To many people, nuclear power is a terrifying force that threatens our very existence. To others, it’s the only power source that can possibly meet our climate goals. I think it’s safe to say that no single technology divides climate activists more than nuclear power.
Unfortunately, most of the commentary around nuclear is extremely hyperbolic, and for lack of a better word, “partisan”. It probably doesn’t surprise you that I am something of a “centrist” when it comes to nuclear. Let’s look at the arguments.
First, there are two types of nuclear power. Nuclear fusion involves merging two light elements into a single, slightly heavier element. In practice, this means merging two hydrogen atoms into a single helium atom. Nuclear fission involves splitting a very heavy atom (typically uranium) into a lighter atom.
Nuclear fusion is the process that powers our sun and all other stars. There are billions of dollars being spent to develop nuclear fusion reactors. Unfortunately, they remain science fiction. There are no working commercial nuclear fusion reactors and given the timelines involved, it’s very unlikely that fusion will have an appreciable impact on climate change mitigation.
Every nuclear power plant every built uses fission. Fission releases an enormous amount of energy, but also creates radioactive waste. And we all know that fission reactors can melt down, as we’ve seen in Chernobyl and Fukushima. So, why would someone support nuclear fission if it seems so dangerous? Well, actually, fission is safer than any other kind of energy, including wind and solar. There are fewer deaths per megawatt of energy produced than for any other source. Nuclear also offers some very important benefits for climate. It doesn’t produce any air pollution or carbon emissions. It offers continuous, reliable and stable power, even at night and even when the sun is not shining, or the wind is not blowing. It’s the only scalable power source that offers the reliability of fossil fuels with the climate benefits of renewables.
It’s because of these reasons that fission has a small but very passionate group of advocates. However, in many cases, these advocates overemphasize the benefits and downplay the negatives for nuclear. The two most significant hurdles for nuclear power are cost and perceived safety. In order to build and site enough nuclear power plants to significantly lower our carbon emissions, we would need to convince hundreds of millions of people worldwide to let us build a nuclear plant near their homes.
Nuclear as I’ve said is very safe, but the perception is what matters. I don’t think we have enough time to convince enough people to let us build enough nuclear plants. I might be wrong, in this. But remember, we only have a couple of decades, and building, permitting and commissioning nuclear plants takes years, even if the local population is supportive. I suspect we would see the mass mobilization of people against building new nuclear plants unless there was a highly effective and widespread education campaign.
But even then, we would still be dealing with the cost issue. Nuclear is extremely expensive and renewables are exceptionally cheap (as is natural gas). If we built an entire fleet of nuclear plants, average electricity prices would almost certainly increase. Meanwhile, renewables and energy storage are both getting cheaper.
Fortunately, we don’t need to choose. Actually, nuclear and renewables can compliment one another. It makes no sense to choose a single power source for every situation. Regulators and investors should be allowed to choose the zero-carbon energy source that makes the most sense for their individual needs. Whether that’s wind in the Midwest or solar in the Southwest, or nuclear in places that make sense.
The Mangrove 