Stephan: Today's email included a note from a man who identified himself as a Trump supporter. After objecting to my "biased coverage of the best president in American history," he admonished me about my criticism of nuclear power. Just a few days before I had exchanged several emails with a friend who supported my objections, and so this issue, increasingly being debated as climate change becomes an ever-present reality, has been on my mind. So I want to lay out a factual report on this issue. To do that in a fact-based way, I have chosen a report that is, as it explains "an adapted version of a Nature.com blog by Prof Benjamin K. Sovacool and Prof Andy Stirling, to accompany the publication of their paper “Differences in carbon emissions reduction between countries pursuing renewable electricity versus nuclear power” in Nature Energy." (For the primary paper see: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-00696-3) But, before that I will share a little noticed at the time and now forgotten story that I personally witnessed, and discussed with the principal.
Civilian nuclear power began because Westinghouse and GE needed to have a pathway to create a nuclear-trained workforce. Enough engineers, welders (nuclear qualified welder is still a work category) etc., and a way to make enough profit to justify the investment required to create the nuclear-powered ships, particularly the original deep ocean Polaris missile submarines that Hyman Rickover designed for the Navy and that were a key part of America's Trident Strategy (the other two being B-52 bombers and ground-based missiles). This was the dominant geopolitical strategy of the Cold War. That's why nuclear power was sold to America in the first place.
Rickover understood nuclear power better than anyone, both its positives and its negatives. He was so important to the strategy that even though the Navy hierarchy did not like him, did not like the idea of a Jew being in charge of the most important part of the Navy, they could not replace him. When the Navy would not promote him to flag rank the Congress did it by fiat and eventually promoted him to four stars.
When Rickover finally decided to retire he went to Rep. Eddie Hebert, 18-term Congressman from Louisiana, then chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and requested that he convene a special hearing and invite Rickover to testify. I had met Rickover (I was then Special Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations) and went to the hearing. Rickover testified to Congress that civilian nuclear power was a bad idea. To run it safely, he said, would require a military authority structure, and no one had any idea what to do with the waste, and he doubted anyone ever would.
Windmills and Sailboats on the Ocean Credit: CGP Grey/Flickr
The role of nuclear power in a low-carbon future has been subject to a long and contentious debate. Is a nuclear or a renewables pathway the best way forward, or do we need a “do everything” approach where every deployable technology is rolled out to decarbonise our electricity supply as soon as possible?
Many influential climate scientists and international organisations argue that a global shift towards nuclear power offers the best pathway to tackling the climate emergency and meeting the world’s increasing demands for electricity.
Others argue that renewable sources of energy are the best pathway towards a low-carbon electricity system and assert that they are cleaner, safer and more economically sustainable than nuclear.
In an attempt to negotiate these contending positions, a frequent mantra is that energy strategies should “do everything” in order to address the climate emergency. But – as a number of commentators have noted (for example, here and here) – this would actually be a highly irrational course of action.
Where “doing everything” involves making investments that are slower or less […]
Gerry Wass
on Friday, February 26, 2021 at 6:59 am
I read through this article with all the layman’s attention I could muster, but when I started to read the comments, I quickly became discouraged, unable to keep track of who was arguing what cause. So, I revert to my general tendency to zoom out to the largest trends which I can feel comfortable with, and I will put forward two.
1) Admiral Rickover has not been proven wrong: there is still no long-term, safe solution to nuclear waste, and the whole industry seems to have been pushed forward by business interests, to the detriment of renewable energy, despite this massive problem. The paradox deepens when environmentalists also ignore this problem in order to support nuclear energy, advancing technical arguments that overwhelm laypersons like me.
2). The renewable-energy industry operates much like any other big business, rushing headlong into building massive structures designed to make money without sustainable design. And so we find ourselves with giant used windmill blades now piling up with no way to reclaim their materials, apparently because no attention was given to that in the design process. We panic and rush headlong into the solution designed to bring the quickest and largest return to investors, except that it is not ‘we,’ but rather those with the funds but no sense of anticipating the future of their products.
Kenneth Heck
on Friday, February 26, 2021 at 11:00 am
Why aren’t scientists busy investigating how to burn fossil fuels without releasing all the pollutants? Why are there no efforts we know of to eliminate or detoxify the waste from nuclear plants? We need creative solutions to the problems associated with energy production, but it seems it will take a genius or geniuses to make further steps along this road. Unfortunately the era of creative genius appears to be over.
I read through this article with all the layman’s attention I could muster, but when I started to read the comments, I quickly became discouraged, unable to keep track of who was arguing what cause. So, I revert to my general tendency to zoom out to the largest trends which I can feel comfortable with, and I will put forward two.
1) Admiral Rickover has not been proven wrong: there is still no long-term, safe solution to nuclear waste, and the whole industry seems to have been pushed forward by business interests, to the detriment of renewable energy, despite this massive problem. The paradox deepens when environmentalists also ignore this problem in order to support nuclear energy, advancing technical arguments that overwhelm laypersons like me.
2). The renewable-energy industry operates much like any other big business, rushing headlong into building massive structures designed to make money without sustainable design. And so we find ourselves with giant used windmill blades now piling up with no way to reclaim their materials, apparently because no attention was given to that in the design process. We panic and rush headlong into the solution designed to bring the quickest and largest return to investors, except that it is not ‘we,’ but rather those with the funds but no sense of anticipating the future of their products.
Why aren’t scientists busy investigating how to burn fossil fuels without releasing all the pollutants? Why are there no efforts we know of to eliminate or detoxify the waste from nuclear plants? We need creative solutions to the problems associated with energy production, but it seems it will take a genius or geniuses to make further steps along this road. Unfortunately the era of creative genius appears to be over.