OK. it looks like the message I had started is hopelessly lost because I I had not filled out your questionnaire about the sender. So in abbreviated form are some comments.
I enjoy this blog so keep it up.
I had lunch with Frank in which he was enthusiastic about liquid salt-thorium nuclear reactors. I think they will not happen, at least not in time to provide energy to fossil fuels. The reason is just think of the engineering required to study the corrosion in a reactor.
The underlying opinion in all my comments here are that climate change is the major issue, an existential issue as they say of our time. we must do all we can to phase out fossil fuels as rapidly as possible. Nuclear powercan provide help in the in the short term, but I worry that a major emphasis on it is a distraction from the long-term goal of decreasing the addition of climate forming gases to the atmosphere.
I have not discussed the dangers of nuclear power or nuclear weapons with my grandchildren, ages 13 to 22, but will and will let you know what I learn. I think they've probably got used to electricity coming from nuclear power for all the reasons you give, but I hope they've retained great fear and caution about nuclear weapons. Is nuclear weapons praliferate the fact they have not been used in about 75 years is really no comfort they will not be used again.
My other great reservation about nuclear power is the NIMBY problem. Yucca Flats is is ready to receive nuclear waste, but that it is not used now is I think largely due to Harry Reid and fear. I think storing nuclear waste there would be safer than leaving the waste adjacent to the power plant that generated it as is the case now. Muller in his "Physics for Future Presidents" describes well the case for storage at Yucca Flats (but I disagree with his opinions on climate change.)
I think that the New horizons spacecraft probably carries a thermoelectric power source similar to that on Cassini. the fact that it was launched without a fuss is, I think not due to any great recognition of the difference between plutonium 238 and plutonium 239 but rather that the fear of the power source has adebated thanks to extensive prior use. I I have a lithium battery powered pacemaker made by Medtronics. I learned that an earlier generation of their pacemakers was powered by plutonium 238; they are still chugging away.
I don't think that the experience of the Fukushima failure carries over to San Louis Obispo but it does teach one that accidents happen when you overlook something. There is geological evidence that prior tsunamis at Fukushima carried debris well above the level of the reactor. as it is, I am glad that the considered wisdom of much analysis of the SLB site and reactor leads to a shutdown in 2030.
MIke, I'll just say two things. Without nuclear, greenhouse gas emissions will not go away. This is why the oil/gas industry OWNS the wind industry: they know that wind and solar are inadequate and will always need a backup. And THEY want to be the backup. Also, oil/gas is the greatest enemy of nuclear, because the latter is their only competition. Nuclear is the only way to bring down emissions. Yes, we, the US, have to do it carefully and correctly. And so far, we have! About waste, it's not as dangerous as has been advertised, and it can be used as fuel in new reactors if they are designed that way. Finally, I will be here fighting the closure of Diablo Canyon NPP as hard as I can come 2030. Thanks for your comment.
I was halfway through comments I wanted to convey to you when I lost the comments section. I do not see them under the 37 other comments so apparently they did not make it through. I had already written about Frank's enthusiasm for liquid salt-thorium reactors, the thermoelectric power source on board the N ew Horizons spacecraft, and was starting to write about Fukushima versus the San Luis Obisbo reactor. if these comments have not made it, please let me know and I will retype them; otherwise I will just continue where I left off. I will check email again around 3 EDT.
Mike ... this is the only comment of yours I see on this post. It can be confusing. If you want to reply to someone's comment or to another reply, you must use the Reply button under the person's entry. Do NOT start another comment.
So happy to see this from my favorite Astronomer (We met and chatted a bit at James Randi's TAM4.) I'm a very long time amateur astronomer and spent almost 10 years during the Cold War teaching first responders how to monitor ionizing radiation with Civil Defense Geiger counters and high range ionization chambers. That included both nuclear attack and peacetime scenarios as we had a nuclear plant in Vernon, VT. I became a member of the Health Physics Society very soon after I started this State job, and it's a great source of info on radiation of all kinds.
Given that background and my concerns over human caused global warming it isn't surprising that I am a supporter of nuclear power. Sadly, nuclear power has gotten a bad rap in large part because the public's first introduction to splitting atoms was two atomic bombs dropped on citizens of Japan, but also because of a sad lack of understanding basic science. When I taught radiological response I'd begin with handing out a short multiple choice quiz about ionizing radiation. One question was "How likely is it that a nuclear power plant could explode like the atom bombs dropped on Japan in its operating lifetime?" The choices were: A. Very likely, B. Somewhat likely, C. Not very likely and D. Impossible. Amazing and very sad that few of my students picked the correct answer which was D.
I also tried educating the public as well as school children by giving presentations about ionizing radiation and nuclear power, with mixed results. The Physics teacher at our town high school said she'd be glad to have me give a talk to her physics students as long as I didn't say anything about nuclear power because, "...I am against nuclear power and I don't want my students to hear anything that might be positive about it." (This was a science teacher with a Masters in Music Education so maybe I shouldn't have been surprised. But her students will someday vote believing that yes, nuclear power plants can blow up like an atom bomb. )
Let me also recommend an interesting book ,"The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear" by Petr Beckmann. Beckman was a Libertarian and a bit of a crank, but he knew his stuff about things nuclear and the book is a great counter to those who claimed nuclear power was somehow dangerous to human health. (I'll also recommend a short documentary film, "Radiation Naturally" which I used when teaching radiological response. I've been unable to find a copy and if anyone reading this far knows where I might find a copy please let me know. It's a terrific introduction to ionizing radiation.)
