My Nuclear Dilemma
#11 — Can we accept the risk of deaths occurring when a nuclear disaster strikes?
When I was in my mid teens, I visited the slums in northern Manila. It wasn't a pretty sight. Men took open showers in the sweltering heat while children played in the filthy water along the river bank. Other times I would encounter children roaming the streets, pouncing from one trash can to another in search of something to eat. And when they did find something, they consumed it on the spot, literally eating out of the trash can. It was a harrowing sight because I came from a completely different reality. Clean drinking water ran from the taps in my home, and I never considered the possibility of going hungry.
Though it has been many years, the images still haunt me. I would later meet other people who shared similar formative experiences. From the many heart felt conversations, I learnt that when living in a world where the digital presents itself as equal to reality, the humanitarian has to wrestle with the temptation of remaining in his virtual enclave. There he can be isolated from the reality of the 21st century if he so chooses. Despite the many comforts of the digital world, the humanitarian must emerge convinced that a life worth living is one spent meeting the needs of his neighbor. We must not shun from the truth of our reality. And so that points us outwards: towards solving structural problems that plague us today.
In my mind, embarking into a career in the climate space fit that bill quite nicely. I imagined the plot synopsis to read as such: "In the horizon lies a looming threat. Humanity has been given a period of time to respond. Will they succeed?" If you feel this reads like a generic synopsis for any modern blockbuster, you'd be spot on. We watch super hero films because we do want to emerge victorious in our self-preservation efforts. It's a projection of sorts: we trust that if we had to come together to combat a looming threat, we'd be able to do so. And so films like the Avengers and the all-time classic Armageddon affirm that belief.
Of course it should go without saying that the real world is a whole lot more complicated. Take Indonesia for example: their environment Minister Siti Nurbaya Bakar recently criticized the terms of a global deal to end deforestation by 2030. This signals that the country may not abide by it.
Surprising? I think so too. Indonesia's tropical forests are like the lungs of South East Asia: why would anyone voluntarily remove such a vital organ? As counter intuitive as this may seem, we would do well to remember that Indonesia's natural wealth plays a huge role in their economy, with palm oil being their largest export. I'm no economist, so I can only speculate the country's dilemma: focus on domestic problems that need immediate attention or adjust development plans that adhere to global pressure. It's a tough choice.
On a more personal level, similar dilemmas abound. Making the decision to enter into the climate fight was the first step. The next step was deciding how to fight for a greener earth. To do that, one needs an understanding of what solutions are available in the market. If I'm going to be a tiny cog in enormous system, I would very much like the system I choose to be the one that best lowers global emissions. So far, the experience of searching for a role in the climate space has felt much like walking into a career fair: collecting pamphlets, meandering along many booths, and interacting with representatives. They all professed the same platitudes like "we must de-carbonize and we must do it fast" and "accelerating the mission to net zero!", but how they get there is a different matter. Different advocacy groups believe they have a better way to weather the looming crisis. One wonders if a "best system" can even exist when we can't agree on the present tools.
In any case, I was interested in energy policy, so it made sense to start sending out applications to companies in the energy sector. I reasoned if were to phase out our reliance on fossil fuels for power, we'd need something to replace it. True enough, there were many different startups coming up with new technologies, outlining their impact on pretty designer websites and colorful graphs. Reading about renewable energy reminded me of the time I first drove through the wind farms in Illinois. They were gorgeous in the setting sun. Rows of giant fans towering over green fields. I remember thinking "this is the future of energy", smiling like a child who had just been read a fairy tale with a happy ending.
To my understanding, we already had the solutions in the form of renewables: solar, wind, and hydro-power, and I was contented with that assurance after seeing them in person. I figured we would scale efforts when necessary. But as my interest in the entire subject matter began to grow, I came to learn that nuclear was also in the conversation. I thought it was rather strange that it didn't come to mind, given nuclear energy's value proposition of being one of the lowest carbon energy sources that is both reliable and cost-effective.
Yet for the longest time, perhaps in an unspoken sort of way, nuclear was not a viable option because of its strong association with death. If not nuclear bombs — as with Nagasaki and Hiroshima — than nuclear plant meltdowns, like with Chernobyl in 1986. If that was too long ago, I would offer the case of the Fukishima Daiichi nuclear disaster which happened in 2011, a mere 10 years ago and in my life time. And what can I say? Nuclear seems so antithetical to life. Part of our fears about the world ending must stem from the strange reality that for each of us our world will end, and soon. Why build things that accelerate our demise?
