LLAW’s All Things Nuclear #729, Wednesday, (08/21/2024)
LLAW’s All Things Nuclear #729, Wednesday, (08/21/2024)
“End Nuclear Insanity Before Nuclear Insanity Ends Humanity”
LLAW’s NUCLEAR ISSUES & COMMENTS, Wednesday, (08/21/2024)
This article is an interview by two brilliant people, one who despises the nuclear industry, and one who supports it to a degree, discuss the nuclear industry and the mythical dream of an ‘explosion’ of nuclear produced power that will save us from global warming and climate change.
Nuclear energy will not do either because it just simply takes way too long to put nuclear power plants into nuclear power production, among other issues including the survival of life on planet Earth. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are ‘breathing down our throats’ and those of us who know the nuclear industry know that, aside from its nasty, dirty, radioactive leftovers and propensity for nuclear “accidents” (that the industry laughably calls ‘clean energy’) the time frame of nuclear power production to adequately solve the fossil fuel problem is far too far away and far too dangerous.
Those clear-thinking scientists like M.V. Ramana, and others with ‘hands-on’ experience know that nuclear energy is incapable of solving the environmental problems we have ignorantly created everywhere around the world, and nuclear products of every kind, including the much ballyhooed SMRs, only compound the problem and increase the dangers of our own method of a potential, even likely, mass extinction of our own suicidal making on planet Earth. ~llaw
Challenging the nuclear industry: interview with M.V. Ramana
20 years ago, you would have been laughed out of the room for claiming that nuclear energy is clean technology. The urgency of the climate crisis has drawn some people to some strange conclusions. -Commentary
Reading Time: 9min read
Despite nuclear energy’s notorious problems, the industry remains remarkably resilient, receiving solid support from governments around the world.
Most recently, in Canada, a ministerial working group of federal cabinet members issued “a plan to modernize federal assessment and permitting processes to get clean growth projects built faster.” The plan includes aligning resources so that “nuclear energy remains a strategic asset to Canada now and into the future.”
A prolific and well-known critic of the nuclear industry in Canada – including in New Brunswick – is physicist and professor M.V. Ramana. Ramana is Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the University of British Columbia. He is back in Vancouver after spending the winter academic term at Princeton University in the U.S., where he previously worked as a researcher for many years.
I last spent time in person with Ramana in June in Montreal where we co-organized a panel, “Challenging the Canadian Nuclear Establishment,” for the Socialist Studies conference. We spoke by phone in July about his new book, Nuclear is Not the Solution: The Folly of Atomic Power in the Age of Climate Change.
O’Donnell: Your last book was about nuclear power in India. Your new book is about nuclear energy and the climate crisis. Why did you want to write about that?
Ramana: About 20 or 30 years ago, if someone had talked about nuclear energy as an environmentally friendly, clean technology, they probably would have been laughed out of the room. But in the last decade or two, the nuclear industry seems to be succeeding in changing how people think of this technology, including some environmentalists and people broadly on the left who one would expect to be critical of the industry’s claims.
Much of that is the emergency framing, in which climate change is seen as the overwhelming problem, and we are asked to ignore every other consideration in addressing that.
Nuclear energy has several well-known problems. The fact that there could be catastrophic accidents has been proven time and again. There is no demonstrated solution to managing radioactive waste for the hundreds of thousands of years it will be hazardous. The link between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. Climate change is framed as such an existential risk that we should overlook all these other problems.
This argument misses the question of whether nuclear energy is a feasible solution. This is the larger context in which I was trying to address the problem.
As well, these framings of nuclear energy as a solution to climate change miss the relationship between the nuclear industry and the fossil fuel industry and other industries that prefer to maintain the status quo.
O’Donnell: I was at a meeting recently with climate activists who support more nuclear development, and someone said that my opposition to nuclear energy is helping the fossil fuel industry. You just suggested the opposite.