Hmm ... in my lingo dope has a quite different connotation ... which imo is much more aligned with the self assigned influencer designator! In fact there is a similarly oriented youth in this hemisphere who goes to great lengths to attract attention in an unvarnished programme of self aggrandisement. More generous observers might call it career (self) development.
Regardless of such human affects - now to the topic proper.
As my namesake quoted in the interview pointed out "reactor behaves like the Sun" I am given to wondering why we as a species have a need to create said power source close by when there is a perfectly functional instance at just the right (safe) distance from this dot ?
Given the "only 2 really notable accidents" excludes 3MI, Windscale plus any other near misses that have/will not be disclosed this is not a solid data point to base such a risk analysis of such consequence upon.
Lastly, the "superiority of nuclear power — its lack of greenhouse gases, its persistence and dispatchability — over the usual renewable sources" is for me a commonly encountered confirmation bias that (1) discounts that bootstrapping the reactors produces any GHG, (2) assumes the untold energy generated will comfortably decommission the plants at EOL, & (3) subtly implies we do not, as an organism, need to change our profligate ways with energy and by extension the resources we transform because energy will always be abundant.
Nuclear is not a silver bullet - in fact when allowing for the combination of time, cost and risk it is a dud that is likely being exploited by some interests, vested or otherwise, to foment (sic) a status quo!
I believe Porco was referring to _civilian_ nuclear power; hence, no mention of Windscale. TMI is notable in that no one was hurt, though people downwind did receive the equivalent of a CT scan.
I also believe that the "superiority of nuclear power . . ." statement does indeed take into account some of the points you make without the help of confirmation bias. Meta-studies by both the IPCC and UNECE regarding the full lifecycle GHG emissions of a long list of energy sources, including a number of variations of wind and solar, found that nuclear has one of the lowest lifecycle GHG footprints (as well as lowest lifecycle: metal and mineral consumption, carcinogenic effects, land occupation, and rate of freshwater eutrophication).
I agree that nuclear power is not a silver bullet, but I can't see how not using nuclear power would (subtly or not) result in humanity coming to terms with its profligate ways with energy.
It seems clear (to me anyway) that, if we do not implement a viable alternative to burning fossil fuels, we are a species that will continue to burn every bit of fossil fuels (and biomass) we can until reserves are exhausted.
Eschewing reliance on a silver bullet does not, as a consequence, guarantee humanity will change its behaviour.
However allowing spruikers to brandish alleged bullet in the village square will almost certainly ensure belief in the supernatural persists - which will negatively infect sensible decision making about the real wolf at the door.
Therefore I share your bleak perspective, but remain unfazed regarding my opinion that placing reliance on nuclear, even if arguable at the margins, will ensure inaction on carbon continues for at least another decade.
I'm not understanding your point. Are you advocating something that will (sans nuclear power) guarantee a change in humanity's behavior? If so, what is that something?
No guarantee ... however acceptance/awareness of the situation is a critical precursor to changes of the magnitude required in the (limited) time remaining.
My hypothesis is that promotion of nuclear (now) will simply encourage retention of the careless behaviours that got us to this point !
Perhaps I’m pessimistic and I'm not sure of what changes you specifically would like to see. But the push for 100% renewables and electrification requires a massive increase in mining for metals and minerals, requires building solar and wind to a capacity that is 3 or more times greater than the amount of electricity we consume, and requires building 100s of thousands of miles HVDC transmission lines to move electricity from sunny/windy places to places not getting much sun or wind. (In the U.S. there are calls for anywhere from 75,000 to 136,000 miles of new transmission by 2035. On average, the U.S. has added roughly 1700 miles of transmission per year from 2008 to 2023, and the trend is on a downward path to date.)
Of course, the above scenario also requires energy storage on a scale we’ve never seen before and it’s not clear that we can come up with a storage technology on the scale needed.
The way I see it, nuclear power works with the grid we have and can greatly reduce the technical and physical requirements of getting to a clean grid; i.e., no need for so much overbuild of wind and solar, no need for massive energy storage, far less additional transmission needed, and nuclear can reuse infrastructure by replacing coal burners at coal plants. Advanced nuclear power can provide high-heat for many industrial processes, including the production of synthetic fuels. It already provides district heating to cities in China and elsewhere and it is the only viable option I see to powering container ships.
Whatever we end up doing, though, I will be thrilled if it works! (Though I doubt I’ll live long enough to find out.)
You got it. People don't seem to understand how expensive solar and wind really are, when you add in all the extra stuff that is needed to make them worth on the large scale. And when you add in all the required materials and land that you've itemized above, those energy sources are far more environmentally damaging than nuclear. All energy sources are extractive, but after that nuclear is the cleanest.
Nope. If that were the case, The oil/gas industry would LOVE nuclear. Instead it is quite the opposite. Nuclear is the only viable competition to oil/gas and the letter has been trying to kill the former for decades. This is also why oil/gas practically owns the wind industry.
g'day - I have no doubt that fossil fuel oligarchs actively campaigned against nuclear as a serious threat to their past enjoyment of the status quo.
