Will Nuclear Energy Play a Part in Our Future?
On the subject of nuclear power, my friend Cameron Atwood notes:
The plant designs currently in operation and planned for construction for grid-commercial purposes are inherently unsafe, and not especially cost effective. The waste from the current designs is also an ongoing and unresolved danger….There are extremists on all sides of this issue, and I don’t count either of us in that group… I’m not concretely certain where the line should be drawn in encouraging threat awareness on this subject.
Let me start off with a statement that I know is controversial: “encouraging threat awareness” of scientifically uninformed people poses its own threats, and these latter threats may, ironically, be worse than the former.
I just wish there were a voice of reason in all this that objectively and honestly communicated the high-level truths:
• Yes, old nuclear reactor designs (and engineering, siting, etc.) contained what we now know to be errors that proved dangerous–and continue to represent danger. And yes, they are not at all cost-effective given the current milieu of energy options.
• Humankind needs to fight numerous energy battles simultaneously, by far the most important of which is replacing fossil fuels with low-carbon energy sources. The threats associated with losing this battle are many orders of magnitude greater than those of continuing the operation of nuclear plants—even those of the 50-year-old design. There are numerous ways to get to this unpleasant conclusion, the most common (though it’s not completely valid) is to count the bodies, i.e., simply tally the cumulative deaths from all nuclear energy accidents vs. fossil fuels, where coal alone kills millions of people per year.
• Too-rapid a cessation of fossil energy without a viable replacement will also result in a level of suffering and death that are many orders of magnitude greater than anything that could possibly be caused by nuclear power.
• No one, even the most rabid pro-nuke people, advocates perpetuating old designs. The subject of “advanced nuclear” represents incredible levels of forward progress in this space. In particular, liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs) hold the promise of extreme safety, scalability, and cost-effectiveness. Adherents claim that we’re five years and $5 billion dollars away from making this a reality. Obviously, most people (including me) think this is a gross exaggeration, but that alone is not a reason not to pursue this subject with as must ardor as we do “renewable energy.”
I know I share your viewpoint when I say that I am against all willful misleading of the public on either side of the debate. Both positions are irresponsible and morally wrong.