My bias aside, nuclear is viable. If I wasn't an emotional melancholic, it would be a risk I'd be willing to take. Some pro-nuclear advocates, like Michael Shellenberger, are all in on this belief. Here's what Michael's written on weather dependent renewable energies — like wind farms and solar panels (italicized emphasis mine):
Renewables are today parasitical on society because they return less than half as much energy as our high-energy societies require to function, while hydro electric dams and nuclear power plants provide three to seven times more energy...
… Every year in the U.S., nuclear-generated electricity prevents more than 506 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from entering our atmosphere. If we are serious about meeting our climate goals without sacrificing reliability, we must protect our existing fleet (of nuclear plants). Why then is the U.S. fleet decreasing and why are we taking them offline?”
The numbers are convincing, and given Michael's natural charisma, I’m confident he truly believes this will be the future. Still, I can't fully remove my innate fear. Do you remember the Beirut explosion? I recall, so profoundly, a deep sense of dread when I first watched the video.
I remembered thinking it was a nuclear attack and I felt sick in my stomach.
The story developed in the days that followed. 2,750 tons of highly combustible ammonium nitrate had accumulated in Beirut’s port and been offloaded into Hangar 12. The hanger went on to become the bombsite of one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history. Later, evidence emerged that Lebanese government officials foresaw the death that the ammonium nitrate’s presence could result in and tacitly accepted the risk of the deaths occurring. It was unbelievable. The New York Times characterized it as the "result of years of neglect and bureaucratic buck-passing by a dysfunctional government that subjugated public safety to the more pressing business of bribery and graft."
That's really what it is all about. "Years of neglect and bureaucratic buck-passing." All systems have this propensity. After all, systems are made of humans, and humans are mistake-prone creatures. If that isn't a problematic enough, we have a blatant appetite for money. That's what drives us to corruption.
The humanitarian, ultimately, is forced to entertain the idea that optimal systems will eventually develop. One that effectively minimizes any deviation from standard operating procedures. One that accounts for human fallibility; and our propensity for corruption. I'd like to think this is possible. I really do. But those are only things within our control.
Natural disasters caused the Fukushima nuclear disaster. An earthquake that resulted in a tsunami. I was terrified when the news broke. Shocked that a melt-down could happen in a detail-oriented and technologically advanced nation as Japan; one under the watch of savvy engineers. Terrified that if a nuclear disaster could happen there, it could happen any where else. Like the Lebanese officials, the pro-nuclear advocate must also tacitly accept the risk of deaths occurring when a nuclear disaster strikes.
I concede that the nuclear dilemma will remain paradoxical for some time to come. There will always be something that inevitably threatens humanity. If we accept the pro-nuclear advocates solution, nuclear power plants must be managed with precision. That's the bare minimum I’d like to observe as a public citizen, and yes, I’d expect full transparency. Balances and effective management is key to disaster mitigation. After all, they are ticking time bombs, and ought to be treated as such.
If we accept other renewables, we face the threat of insufficient energy — parasitical, perhaps because we’d end up paying for something that doesn’t sustain us. If it doesn’t work, we’d face a possible regression into fossil fuel dependency, which’d bring us right back to square one. And of course, if we do nothing at all, we won't have a planet to save.
To conclude, I'm all for nuclear. I trust the technology. I just don't trust our management. And that's sufficient for me reason for me to say ‘no’.
Interesting Views On This Topic
[Article] Is Nuclear Power Worth The Risk?
These five people changed their minds about nuclear power. Are you next?
[Article] If Democrats Really Cared About Climate Change They Would Have Gone Nuclear
Biden's climate agenda is dead but Democrats still won't expand nuclear. In this article, Michael Shellenberg defends West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin’s decision to block the Clean Energy Performance Program legislation.
[Video] How green is solar energy really?
More and more solar panels are popping up all over the world – and it's easy to see why: They provide clean energy at falling prices. Awesome, right? Well actually, there are also some not-so-green sides to this technology. This video takes a closer look at three big criticisms solar energy faces and check out just how much of a problem they are.
Photo Of The Week
Thanks for reading! Speak to you in the next one.
Love❤️,
Daniel