The discourse surrounding renewable energy took centre stage at the onset of 2020, and this conversation has not only grown exponentially but has now evolved into concrete government approval and commitment. Terms such as the hydrogen economy, advancements in battery technology, and the proliferation of electric vehicles (EVs) have become common parlance among the masses. The zero-carbon initiatives, finally gaining political and financial backing from governments, are, in my humble opinion, long overdue. The protracted nature of these deliberations is emblematic of governmental processes, where transformative decisions often experience sluggish progress. A decade of discourse has indeed transpired, and, consistent with the bureaucratic rhythm, it took precisely that duration for governmental actions to incrementally shift the needle, albeit by a mere quarter of an inch. The tangible governmental approval and commitment now evident in the support for zero-carbon initiatives mark a significant but belated step toward a more sustainable and environmentally conscious future.
The policies and commitments have been established, prompting a collective obligation to honour our assurances. Acquiring electric vehicles, curtailing frequent air travel, and implementing robust taxation measures on industries or nations contributing significantly to environmental degradation is imperative. While certain nations heavily rely on polluting industries, it is reasonable to anticipate a protracted transition into a more environmentally conscious industrial ecosystem. Regrettably, instead of undertaking this transformation, some nations obstinately persist and proffer a rationale reminiscent of, "The West has been polluting the planet for about a century, so why should we not follow suit for another?" In global politics, we find ourselves amidst a metaphorical playground where participants wield varying lengths of sticks, ostensibly to assert dominance through petulance.
While renewable energy is far from a novel concept, the current zeitgeist sees us revisiting our proverbial forefathers' accumulated knowledge and advancements in this field. The ongoing research and development have reached a point where we are scrutinising past achievements and endeavouring to surpass them, aiming for a grander and more efficient scale. Solar, fuel cells, and wind power stand out as the popular contenders in this pursuit. The viability of these renewable energy sources may seem straightforward on paper, and indeed, several countries have successfully integrated them into their power grids. However, the journey towards large-scale deployment is fraught with challenges that, although seemingly trivial in theoretical discussions, pose significant hurdles in the practical realm. These challenges render the operational and financial aspects of widespread implementation considerably taxing. In this discourse, nuclear power emerges as the proverbial joker in the deck of power options—an option that is surprisingly infrequently brought into public discussions. Despite its potential as a game-changer, nuclear power remains in the shadows, often overshadowed by the more mainstream renewable energy sources. The question of whether nuclear power should be a more prominent player in the global energy landscape warrants a closer examination and a shift in the public discourse to explore its potential contributions and address associated concerns.
The term 'nuclear' invariably conjures a singular image in public consciousness: the haunting mushroom clouds that loomed over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The sheer horror and immediate aftermath of those events reverberated across the globe, unveiling a weapon of unprecedented magnitude. This was a creation akin to a deity's wrath, a force the world had never before witnessed. The profound impact was captured in Oppenheimer's infamous quote, invoking Krishna: "I have become death, destroyer of worlds," a chilling testament to the gravity of witnessing the destruction wrought by his own creation. The deployment of nuclear weapons on Japan to conclude World War II underscored the apocalyptic potential of these devices. This realisation prompted the global community to unite in a collective effort to introduce safeguards, mechanisms, protocols, and methods aimed at preventing, or at the very least minimising, the perilous prospect of civilisation's catastrophic demise. The spectre of nuclear devastation spurred a conscientious and collaborative undertaking to mitigate the existential risks posed by this unparalleled force.
The Atoms for Peace initiative ushered in a transformative era of power generation, harnessing nuclear technology for civilian applications. During this epoch, concerns about oil supply were not at the forefront, but the colossal potential of nuclear power was duly recognised and deemed substantial. In comparison to fossil fuels, nuclear power demonstrated superior power generation, cost-effectiveness, and an enviable emission-free profile. However, its widespread acceptance faced impediments, with the public perception tainted by post-World War II anxieties. Despite these challenges, certain nations wholeheartedly embraced nuclear power, as France exemplified, constituting a formidable 80% of its energy grid. Remarkably, France not only meets its domestic energy needs but also boasts the capacity to export surplus power to neighbouring nations.