However I believe the time left to transition away from fossil energy is now too short for nuclear even if all its inhibiting aspects were to magically disappear (which they won't).
As to the portfolios of fossil fuel companies becoming (partly) renewable, whilst I remain wary of rational efficient market theories, perhaps it is an easier domain to enter plus has greenwashing as a bonus !?!
IMO developing a multi-faceted renewable energy arrangement will better prepare the species for other adjustments in respect of a finite planet, rather than deferring that by "simply" switching one dependence for another re energy !
Your argument for a 'multi-faceted renewable arrangement' has been made before. But it doesn't work to reduce carbon because the renewables (solar/wind) are poor sources of energy & will always need a supplement. And now that supplement is coal/oil/gas. The time to build out nuclear *could* be reduced if we set our minds/funds to it and if we made it a matter of national security. The Chinese are doing it. We ourselves have had nuclear reactors in submarines forever. Anyway, no sense continuing this. You see it your way, and I see it mine. But it's been a pleasure conversing with you. Thanks!
He seems to be an outlier. And, as far as I can tell, his criminal 'luggage' behavior has had bearing on anything he did by way of nuclear waste policy.
Carolyn, I have 2 biologies found in all 3 ice meteorites that I believe can decarbonize water. I believe that they can help our Earth slow down Climate change.
Carolyn Porco, the NASA scientist responsible for the beautiful images of Saturn’s rings, whom I have met and very strongly respect, writes brilliantly in support of safe and non-polluting nuclear power. I agree with every word!
Thank you for using your influence on behalf of civilian nuclear energy. The first thing we need to do is to stop the irrationality of shutting down perfectly fine NPPs, and the second thing is to build more of them.
I have often wondered why nuclear fuel is considered "spent" when it's still radioactive. Clearly, there's still harvestable energy there. If there are methods being developed to continue using this fuel until it is inert, great, let's get that online. But there should be no more nuclear fuel development until that is done.
The management of nuclear waste is my only objection to the use of nuclear energy. I never bought the "Nuclear bombs bad, so nuclear power bad" argument, or any of the others mentioned in isodope's TED talk. I maintain that calling nuclear energy "clean" is NOT justified until the nuclear waste is rendered INERT. Until that happens, I look on claims that it is clean as dishonest or uneducated.
I notice that you mention no 'waste accidents' in the US civilian nuclear industry. I assume you specify "civilian" so you can ignore the 56 million gallons of nuclear waste currently stored at the Hanford Site in Washington. Several of those tanks are currently leaking, and threatening the entire Columbia River basin, and therefore millions of lives. Today, proponents say they can store the waste safely forever, but they thought Hanford was built to store that waste forever, too. They were clearly wrong, and every 'update' that is issued on the matter seems to say the leakage is worse than previously thought. So how can you say that today's claims that they can reliably store the waste are true? I don't buy it.
The "cleanness" of an energy source does not solely refer to carbon emissions, and NO technology will ever by "zero emissions." That's just Physics. I'm willing to accept that we can build reasonably safe nuclear energy production facilities. But until the solution to nuclear waste is developed and IN USE, nuclear energy can NOT be called "clean."
I've checked into this issue. Hanford, Wash is a very old military facility, dating back to the Manhattan project. It's main purpose seems to have been through the years to produce radioactive material, either for weapons or for thermoelectric energy generation.
From Wikipedia: "Over the forty years of operation the site produced about 67.4 metric tons of plutonium, of which 54.5 metric tons was weapons-grade plutonium, supplying the majority of the 60,000 weapons in the U.S. arsenal. In 1983 and 1984, 425 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium was extracted from reactor-grade plutonium. Tritium, polonium‑210, thulium-170, iridium-192, and uranium-233 were also produced"
There are nuclear waste containers there that are leaking at Hanford. That waste is in LIQUID form, I'm guessing, because it's purpose was not to produce energy but materials. All commercially produced nuclear waste is in SOLID form ... far more easily contained.
So, yes, it is entirely appropriate to not judge the commercial nuclear industry by the waste management protocols of the defense nuclear industry.
As many environmentalists use the term 'clean', yes it does refer to emissions. Otherwise, they couldn't call wind and solar clean either. All sources of energy are extractive: gotta dig something out of the ground to develop them. So they are more or less equivalent in being dirty to start out with. After that, solar and wind are both toxic and deadly to the environment, and poor energy sources. About waste ... the material in waste generally has a longer half-life. That means it's NOT as radioactive as the fuel that was used. How far above or below background levels I don't know yet. And the amount of waste compared to the waste from wind and solar that will end up in landfills is tiny. Thanks again for your thoughts. They were illuminating.
Small modular reactors are a good way forward. A mature technology ( think nuclear powered submarines) . In the UK Rolls Royce engineering are working hard on them . I believe Westinghouse are doing the same in the US.
Good read here. Nuclear definitely needs to be part of the future for climate reasons. For now it is the best option moving forward until other technologies can catch up. In the US we haven't had any major accidents and thankful for that. Building more nuclear plants and adding more waste to deal with is a concern but seems they can reuse some of that waste by burning now which is a plus. My biggest concern has always been, "how can these plants and waste areas be protected from natural disasters and manmade ones for that matter?" Human oversight was the cause of Fukushima and Chernobyl was downright criminal. With the press of the past horrors of nuclear war and the major accidents it will always be a tough battle to win people over. A good portion of the public will not take time to educate themselves on any subject these days, just headlines is good enough for them. As with everything education is the key, but you can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think.