Ramana: Their argument presumes that fossil fuels can only be replaced by nuclear power and ignores the possibility that one might switch to renewables. It’s a standard logical fallacy. Both the fossil fuel industry and the nuclear industry use this narrative. Both will claim that you cannot operate an electricity grid without so-called “baseload” sources of power, and fossil fuels and nuclear power are portrayed as the only options for producing that kind of power.
That form of thinking is outdated at this point. It was how people thought about managing an electricity grid back in the early part of the 20th century, ideas about trying to have power plants operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. So-called “baseload” plants meet the minimal electricity demand that is always present. And then for the much higher demands during certain periods of the day or the year, we will run other kinds of plants.
The growth of renewables goes against that form of thinking because renewables cannot be classified either as baseload or peak power. They generate when the wind the wind is blowing or the sun is shining, and their inclusion forces us to rethink how we manage the grid.
We have come a long way from the idea that we cannot operate a grid using only renewables to understanding that the grid will be stable even with a very high proportion of renewables. If at all there’s any question, it’s about the last 10% or so.
O’Donnell: Right now, among my colleagues, we’re wondering if the “SMR era” is coming to an end in Canada. Here in New Brunswick, it looks like the ARC reactor design is on its way out. Much of the hype in Canada now is about big reactors. We’re seeing SNC Lavalin/ AtkinsRéalis more prominently, trying to sell their big new 1000 MW CANDU design, we hear Bruce Power talking about building multiple new big reactors. The buzz is about big reactors and meanwhile the SMR companies are having money problems. The SMR companies are not getting the resources they need to reach the stage of applying for a license to construct their reactor designs. Maybe in Canada we will skip over the SMR era, except for the one at Darlington, whenever that might be built, and just focus on refurbishments and big reactors.
Ramana: It depends on what you mean by “end of the SMR era.” Even the reactor at Darlington, the BWRX-300, is going to take another 10 to 15 years. During that period, at least, the SMR dream will be alive. The reactor will be much more expensive and take much longer, and so on, but one shouldn’t underestimate the power of both the nuclear industry and its supporters within the government to keep pushing the idea that the next time around, it’s going to be all fine. That has been their standard argument.
In the United States, for example, the AP 1000 reactors built in Vogtle were a complete failure by most measures, right? But now that the reactors have started functioning, you see people from the nuclear industry counting this as a great success. And it’s not that they’re going to decide to build another set of reactors anytime soon, but you cannot rule out that possibility within, let’s say, the next 10 or 15 years.
We see that in people like Jennifer Granholm, the U.S. Energy Secretary, talking about how much nuclear energy must expand over the next few decades, making an argument for more nuclear plants, whether they be small or big. The nuclear industry would want to argue that it’s not a question of small versus large, it’s going to be both. That’s going to be their talking point, and they don’t want to be asked to make a choice, because that infighting is going to weaken the other side, they understand that quite well.
O’Donnell: A chapter in your book deals with the high financial and temporal cost of nuclear energy. You show conclusively, and independent analysis backs you up, that nuclear power is more expensive and takes longer to build than renewable energy and storage.
You found this quote by President Macron of France, which is the most nuclearized state in the world, admitting that France needs to massively develop renewable energy to meet its immediate electricity needs because it takes 15 years to build a nuclear reactor. In the face of clear evidence, a lot of people question why France, and other countries including the U.K. and Canada, seem to be determined to build more nuclear reactors.
Ramana: The first reason is related to how these governments get advice on their energy strategies and policies. The advice tends to come from the very institutions invested in promoting nuclear energy. In the United States, it’s the Department of Energy deciding on energy policy, and one of the Department of Energy’s priorities is to promote nuclear energy. It’s the same in Canada, it’s Natural Resources Canada giving the advice. There’s an institutional bias towards nuclear energy present in the decisions made about energy policies.
