2. Why Are You Pro-Nuclear
Ran: So let’s start to discuss Nuclear energy and other energy types. My concern about nuclear energy or science technology, in general, is that although we need science and technology for our living and to tackle the climate crisis, science can not foresee everything. Because of that, I keep questioning what we do not know about nuclear energy and geoengineering and what we should be careful about when we use those technologies. What are the things we forget to be concerned about when we rely on science? I am trying to be suspicious and throw questions about science and technology.
Thore: Science knows limited facts constructed on a certain type of experiment. To minimise negative human effects and maximise positive effects, we need to use science smartly and see its further effect in the entangled web of nature.
Ran: Yes. I agree. And I can see that we use science and technology in so many parts of our life, and any technology has its problems. We tend to wear different glasses when we evaluate nuclear energy compared to other energy sources. I think you can help us to evaluate those energies neutrally. Can you introduce why you are pro-nuclear?
This conversation is based on Thore’s ppt presentation lecture.
Thore: I will give a small lecture about this. I am a geophysics student in glaciology, ice, climate and meteorology. From my studies, I know all the hardcore facts on which direction our planet is going now because of climate change. The prospect of a hot house planet, a state of the planet never experienced before by our human civilization. The prospect of this future frightens me.
The figure above shows where we are now. Since the end of the last ice age, we have been in a period called the Holocene. A warm interglacial with very stable climate conditions. Our human civilization formed in this period thanks to the invention of agriculture. It seems civilization’s appearance is utterly dependent on these very stable climate conditions in the Holocene. Because of humans’ big impact on earth now, our current epoch is named the Anthropocene. Humans have filled all the planet’s niches and changed the biosphere, the oceans and even the atmosphere. As can be seen in the figure, we are at a crossroads now in regard to the stable climate of the Holocene. If we keep on business as usual with regard to carbon emissions, very soon, we will reach several planetary tipping points. The climate of our planet will then change into a much warmer state, “Hot-house Earth”. A state last experienced on our planet in the Eocene more than 40 million years ago. Or we can choose radical change and immediate decarbonizing and hopefully succeed in stabilising our climate in a state not too different from today. Because of this, it’s my opinion we should use all available tools to succeed with this decarbonization. And as I will dig into now, nuclear power seems to be one of our best options in decarbonizing society.
First, let us look at the data. Nuclear is a carbon-free energy source in a lifecycle scenery. That is if you look at nuclear energy’s total emissions, including mining, construction, runtime, waste handling, and decommission.
Then let’s look at which energy sources nations actually have succeeded in decarbonizing their power grid. As can be seen from the figure, it has only happened from the use of two energy sources, nuclear and hydro. Mainly because these are the only two carbon-free energy sources which can power a country without the need for any backup.
It’s also said that we don’t have time for nuclear energy because of the urgency of the climate crisis. In my opinion, you should look at historical data when you come up with a postulate like this. In the 70s, countries like France and Sweden succeeded with rapid decarbonization of their power grids through a build-out of nuclear energy. A country like Denmark has made a massive investment in wind energy in the last 15 years but has only reached 9 % of carbon-free energy so far. So nuclear energy seems to be the better choice if you want a rapid change into carbon-free energy in a short timeframe. And any system dependent on the wind will always need a backup energy source, a backup energy source which in countries like Denmark and Germany have been in the form of biomass and fossil fuels.
We humans take too much space on planet earth, and we humans need to give space back to the earth to rewild nature, to limit the loss of biodiversity we are experiencing these days. Embracing nuclear energy is one way we can limit our footprint on the land. The reason is nuclear energy is the energy source with the smallest footprint of currently known energy sources. Traditional renewable energy sources like wind and solar have orders of magnitude larger land use than nuclear energy, so will automatically destroy what available land we have left for wilderness and nature if we decide to choose them instead. Science tells us that nuclear energy is the safest carbon-free energy source with the smallest use of land. And in my opinion, we should always follow the advice of science.
We humans need to give space back to the earth to rewild nature, to limit the loss of biodiversity we are experiencing these days. Embracing nuclear energy is one way we can limit our footprint on the land.”
Ran: It’s really interesting that your reason for supporting Nuclear is to give more space back to nature and withdraw human impacts on Earth. That is disparate from the typical right-wing’s narratives, nuclear energy for more economic growth. However, many people worry about the safety of nuclear energy. Then, can you explain more about that?
Thore: Yes. That’s true. One of the opponents’ common arguments against nuclear power is the fear of nuclear waste. Let’s study this theme.
The amount of nuclear waste is really small. As can be seen in the figure, all the waste from a lifetime of one person’s energy produced through nuclear power could be fitted into one Coca-Cola can. If this energy should have come from coal instead, one full truck would have been needed. The small amount of nuclear waste produced means it’s easy to store the waste directly onsite at the nuclear power plants. That the waste can be sealed completely from the environment. We also have to remember that all energy sources produce waste. As can be seen from this figure, nuclear power produces much less waste than traditional renewable energy sources.
Thore: Fear of Nuclear Accident? In history, there have never been accidents because of nuclear waste. So as already mentioned, nuclear waste is not a problem.