I understand your concerns. I share some of them. But then I look at the statistics. Our of 688 nuclear reactors built around the globe (as of a few years ago), there have been only 2 big accidents. We do know how to make them safe. Read my reply to Robert Cantor about Fukushima. And the question becomes: what are the alternatives? Wind and large-scale solar are very environmentally damaging and poor energy sources.
At the time being wind and solar are not going to be sufficient for energy needs, no doubt. Advancement is needed in those areas and will come in time. Advancement in consumption should help as well, can we power all our necessary items with less? Advancement in this area has been good, need more for sure. Thank you for your reply.
Your arguments would be more persuasive if you dealt with 3 Mile Island and Fukushima, which has mutated fish and is now releasing radioactive water into the ocean. We scientists have a long history of unfounded hubris and unanticipated consequence.s You disconnect yourself from the very people you're trying to reach by calling them, "unwashed".
Interesting data from a comment I found a while back. I haven’t verified the data, but it’s in line with much of what I’ve read in the past:
“[Prior to Fukushima, the oceans already had:]
Uranium 22,000,000 trillion becquerels
Potassium 40 7,400,000,000 trillion becquerels
Carbon 14 3,000,000 trillion becquerels
Rubidium 87 700,000,000 trillion becquerels
Tritium 370,000 trillion becquerels
Total 8,125,370,000 trillion becquerels
So we have 8,125,370,000 trillion becquerels of radiation in the pacific ocean and the antis don’t seem to care, but when the fifth most powerful earthquake ever recorded results in 20 trillion becquerels of radiation being released into the oceans over two years we’re supposed to all accept that it’s a horrible disaster.”
Here is a response I gave to someone last year that puts the concern over TEPCO's release of "massive amounts of radioactive" (tritiated) water in perspective:
So how do I know this is a “small” release of tritium? The most direct evidence is that the tritium in the TEPCO water will make only a tiny, tiny contribution to the background level of radiation within a few miles of the release. We know that tritium does not bioaccumulate and that it takes a really large dose to cause cancer. What Richmond objects to is that there has been little study of whether or not tritium that becomes bound to organic matter can bioaccumulate in the ocean food chain. And it’s true, we don’t have that data. But experts agree that the amount of tritium is so small as to not warrant concern.
Consider, for example, that the tritium level in the TEPCO water is only 13 parts per quadrillion. Compare that to uranium (a heavy metal, no less), which is 3,300,000 parts per quadrillion in seawater. And there are more than 100 different radionuclides in seawater.
So, while I only occasionally hear news about the poisoning of the oceans with pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, detergents, oil, Industrial chemicals, sewage, plastics and so on, I hear lots about the miniscule amount of tritium in the TEPCO water, which is incredibly unlikely to every hurt any living thing. This is the curse of radiophobia.
I believe that's the case, but I'm no expert (though I know of at least one I could ask). Here's another view of it from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution:
I just looked up the word 'unwashed''. I see that all these years, I've misunderstood its meaning! I've altered it now. Thanks for pointing that out.. The other two accidents are easy. No one died at 3 Mile Island from radiation. That is, we've never had a Fukushima or Chernobyl in the US. And people in general don't understand what happened at Fukushima. The reactor and generator did exactly what they were supposed to do: the reactor shut down and the generator and cooling system went on. The fault was the sea wall which was built too low. A reactor of identical design ~80 miles north, with an appropriately sized sea wall, suffered virtually no damage. The vast majority of deaths were from the earthquake and the tsunami. About two thousand additional deaths were elderly or sick people who were separated during the panicked, rapid evacuation from the devices/medications keeping them alive. Deaths from the reactor failure were in the low tens and were onsite personnel ... either operators or those there to put out the fires. I've not kept up with the release of radioactive water or mutated fish. I'd first want to check that it's true, and if so, what the level of radioactivity is. But it's not an issue of accidental release. It's obviously a policy decision that Japanese have made. Thanks for your comment.
Hi Carolyn, brilliant has expected. One question – what is your favorite method to deal with the waste generated by nuclear power plants? Thanks very much and hope to see you soon. Gary.
My favorite method would be to take that waste and burn it in reactors designed to burn recycled nuclear material. The reason why nuclear waste scares people is because it's still radioactive (though not as much as the original fuel). That means it's still useful! In the meantime, it's worth noting there's never been a 'waste accident' in the US civilian nuclear industry. Apparently there have been in the military. The casks the material is kept in are very sturdy, designed to withstand impact.
Gary ... First, thanks for adding a comment! I'm new to Substack so I don't know the answer to this: how did you find out I sent you a reply? Did it come to you in the form of an email?
OK. it looks like the message I had started is hopelessly lost because I I had not filled out your questionnaire about the sender. So in abbreviated form are some comments.
I enjoy this blog so keep it up.
I had lunch with Frank in which he was enthusiastic about liquid salt-thorium nuclear reactors. I think they will not happen, at least not in time to provide energy to fossil fuels. The reason is just think of the engineering required to study the corrosion in a reactor.
