Containment: an impossible job
The debate over nuclear energy is one of timelines. When to phase it out, or alternatively invest in it, is certainly one of them. However, there is a broader timeline of great importance, and that is the horizon of future generations. When decisions are made that will impact those we will not live to see, considerable thought must go into them. Furthermore, it is arguable that we ethically do not have the right to make decisions that can endanger people down the line. The decisions we make today about nuclear energy cannot be viewed in the short-run, but require a long-run perspective to convey risk most accurately. While countries around the globe such as Germany face an energy crisis fueled by the Russian war in Ukraine, this is not an opportunity to revert to the status quo and promote nuclear energy production. It is not an easy thing to say that we have to forgo nuclear energy as an option at a time when fuel is limited. Yet, it is an even more dangerous decision to defer harm to people you will never meet, to a planet you will never walk. Although the FDP has argued for keeping the few nuclear plants in Germany open until 2024, nuclear energy should be phased out in Germany as scheduled for 2023, even in the face of a crisis. History has shown that some of the best innovations can come from times when it was thought that there were no options left. We are at a turning point where we could see the renewables market revolutionize the way we think about energy. There is a great amount of risk that comes with nuclear energy, and that risk is incurred by those who have not necessarily consented to its production. The volatility of nuclear waste is an insurmountable threat to the public and the environment. Take for instance the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico, which stores nuclear waste. This plant was specifically sited in a desert with unique salt bed formations that were thought to be impenetrable to nuclear waste leaks. This all unraveled in 2014, when the site leaked due to a waste barrel igniting in the facility. Workers were testing positive for low levels of radiation exposure after the leak, and trace amounts of plutonium and americium were released into the environment. However, this had no significant impact on the repository because the harm was all considered too low to be considered unsafe by EPA standards, and in 2017 WIPP was able to resume storage of new waste. Furthermore, they were authorized to increase their mining operations and expand their storage capacity. We can view this as a lesson of what not to do, and why pursuing nuclear energy is a poor decision. WIPP was able to get approval because they leveraged jobs over a small town with a slow economy–otherwise known as job blackmail. With this promise of employment and growth, WIPP was given the green light to transport extremely dangerous waste to the facility, without the input of people outside of Carlsbad, who could still face exposure at some point. As we look to advance renewable energy, a just transition cannot be achieved with nuclear energy, because its harms are not contained within borders, and it is predicated on the exploitation of those with little economic opportunity. The production of nuclear energy may best be seen not from a strictly economic lens, but perhaps from a social one that acknowledges the severe consequences borne by people. Though it will require immense political compromise, the best decision for environmental longevity is for Germany to stick to their 2023 nuclear phase-out, and instead focus on innovating in the renewable energy sector.
Other source: Galison, Peter and Robb Moss, directors. Containment. 2015, http://www.containmentmovie.com/.