But yes, there have been other accidents. There have been famous meltdowns like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Tjernobyl was the worst-case accident you can think of at a nuclear plant. There was a meltdown, mainly because of a human error. There was an explosion, and release of radioactivity into the environment, because of a lack of containment building around the reactor. People died in the accident, and the locals in the area around Chernobyl were exposed to higher levels of radioactivity. The released cloud of radioactivity could be measured in many parts of Europe. But how many people died, how bad was it? Overall, 134 emergency workers, plant operators, and firemen were exposed to levels of radiation high enough to suffer from acute radiation syndrome (ARS). 28 of these 134 workers died in the weeks that followed, which takes the total death number to 30.
To summarise the combined death toll from Chernobyl,
● 2 workers died in the blast.
● 28 workers and firemen died in the weeks that followed from acute radiation syndrome (ARS).
● 19 ARS survivors had died later, by 2006; most from causes not related to radiation, but it’s not possible to rule all of them out (especially five that were cancerrelated).
● 15 people died from thyroid cancer due to milk contamination. These deaths were among children who were exposed to Iodine-131 from milk and food in the days after the disaster. This could increase to between
● 96 and 384 deaths, however, this figure is highly uncertain.
● There is currently no evidence of adverse health impacts in the general population across affected countries, or wider Europe.
The confirmed death toll from Chernobyl is less than 100. We still do not know the true death toll of the disaster. My best approximation is that the true death toll ranges from 300 to 500 based on the available evidence.
In March 2011, there was an accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Ōkuma, Fukushima, Japan. This accident was caused by the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami – the most powerful earthquake recorded in Japan’s history.
Despite it being such a large event, so far, only one death has been attributed to the disaster. This includes both the direct impact of the accident itself and the radiation exposure that followed. However, it’s estimated that several thousand died indirectly from the stress and disruption of evacuation.
So at Fukushima, nearly no one died because of the meltdown. The main killer was fear and inappropriate reaction to the accident. The biggest killer happened in the following years. Because of public pressure, Japan decided to close all their nuclear power plants. Instead Japan started burning coal and gas. It can be estimated that the use of these fossil fuels has killed 28.000 people, because of an increase in diseases from pollution. So the biggest death course was the decision to close the nuclear power plant.
The same is seen on a global scale. Where we often forget the huge number of people dying from the use of fossil fuels. The number is estimated to be 7-9 million deaths annually because of diseases, accidents and environmental effects.
Ran: It’s striking that accidents and everyday death rates from fossil energies are much higher than nuclear energy disasters during human history. That’s weird to realize how humans are more fearful of a single uncommon disaster than much higher deaths and contamination of fossil fuels that happens every day.
Thore: Before talking about the fear of radioactivity, we need to know what radioactivity is.
What is radioactivity? Planet earth is radioactive. And life and everything we know which makes life possible on our planet is dependent on a radioactive planet. Life evolved on radioactive earth and is adapted to it.
Without radioactivity, no molten interior. -> No volcanoes. -> No mountains. -> No magnetic field. -> No atmosphere. -> No oceans. -> No life. -> No humans.
Low levels of radioactivity do not harm life. Humans already live in areas with comparable background radiation to the Chernobyl area, such as Ramsar Iran, and Guarapari Brasil. People there don’t die early or get sicker than in other places. The background radiation around the Fukushima area is much lower than in these areas.
*Related sources:
Natural Radiation: High Background Radiation Areas (HBRAs) of Ramsar, Iran (ecolo.org)
Radiation levels now | The Chernobyl Gallery
NaturallyOccurringRadioactivity.pdf
Radioactivity is only dangerous in high amounts. Let’s list a number of essentials for our life on earth.
Water
Oxygen
Carbon
Radioactivity
All these elements share a number of important features. We can not live without them, but in too high amounts, they get lethal.
Ran: I have a few more questions. You mentioned the naturally high radioactive region, such as Ramsar in Iran. Is there an accumulation of radioactivity in the locals’ bodies?
Thore: No, there is no evidence for that claim. The people there have longer lifespans than the neighbouring areas with less background radioactivity.
Ran: Many Koreans are afraid of Triple H (tritium) in the contaminated water from Fukushima. Is it an unnatural material that does not exist on Earth?
Thore: Tritium is already made naturally. It doesn’t need a nuclear disaster to make it. It’s made in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays hit the air.
Putting the contaminated water from Fukushima into the ocean is without doubt the best way to get rid of it. Concentrating it and containerizing it actually causes more of a potential hazard to people and the environment. And it is really expensive.
Unfortunately, the idea of releasing radioactivity of any sort makes most people cringe. But that’s the problem, only the perception of tritium is bad, not the reality. And in our new world of anti-science, such a wrong idea might rule over what is the right thing to do, wasting precious resources and time.
The scientific reality is tritium emits an incredibly weak beta particle that is easily stopped by our dead skin layer. It only goes a quarter inch in the air. Even ingestion of tritium doesn’t do anything unless it’s at very high concentrations that can only be maintained in the laboratory.
The health risks of tritium-contaminated water are so low that all countries of the world have no idea what regulatory limits to put on it.
Ran: By the way, the storage for contaminated water and the whole area is so huge.
Thore: Again, the reason for the huge amount of waste and storage is not because of any real danger. It’s just because of politics and the public perception that anything radioactive is bad.