The underlying opinion in all my comments here are that climate change is the major issue, an existential issue as they say of our time. we must do all we can to phase out fossil fuels as rapidly as possible. Nuclear powercan provide help in the in the short term, but I worry that a major emphasis on it is a distraction from the long-term goal of decreasing the addition of climate forming gases to the atmosphere.
I have not discussed the dangers of nuclear power or nuclear weapons with my grandchildren, ages 13 to 22, but will and will let you know what I learn. I think they've probably got used to electricity coming from nuclear power for all the reasons you give, but I hope they've retained great fear and caution about nuclear weapons. Is nuclear weapons praliferate the fact they have not been used in about 75 years is really no comfort they will not be used again.
My other great reservation about nuclear power is the NIMBY problem. Yucca Flats is is ready to receive nuclear waste, but that it is not used now is I think largely due to Harry Reid and fear. I think storing nuclear waste there would be safer than leaving the waste adjacent to the power plant that generated it as is the case now. Muller in his "Physics for Future Presidents" describes well the case for storage at Yucca Flats (but I disagree with his opinions on climate change.)
I think that the New horizons spacecraft probably carries a thermoelectric power source similar to that on Cassini. the fact that it was launched without a fuss is, I think not due to any great recognition of the difference between plutonium 238 and plutonium 239 but rather that the fear of the power source has adebated thanks to extensive prior use. I I have a lithium battery powered pacemaker made by Medtronics. I learned that an earlier generation of their pacemakers was powered by plutonium 238; they are still chugging away.
I don't think that the experience of the Fukushima failure carries over to San Louis Obispo but it does teach one that accidents happen when you overlook something. There is geological evidence that prior tsunamis at Fukushima carried debris well above the level of the reactor. as it is, I am glad that the considered wisdom of much analysis of the SLB site and reactor leads to a shutdown in 2030.
MIke, I'll just say two things. Without nuclear, greenhouse gas emissions will not go away. This is why the oil/gas industry OWNS the wind industry: they know that wind and solar are inadequate and will always need a backup. And THEY want to be the backup. Also, oil/gas is the greatest enemy of nuclear, because the latter is their only competition. Nuclear is the only way to bring down emissions. Yes, we, the US, have to do it carefully and correctly. And so far, we have! About waste, it's not as dangerous as has been advertised, and it can be used as fuel in new reactors if they are designed that way. Finally, I will be here fighting the closure of Diablo Canyon NPP as hard as I can come 2030. Thanks for your comment.
Hi again Carolyn,
I was halfway through comments I wanted to convey to you when I lost the comments section. I do not see them under the 37 other comments so apparently they did not make it through. I had already written about Frank's enthusiasm for liquid salt-thorium reactors, the thermoelectric power source on board the N ew Horizons spacecraft, and was starting to write about Fukushima versus the San Luis Obisbo reactor. if these comments have not made it, please let me know and I will retype them; otherwise I will just continue where I left off. I will check email again around 3 EDT.
Mike
Mike ... this is the only comment of yours I see on this post. It can be confusing. If you want to reply to someone's comment or to another reply, you must use the Reply button under the person's entry. Do NOT start another comment.
So happy to see this from my favorite Astronomer (We met and chatted a bit at James Randi's TAM4.) I'm a very long time amateur astronomer and spent almost 10 years during the Cold War teaching first responders how to monitor ionizing radiation with Civil Defense Geiger counters and high range ionization chambers. That included both nuclear attack and peacetime scenarios as we had a nuclear plant in Vernon, VT. I became a member of the Health Physics Society very soon after I started this State job, and it's a great source of info on radiation of all kinds.
Given that background and my concerns over human caused global warming it isn't surprising that I am a supporter of nuclear power. Sadly, nuclear power has gotten a bad rap in large part because the public's first introduction to splitting atoms was two atomic bombs dropped on citizens of Japan, but also because of a sad lack of understanding basic science. When I taught radiological response I'd begin with handing out a short multiple choice quiz about ionizing radiation. One question was "How likely is it that a nuclear power plant could explode like the atom bombs dropped on Japan in its operating lifetime?" The choices were: A. Very likely, B. Somewhat likely, C. Not very likely and D. Impossible. Amazing and very sad that few of my students picked the correct answer which was D.
I also tried educating the public as well as school children by giving presentations about ionizing radiation and nuclear power, with mixed results. The Physics teacher at our town high school said she'd be glad to have me give a talk to her physics students as long as I didn't say anything about nuclear power because, "...I am against nuclear power and I don't want my students to hear anything that might be positive about it." (This was a science teacher with a Masters in Music Education so maybe I shouldn't have been surprised. But her students will someday vote believing that yes, nuclear power plants can blow up like an atom bomb. )
Let me also recommend an interesting book ,"The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear" by Petr Beckmann. Beckman was a Libertarian and a bit of a crank, but he knew his stuff about things nuclear and the book is a great counter to those who claimed nuclear power was somehow dangerous to human health. (I'll also recommend a short documentary film, "Radiation Naturally" which I used when teaching radiological response. I've been unable to find a copy and if anyone reading this far knows where I might find a copy please let me know. It's a terrific introduction to ionizing radiation.)
Hmm ... in my lingo dope has a quite different connotation ... which imo is much more aligned with the self assigned influencer designator! In fact there is a similarly oriented youth in this hemisphere who goes to great lengths to attract attention in an unvarnished programme of self aggrandisement. More generous observers might call it career (self) development.