The second reason is that in two of the countries you mentioned, the U.K. and France, both have nuclear weapons. In both countries, the relationship between the nuclear energy sector and the capacity to make nuclear weapons as well as the nuclear submarines used to deliver nuclear weapons, has been a talking point the nuclear industry uses to get government support. It’s clear that policymakers are thinking about this connection as a reason to support nuclear energy and make it flourish to the extent that it can.
The last thing is that these countries only look at the low carbon nature of nuclear energy and they see climate change as primarily a technical, maybe economic, issue. They think it can be fixed by changing what technologies we use to generate energy, and some taxes or cap and trade schemes to try and make sure that the market values carbon in an adequate way.
There is no consideration of any deeper changes that we might need to make, towards society and the way we produce and consume materials and energy. That means that nuclear energy or renewables are the only two options that they can think about.
O’Donnell: Coming back to the financial aspects of nuclear power, I often hear that Bill Gates is famously supporting nuclear power, and you do mention him in your book. It’s a puzzle why billionaires, who you would assume are savvy with money, would support nuclear power if it’s such a bad investment.
Ramana: They do invest some money, but only when they expect public funding to be a significant part of whatever project they are proposing. They can use public funding to then raise more money from private markets.
After the 2008 financial crisis, Silicon Valley billionaires have a dearth of investment opportunities for the financial holdings that many of them have. They are trying to find things to invest in. Many of these investors have large portfolios, with every expectation that most of those investments will not materialize in major gains. But the hope is that if you put in 20 investments, and one of them makes a lot of money and becomes like a Facebook type success, then that will more than compensate for all the other investments. And so, they usually look at these long shots. Even if there is a 1% probability, it’s worth investing in.
People like Bill Gates, and Sam Altman and other people also, see technology as a kind of saviour for whatever they want to do. Climate change is a problem for them, because it looks like the effects of climate change might prevent business as usual from continuing, and business as usual is what has allowed them to become the very wealthy people they are. They want people to believe that climate change can be fixed using technological changes and that they themselves will be leading the investment in these technologies and solving climate change.
The challenge they see is that if people don’t have this belief, then they might start making more radical demands. I think I quote Sam Altman in one of my chapters, saying, “People then start thinking this crazy degrowth stuff,” which he calls “immoral” if I remember right. That kind of radical demand is something they don’t want to see become more prominent. And so, technology is always portrayed as not just a savior but also capable of solving climate change. They want that belief to be very central and not questioned. Nuclear energy is part of that portfolio of technologies they envision as solving the problem.
For these investors, the environmental and other risks associated with nuclear power are not challenges they envision as having to deal with. They are not going to live near a nuclear waste repository, or uranium mine, or even a nuclear plant, so they’re not particularly concerned about all these environmental impacts.
Nuclear is Not the Solution: The Folly of Atomic Power in the Age of Climate Change by M.V. Ramana is published by Verso Books and available as an e-book for $11.20 CAD.
Susan O’Donnell is adjunct research professor and lead investigator of the CEDAR project in the Environment & Society program at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick. She edited this interview for publication..
An earlier version of this article was published by The Energy Mix on August 3, 2024
ABOUT THE FOLLOWING ACCESS TO “LLAW’S ALL THINGS NUCLEAR” RELATED MEDIA:
There are 7 categories, with the latest addition, (#7) being a Friday weekly roundup of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) global nuclear news stories. Also included is a bonus non-nuclear category for news about the Yellowstone caldera and other volcanic and caldera activity around the world that play an important role in humanity’s lives. The feature categories provide articles and information about ‘all things nuclear’ for you to pick from, usually with up to 3 links with headlines concerning the most important media stories in each category, but sometimes fewer and occasionally even none (especially so with the Yellowstone Caldera). The Categories are listed below in their usual order:
All Things Nuclear
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Emergencies
Nuclear War
Nuclear War Threats
Yellowstone Caldera (Note: There are 2 Yellowstone Caldera bonus stories available in this evening’s Post.)
