simpsons Nuclear power was dirty. The show features a tower towering over Springfield, a three-eyed fish swimming in a lake, and an incompetent Homer running things. nuclear power plant It is a permanent existential risk. It’s a reliable running gag, to be sure, but it’s also a reflection of a society drained of what was once the rich energy of the future.
That turn plunged human civilization into a predicament. The cost of renewable energy such as wind and solar has fallen significantly in recent years. Even researchers were caught off guard.. Every day, power companies across the country are finding clever ways to store that energy, from using idle electric school buses to using the Earth itself as a giant battery. Still, humans can’t make the sun always shine and the wind always blow, so currently, when renewable energy isn’t available, power companies have to burn global warming natural gas in their power plants. .
Nuclear power plants produce electricity cleanly and reliably, but the technology is falling out of favor. “When nuclear power exploded on site, we were freed for the first time from the scarcity we had known throughout human history,” said environmental journalist Marco Vischer, author of the book. The power of nuclear energy: The rise, fall, and resurgence of the most powerful energy sourcereleased today. “The blossoming of this rich energy source was truly a revolution.”
Until the early 1980s, operators started construction on average. 19 new reactors One year. But as Vischer tells it, a variety of factors conspired to transform nuclear power from a miracle technology to a villain. simpsons Just kidding, it’s mainly thanks to Chernobyl and other accidents. By the 1990s, new projects had dwindled to a few each year. But now nuclear power is having a second chance, potentially in conjunction with renewable energy. decarbonization power grid, or even electricity data center and artificial intelligence model. Grist sat down with Visscher to discuss this technology’s roller coaster history.
This conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Q. If you go back to the early history of nuclear energy, it started with the horrific use of nuclear weapons against Japan. It morphed into this technology that people really thought was going to be the future of energy in the early days.
A. When the first nuclear power plants came online in the 1950s and early 1960s, they had grandiose promises of being “clean, cheap, and modern.” Power plants for desalination could be put into operation, and there would be an abundance of clean water all over the world. Since it can produce fertilizer on a large scale, the yield will be much higher. Nuclear energy could provide fuel for trains, ships, and airplanes.
Q. There’s a passage in the book where you talk about regulation becoming an issue, but not in the way people think. Perhaps there was an overabundance of caution and nuclear power began to become something that the public should be concerned about.
A. Nuclear regulations were born out of fear of radiation exposure. These fears originally had everything to do with the fear of nuclear war and the fear that people would get sick from radioactive fallout. When nuclear power plants were being built, people began to wonder, “Aren’t they also radioactive sources?” Did their radiation somehow escape? Or what if an accident happens and it could explode like a bomb? In the 1950s and 1960s, there were calls for further regulations, which were aimed at keeping radiation as low as reasonably achievable.
With increased emphasis on safety, the safety limits for safe doses have been lowered many times. On the other hand, the coal industry, for example, didn’t have all these regulations, and neither did the natural gas plants. Therefore, these industries can innovate and become more efficient. But the nuclear industry seemed to be paralyzed by a narrow focus on mitigating potential radiation exposure.
Q. In addition to that, there are several other disasters, such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. But you argue in your book that they were used to further defeat the nuclear industry, especially given the devastation of climate change brought about by the burning of fossil fuels, among other energy disasters.
A. Chernobyl was, of course, a unique design under unique circumstances. However, although these reactors bear no resemblance to the reactors in use in the United States at the time, U.S. reactors still had to undergo multiple safety updates. Although it brought money to some companies involved in the nuclear field, it did not improve the safety of nuclear power plants.
All these fears and all these doubts gave rise to the idea that an accident at a nuclear power plant must be some kind of apocalypse. But the reality is more mundane. It’s not just a fantasy in our heads. You called Three Mile Island a disaster, but in reality the radiation that leaked into the environment was very low and had no health effects.
Not a single person died from radiation in Fukushima. no one intention die from radiation. this is, scientific consensus About Fukushima: There will be no measurable increase in cancer, birth defects, heart attacks, or malformations in future generations.
However, these accidents did not help the nuclear industry move forward. After the Fukushima accident, Germany decided to shut down its nuclear reactors one by one. Japan did the same. Accidents are rare, but they can have a big impact.
Q. As the world turned to nuclear power and started decommissioning factories, we needed to get power somehow, and that power primarily came from natural gas. Can you talk about the missed opportunities, that transition, and doubling down on natural gas as we wait for renewables to take hold?
A. Normally, when a nuclear power plant closes, a natural gas plant comes on line. Nuclear power is a competitor to coal and natural gas, not renewable energy. This is simply because nuclear power plants can be turned on and off just like coal-fired or natural gas power plants. Basically, they come on when you need them, but this is different with weather-dependent renewable energy sources like wind and solar.
Q. You write that renewable energy alone cannot provide reliable electricity. But utilities are finding more ways to store that energy in battery banks and other long-term energy storage systems. Is there no future where we can rely solely on renewable energy? Are nuclear weapons necessary?
A. Perhaps one day we will be able to run the entire world on renewable energy. I think it makes much more sense to focus on proven technologies that are available and proven to be able to decarbonize the economy of modern society.
Of course, nuclear power, wind power, and solar power can work together. Every society and every economy needs baseload electricity so that there is a continuous, available, and reliable source of energy that ensures there is enough power to meet demand. There is energy poverty in the world, and the demand for electricity will increase significantly in the coming decades.
Q. Unlike fossil fuels, which are stagnant, there’s really no improvement for natural gas or coal. Many companies are working on things like: small modular reactor. Do you think that will help nuclear power grow again?
A. Some of these designs are intended for remote locations. Some are designed for coastal cities. Of course, they’re all said to be cheaper, more efficient, and easier to build. It’s safer that way. Some say it would require less uranium and produce less waste.
But this is what I was thinking. Why do we need innovation? And many of these innovations seemed designed to make people comfortable. Nuclear reactors should be small. Because we don’t like things to get big. Our environmental philosophy is that small is beautiful. We love to hear the argument that nuclear power is safer because we think it’s so dangerous. At least some startups think so.
I don’t want to be too cynical or skeptical about small modular reactors. I think they have a purpose. They may have a psychological impact, as the advent of small modular reactors may soften the hearts and open minds of long-time critics of nuclear power. those The reactor is fine.
Q. What risks do you think the world is exposed to by not fully addressing nuclear development?
A. In any case, we have to live with climate change. I don’t think nuclear or other technologies can stop global warming as long as we no longer feel its effects. That doesn’t mean we’re no good, and it doesn’t mean we don’t need to do anything. That means we need to step up and do more.
It would be outrageous not to use nuclear power. In Germany and other countries as well, it would be a crime to shut down a fully functioning nuclear power plant. Ultimately, I think there should be more widespread recognition within politics that if we truly increase nuclear power, we can beat the fossil fuel industry.