Regardless of such human affects - now to the topic proper.
As my namesake quoted in the interview pointed out "reactor behaves like the Sun" I am given to wondering why we as a species have a need to create said power source close by when there is a perfectly functional instance at just the right (safe) distance from this dot ?
Given the "only 2 really notable accidents" excludes 3MI, Windscale plus any other near misses that have/will not be disclosed this is not a solid data point to base such a risk analysis of such consequence upon.
Lastly, the "superiority of nuclear power — its lack of greenhouse gases, its persistence and dispatchability — over the usual renewable sources" is for me a commonly encountered confirmation bias that (1) discounts that bootstrapping the reactors produces any GHG, (2) assumes the untold energy generated will comfortably decommission the plants at EOL, & (3) subtly implies we do not, as an organism, need to change our profligate ways with energy and by extension the resources we transform because energy will always be abundant.
Nuclear is not a silver bullet - in fact when allowing for the combination of time, cost and risk it is a dud that is likely being exploited by some interests, vested or otherwise, to foment (sic) a status quo!
I believe Porco was referring to _civilian_ nuclear power; hence, no mention of Windscale. TMI is notable in that no one was hurt, though people downwind did receive the equivalent of a CT scan.
I also believe that the "superiority of nuclear power . . ." statement does indeed take into account some of the points you make without the help of confirmation bias. Meta-studies by both the IPCC and UNECE regarding the full lifecycle GHG emissions of a long list of energy sources, including a number of variations of wind and solar, found that nuclear has one of the lowest lifecycle GHG footprints (as well as lowest lifecycle: metal and mineral consumption, carcinogenic effects, land occupation, and rate of freshwater eutrophication).
I agree that nuclear power is not a silver bullet, but I can't see how not using nuclear power would (subtly or not) result in humanity coming to terms with its profligate ways with energy.
It seems clear (to me anyway) that, if we do not implement a viable alternative to burning fossil fuels, we are a species that will continue to burn every bit of fossil fuels (and biomass) we can until reserves are exhausted.
Eschewing reliance on a silver bullet does not, as a consequence, guarantee humanity will change its behaviour.
However allowing spruikers to brandish alleged bullet in the village square will almost certainly ensure belief in the supernatural persists - which will negatively infect sensible decision making about the real wolf at the door.
Therefore I share your bleak perspective, but remain unfazed regarding my opinion that placing reliance on nuclear, even if arguable at the margins, will ensure inaction on carbon continues for at least another decade.
I'm not understanding your point. Are you advocating something that will (sans nuclear power) guarantee a change in humanity's behavior? If so, what is that something?
No guarantee ... however acceptance/awareness of the situation is a critical precursor to changes of the magnitude required in the (limited) time remaining.
My hypothesis is that promotion of nuclear (now) will simply encourage retention of the careless behaviours that got us to this point !
Perhaps I’m pessimistic and I'm not sure of what changes you specifically would like to see. But the push for 100% renewables and electrification requires a massive increase in mining for metals and minerals, requires building solar and wind to a capacity that is 3 or more times greater than the amount of electricity we consume, and requires building 100s of thousands of miles HVDC transmission lines to move electricity from sunny/windy places to places not getting much sun or wind. (In the U.S. there are calls for anywhere from 75,000 to 136,000 miles of new transmission by 2035. On average, the U.S. has added roughly 1700 miles of transmission per year from 2008 to 2023, and the trend is on a downward path to date.)
Of course, the above scenario also requires energy storage on a scale we’ve never seen before and it’s not clear that we can come up with a storage technology on the scale needed.
The way I see it, nuclear power works with the grid we have and can greatly reduce the technical and physical requirements of getting to a clean grid; i.e., no need for so much overbuild of wind and solar, no need for massive energy storage, far less additional transmission needed, and nuclear can reuse infrastructure by replacing coal burners at coal plants. Advanced nuclear power can provide high-heat for many industrial processes, including the production of synthetic fuels. It already provides district heating to cities in China and elsewhere and it is the only viable option I see to powering container ships.
Whatever we end up doing, though, I will be thrilled if it works! (Though I doubt I’ll live long enough to find out.)
You got it. People don't seem to understand how expensive solar and wind really are, when you add in all the extra stuff that is needed to make them worth on the large scale. And when you add in all the required materials and land that you've itemized above, those energy sources are far more environmentally damaging than nuclear. All energy sources are extractive, but after that nuclear is the cleanest.
Nope. If that were the case, The oil/gas industry would LOVE nuclear. Instead it is quite the opposite. Nuclear is the only viable competition to oil/gas and the letter has been trying to kill the former for decades. This is also why oil/gas practically owns the wind industry.
g'day - I have no doubt that fossil fuel oligarchs actively campaigned against nuclear as a serious threat to their past enjoyment of the status quo.
However I believe the time left to transition away from fossil energy is now too short for nuclear even if all its inhibiting aspects were to magically disappear (which they won't).
As to the portfolios of fossil fuel companies becoming (partly) renewable, whilst I remain wary of rational efficient market theories, perhaps it is an easier domain to enter plus has greenwashing as a bonus !?!
IMO developing a multi-faceted renewable energy arrangement will better prepare the species for other adjustments in respect of a finite planet, rather than deferring that by "simply" switching one dependence for another re energy !
