issues are not insurmountable and that solutions can be found. So why is it that a substantial portion of the environmental movement is against nuclear power?
Safety First
One of the first things they point to is the safety of nuclear technology, sighting Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island as examples of the horrifying dangers of nuclear energy. This is, however, to ignore the facts.
By almost any measure nuclear power is one of the safest power sources available. Just look at the statistics.
There are currently 400 nuclear power stations (plus a few dozen research reactors dotted around the planet) that have been running continuously for the last 80 years. In that time it is true that there have been a handful of incidents that have caused fatalities. The numbers, however, are minuscule compared to the numbers killed by other energy sources, including coal, oil and gas, hydrogen, and even wind.
If we look at hydroelectric the death toll runs into the thousands and that is without including the secondary effects such as the increased prevalence of waterborne diseases (malaria schistosomiasis and bilharzia). One catastrophic example was the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure in China. In this one incident, an estimated 26,000 to 250,000 people lost their lives, but there are other examples littered across the globe from Italy to Russia to the US.
Even something as seemingly benign as solar energy ratchets up a large death toll (typically from manufacture or instillation) simply due to the scale of the operation involved in the global efforts towards net zero.
Air pollution from coal-fired power stations raises the stakes again (coming in several orders of magnitude higher), with an estimated annual death toll of 8.7 million from the burning of all fossil fuels combined.
So where does nuclear fit into this scale of human disasters in the quest for cheap and abundant energy? Amazingly, the total number of deaths as a direct result of nuclear accidents including Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl is 37.
…37
Although the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that the fallout from Chernobyl resulted in around 4,000 to 9000 additional deaths (every one a tragedy), it must be remembered that the circumstances that lead to the failure of Chernobyl’s reactor four were unique to the design and circumstances, in modern reactors simply could not happen again and that this figure is still far lower than the annual number of deaths attributable to burning fossil fuels. For Fukushima, despite being categorized as a level 7 event (the maximum classification) on the International Nuclear Event Scale a study in The Lancet found that no one has died, or is expected to die, from exposure to radiation.
Moving Forward
The world needs clean abundant and reliable energy to achieve net zero and as other measures such as the electrification of transport and industry are introduced demand is only going to increase.
Nuclear power has a minimal carbon footprint (about 15–50 gCO2/KWh. By comparison, the average footprint of gas power generators is around 450 gCO2/KWh and that of coal power generators around 1,050 gCO2/KWh. It is also the only energy resource that can provide a continuous baseload at the Gigawatt levels required by the modern world.
The conclusions ought to be obvious and yet on this one subject (among many) we are led by our hearts rather than our heads. We have been encouraged towards an anti-nuclear stance by the very organizations that should be driving the move to net-zero and not putting obstacles in the way.
By conflating nuclear power and nuclear weapons environmental organizations have destroyed confidence in this vital technology.
A fear of nuclear energy has been encouraged by a lack of education and a perception of radioactivity largely derived from comic books and movies. A worldview of this vital technology against climate change informed more by Bruce Banner than Albert Einstein.
What We Need Now
What is needed now is a clear-headed approach to the facts and an acceptance of reality.
The world needs energy and not just the developed world but the entire World. To deny the poor countries of the world the chance to develop would be the worst sort of imperialism. Fossil fuels having lifted developed nations’ standards of living have created a climate crisis. They must be ruled out as the route to greater energy equality for developing nations.
At present, that leaves Nuclear as our only viable option for rapidly growing and decarbonizing our energy grids. Only nuclear can provide the stable baseload needed for today’s economy so it’s time to embrace it, promote it, innovate, and deploy it more widely.
The future is in our hands. If fear and ignorance don’t destroy us first.