IAEA Weekly News (Friday’s only)
Whenever there is an underlined link to a Category media news story, if you press or click on the link provided, you no longer have to cut and paste to your web browser, since this Post’s link will take you directly to the article in your browser.
A current Digest of major nuclear media headlines with automated links is listed below by nuclear Category (in the above listed order). If a Category heading does not appear in the daily news Digest, it means there was no news reported from this Category today. Generally, the three best articles in each Category from around the nuclear world(s) are Posted. Occasionally, if a Post is important enough, it may be listed in multiple Categories.
TODAY’S NUCLEAR WORLD’S NEWS, Wednesday, (08/21/2024)
All Things Nuclear
NEWS
Holtec argues state has no authority to ban radioactive water discharge into Cape Cod Bay
WBUR
... nuclear reactor system at Pilgrim as part of the plant decommissioning ... All Things Considered · Ways To Listen · All Radio Programs. Podcasts. The ...
Challenging the nuclear industry: interview with M.V. Ramana - NB Media Co-op
NB Media Co-op
Much of that is the emergency framing, in which climate change is seen as the overwhelming problem, and we are asked to ignore every other ...
What does Ukraine's incursion into Russia say about a so-called 'red line'? | TPR
Texas Public Radio
He's threatened to use nuclear weapons, and frankly, I think the Ukrainians understand how Vladimir Putin thinks, how the Russians think, and they ...
Nuclear Power
NEWS
Nuclear fleet maintained high performance in 2023
World Nuclear News
Global nuclear electricity generation increased in 2023, despite a 1 GWe drop in overall capacity, to 392 GWe, of operable nuclear power plants, ...
IAEA releases 2023 nuclear power data : Energy & Environment
World Nuclear News
The International Atomic Energy Agency has released its annual nuclear power data publications - and says they paint a picture of a clean energy ...
Preface to World Nuclear Performance Report 2024
World Nuclear Association
... nuclear power plants. The average capacity factor of nuclear reactors increased by 1%, reaching 81.5% in 2023, highlighting the reliability ...
Nuclear Power Emergencies
NEWS
Sizewell C community events tackle climate emergency | East Anglian Daily Times
East Anglian Daily Times
The team at Sizewell C is raising awareness of the new nuclear power station and how it will combat climate change at community events across the…
Nuclear War
NEWS
China Responds to Top-Secret US Nuclear War Strategy - Newsweek
Newsweek
China's Foreign Ministry on Wednesday accused the United States of creating the largest nuclear threat.
Biden approved secret nuclear strategy focusing on Chinese threat, New York Times reports
Reuters
U.S. President Joe Biden approved in March a highly classified nuclear strategic plan that for the first time reoriented Washington's deterrent ...
Biden Approved Secret Nuclear Strategy Refocusing on Chinese Threat
The New York Times
In a classified document approved in March, the president ordered U.S. forces to prepare for possible coordinated nuclear confrontations with ...
Nuclear War Threats
NEWS
Biden Approved Secret Nuclear Strategy Refocusing on Chinese Threat
The New York Times
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has repeatedly threatened the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine, including during a crisis in October 2022, ...
Biden approves nuclear strategy refocusing on China threat – report - The Guardian
The Guardian
... threatened to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. The US-based Arms Control Association said it understood US nuclear weapons strategy and posture ...
China 'concerned' after report alleging US nuclear strategy change - VOA
VOA
U.S. and Chinese officials both frequently speak of the dangers of nuclear war, but efforts to hold dialogue on the issue have failed. Last year, U.S. ..
Yellowstone Caldera
NEWS
Yellowstone Thermal Features, From Apollinaris To Zomar - National Parks Traveler
National Parks Traveler
Editor's Note: Yellowstone Caldera Chronicles is a weekly column written by scientists and collaborators of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory.
Traffic: The largest hydrothermal explosions the world has ever known | News | Head Topics
Head Topics
... yellowstone-national-park-after-massive-explosion" ... Steam explosions are one of the biggest potential hazards at Yellowstone Caldera.