Your argument for a 'multi-faceted renewable arrangement' has been made before. But it doesn't work to reduce carbon because the renewables (solar/wind) are poor sources of energy & will always need a supplement. And now that supplement is coal/oil/gas. The time to build out nuclear *could* be reduced if we set our minds/funds to it and if we made it a matter of national security. The Chinese are doing it. We ourselves have had nuclear reactors in submarines forever. Anyway, no sense continuing this. You see it your way, and I see it mine. But it's been a pleasure conversing with you. Thanks!
I am all for clean safe nuclear energy.
But how do we dispose of the waste properly
If the government is going to put in charge
a DEI hire like a Sam Briton? Just asking for a friend.
He seems to be an outlier. And, as far as I can tell, his criminal 'luggage' behavior has had bearing on anything he did by way of nuclear waste policy.
Carolyn, I have 2 biologies found in all 3 ice meteorites that I believe can decarbonize water. I believe that they can help our Earth slow down Climate change.
Nuclear Power to the People https://open.substack.com/pub/carolynporco/p/nuclear-power-to-the-people?r=25sxvl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Carolyn Porco, the NASA scientist responsible for the beautiful images of Saturn’s rings, whom I have met and very strongly respect, writes brilliantly in support of safe and non-polluting nuclear power. I agree with every word!
Thank you for using your influence on behalf of civilian nuclear energy. The first thing we need to do is to stop the irrationality of shutting down perfectly fine NPPs, and the second thing is to build more of them.
I have often wondered why nuclear fuel is considered "spent" when it's still radioactive. Clearly, there's still harvestable energy there. If there are methods being developed to continue using this fuel until it is inert, great, let's get that online. But there should be no more nuclear fuel development until that is done.
The management of nuclear waste is my only objection to the use of nuclear energy. I never bought the "Nuclear bombs bad, so nuclear power bad" argument, or any of the others mentioned in isodope's TED talk. I maintain that calling nuclear energy "clean" is NOT justified until the nuclear waste is rendered INERT. Until that happens, I look on claims that it is clean as dishonest or uneducated.
I notice that you mention no 'waste accidents' in the US civilian nuclear industry. I assume you specify "civilian" so you can ignore the 56 million gallons of nuclear waste currently stored at the Hanford Site in Washington. Several of those tanks are currently leaking, and threatening the entire Columbia River basin, and therefore millions of lives. Today, proponents say they can store the waste safely forever, but they thought Hanford was built to store that waste forever, too. They were clearly wrong, and every 'update' that is issued on the matter seems to say the leakage is worse than previously thought. So how can you say that today's claims that they can reliably store the waste are true? I don't buy it.
The "cleanness" of an energy source does not solely refer to carbon emissions, and NO technology will ever by "zero emissions." That's just Physics. I'm willing to accept that we can build reasonably safe nuclear energy production facilities. But until the solution to nuclear waste is developed and IN USE, nuclear energy can NOT be called "clean."
I've checked into this issue. Hanford, Wash is a very old military facility, dating back to the Manhattan project. It's main purpose seems to have been through the years to produce radioactive material, either for weapons or for thermoelectric energy generation.
From Wikipedia: "Over the forty years of operation the site produced about 67.4 metric tons of plutonium, of which 54.5 metric tons was weapons-grade plutonium, supplying the majority of the 60,000 weapons in the U.S. arsenal. In 1983 and 1984, 425 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium was extracted from reactor-grade plutonium. Tritium, polonium‑210, thulium-170, iridium-192, and uranium-233 were also produced"
There are nuclear waste containers there that are leaking at Hanford. That waste is in LIQUID form, I'm guessing, because it's purpose was not to produce energy but materials. All commercially produced nuclear waste is in SOLID form ... far more easily contained.
So, yes, it is entirely appropriate to not judge the commercial nuclear industry by the waste management protocols of the defense nuclear industry.
Thanks for your comment. I'll look into Hanford.
As many environmentalists use the term 'clean', yes it does refer to emissions. Otherwise, they couldn't call wind and solar clean either. All sources of energy are extractive: gotta dig something out of the ground to develop them. So they are more or less equivalent in being dirty to start out with. After that, solar and wind are both toxic and deadly to the environment, and poor energy sources. About waste ... the material in waste generally has a longer half-life. That means it's NOT as radioactive as the fuel that was used. How far above or below background levels I don't know yet. And the amount of waste compared to the waste from wind and solar that will end up in landfills is tiny. Thanks again for your thoughts. They were illuminating.
Small modular reactors are a good way forward. A mature technology ( think nuclear powered submarines) . In the UK Rolls Royce engineering are working hard on them . I believe Westinghouse are doing the same in the US.
Yes. And with SMRs, the cost of power will go down because you don't have to pay such large distribution costs: the power will be local.
Good read here. Nuclear definitely needs to be part of the future for climate reasons. For now it is the best option moving forward until other technologies can catch up. In the US we haven't had any major accidents and thankful for that. Building more nuclear plants and adding more waste to deal with is a concern but seems they can reuse some of that waste by burning now which is a plus. My biggest concern has always been, "how can these plants and waste areas be protected from natural disasters and manmade ones for that matter?" Human oversight was the cause of Fukushima and Chernobyl was downright criminal. With the press of the past horrors of nuclear war and the major accidents it will always be a tough battle to win people over. A good portion of the public will not take time to educate themselves on any subject these days, just headlines is good enough for them. As with everything education is the key, but you can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think.
I understand your concerns. I share some of them. But then I look at the statistics. Our of 688 nuclear reactors built around the globe (as of a few years ago), there have been only 2 big accidents. We do know how to make them safe. Read my reply to Robert Cantor about Fukushima. And the question becomes: what are the alternatives? Wind and large-scale solar are very environmentally damaging and poor energy sources.
At the time being wind and solar are not going to be sufficient for energy needs, no doubt. Advancement is needed in those areas and will come in time. Advancement in consumption should help as well, can we power all our necessary items with less? Advancement in this area has been good, need more for sure. Thank you for your reply.
You can't make any advancement on an unsound concept and that's what wind energy is. I'll say more about this in the future.
Your arguments would be more persuasive if you dealt with 3 Mile Island and Fukushima, which has mutated fish and is now releasing radioactive water into the ocean. We scientists have a long history of unfounded hubris and unanticipated consequence.s You disconnect yourself from the very people you're trying to reach by calling them, "unwashed".
Interesting data from a comment I found a while back. I haven’t verified the data, but it’s in line with much of what I’ve read in the past:
“[Prior to Fukushima, the oceans already had:]
Uranium 22,000,000 trillion becquerels
Potassium 40 7,400,000,000 trillion becquerels
Carbon 14 3,000,000 trillion becquerels
Rubidium 87 700,000,000 trillion becquerels
Tritium 370,000 trillion becquerels
Total 8,125,370,000 trillion becquerels
So we have 8,125,370,000 trillion becquerels of radiation in the pacific ocean and the antis don’t seem to care, but when the fifth most powerful earthquake ever recorded results in 20 trillion becquerels of radiation being released into the oceans over two years we’re supposed to all accept that it’s a horrible disaster.”
This is interesting. I just want to check: For Uranium, you're saying 22 million trillion becquerels, Potssium 40 with 7.4 billion trillion, etc?
Here is a response I gave to someone last year that puts the concern over TEPCO's release of "massive amounts of radioactive" (tritiated) water in perspective:
So how do I know this is a “small” release of tritium? The most direct evidence is that the tritium in the TEPCO water will make only a tiny, tiny contribution to the background level of radiation within a few miles of the release. We know that tritium does not bioaccumulate and that it takes a really large dose to cause cancer. What Richmond objects to is that there has been little study of whether or not tritium that becomes bound to organic matter can bioaccumulate in the ocean food chain. And it’s true, we don’t have that data. But experts agree that the amount of tritium is so small as to not warrant concern.
Consider, for example, that the tritium level in the TEPCO water is only 13 parts per quadrillion. Compare that to uranium (a heavy metal, no less), which is 3,300,000 parts per quadrillion in seawater. And there are more than 100 different radionuclides in seawater.
So, while I only occasionally hear news about the poisoning of the oceans with pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, detergents, oil, Industrial chemicals, sewage, plastics and so on, I hear lots about the miniscule amount of tritium in the TEPCO water, which is incredibly unlikely to every hurt any living thing. This is the curse of radiophobia.
I believe that's the case, but I'm no expert (though I know of at least one I could ask). Here's another view of it from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution:
https://www.whoi.edu/multimedia/source-of-radioactivity-in-the-ocean/
I just looked up the word 'unwashed''. I see that all these years, I've misunderstood its meaning! I've altered it now. Thanks for pointing that out.. The other two accidents are easy. No one died at 3 Mile Island from radiation. That is, we've never had a Fukushima or Chernobyl in the US. And people in general don't understand what happened at Fukushima. The reactor and generator did exactly what they were supposed to do: the reactor shut down and the generator and cooling system went on. The fault was the sea wall which was built too low. A reactor of identical design ~80 miles north, with an appropriately sized sea wall, suffered virtually no damage. The vast majority of deaths were from the earthquake and the tsunami. About two thousand additional deaths were elderly or sick people who were separated during the panicked, rapid evacuation from the devices/medications keeping them alive. Deaths from the reactor failure were in the low tens and were onsite personnel ... either operators or those there to put out the fires. I've not kept up with the release of radioactive water or mutated fish. I'd first want to check that it's true, and if so, what the level of radioactivity is. But it's not an issue of accidental release. It's obviously a policy decision that Japanese have made. Thanks for your comment.
Hi Carolyn, brilliant has expected. One question – what is your favorite method to deal with the waste generated by nuclear power plants? Thanks very much and hope to see you soon. Gary.
My favorite method would be to take that waste and burn it in reactors designed to burn recycled nuclear material. The reason why nuclear waste scares people is because it's still radioactive (though not as much as the original fuel). That means it's still useful! In the meantime, it's worth noting there's never been a 'waste accident' in the US civilian nuclear industry. Apparently there have been in the military. The casks the material is kept in are very sturdy, designed to withstand impact.
Good point about reusing it as fuel! I don't think that is generally appreciated. Thanks much. Gary.
Gary ... First, thanks for adding a comment! I'm new to Substack so I don't know the answer to this: how did you find out I sent you a reply? Did it come to you in the form of an email?
yes, it came as an email that then opened the link when I selected the email. I also sent you another email to your normal email address today.
I meant as expected. missed the autocorrect error.