The gradual ascent of nuclear power encountered a momentary setback with the Three Mile Island accident in the United States in 1979, where an unfortunate incident transpired at a nuclear power plant. Despite this setback, the geographical isolation of the site and the minimal structural damage, coupled with limited media reach, mitigated the incident's repercussions. Consequently, nuclear power received the green light, and from 1973 onwards, substantial developments in the nuclear power sector were notably scarce.
Another incident, indelibly etched in public memory and instrumental in shaping perceptions of nuclear power, unfolded at Chernobyl.
On April 25th, 1986, personnel at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant no. 4 were preparing for a safety test to coincide with routine maintenance shutdown at 1 am. The rationale behind the safety test is to determine whether, should the plant lose power, its turbines, which would be powered mostly by its own momentum, can keep spinning to generate enough power to keep the coolant pumps functional, to buy time for emergency services to get there with and setup a backup power source or take some other measures to mitigate a potential disaster.
Things came to a brutal head on April 26th, 1986, when the Power Plant experienced a catastrophic reactor explosion during the scheduled late-night safety test. The explosion released a colossal amount of radioactive material into the atmosphere, making it the worst nuclear disaster in history. The disaster resulted from a combination of design flaws, operator errors, and a flawed safety culture. The immediate consequences were catastrophic, with the explosion causing the release of radioactive iodine, caesium, and strontium, affecting a vast geographic area. The nature of the disaster and the unpreparedness of the Soviet team tasked with dealing with the accident exacerbated the issue, and before long, the accident was uncontained and resulted in catastrophic consequences for the nearby towns and, later, nearby countries.
In the midst of panic and bewilderment, the Soviet Union resorted to a familiar playbook, opting for the well-worn strategy of downplaying and, in some instances, outright denying the true scope of the Chernobyl disaster. The efficacy of this deflecting and denial approach began to wane when the Swedes detected elevated radiation levels within their territory, prompting formal inquiries. Faced with mounting evidence, the Soviet Union employed delay tactics to the utmost, withholding official domestic and international announcements. When the Soviet Union eventually released information, they persisted in employing KGB-style misinformation tactics. They reported an implausibly low death toll of only two, obscuring the true order of magnitude of the casualties. Downplaying the environmental and structural consequences of the disaster, they proceeded sluggishly to evacuate residents from nearby towns. Furthermore, the Soviet authorities actively rebuffed international offers of assistance while concurrently engaging in a campaign of manipulating and obfuscating data and information related to the accident when communicating with the global community. This orchestrated misinformation campaign contributed to a delayed and distorted understanding of the true extent of the Chernobyl disaster.
Placed within the historical context, the actions undertaken by the Soviet Union during that period, while perhaps unsurprising, reflect the challenges and complexities inherent in the waning days of the Soviet regime, even though the full extent of its fragility was not widely recognised at the time. Against the backdrop of the Cold War, an era where the presumption of guilt prevailed until innocence was proven, the international community's offer of assistance was met with suspicion by the Soviets. As a superpower, the Soviet Union was tasked with maintaining a formidable reputation, and acknowledging such a catastrophic accident on its watch would have entailed admitting to profound inefficiency and ineffectiveness—an admission the regime was evidently unwilling to make despite the evident shortcomings known to some insiders. The inability to concede to the incompetence and lack of preparedness among nuclear scientists, emergency personnel, and other involved parties in managing the crisis was part of an extensive face-saving exercise, tragically at the expense of numerous lives. It is imperative, however, that we refrain from the excessively harsh judgement of the Soviets during that tumultuous period. The Chernobyl accident was unprecedented and caught them off guard. The magnitude of the challenge was not dissimilar to the global unpreparedness witnessed in the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in significant loss of lives. In this light, the Soviet Union, grappling with the information available at the time, responded to the best of its capabilities. To their credit, as the severity of the situation became undeniable, the Soviets adopted a more transparent stance, driven by a dual motivation to salvage their reputation and the broader imperative of averting further catastrophe. It is noteworthy that the collapse of the Soviet Union ensued not long after the Chernobyl incident. Decades later, we observe ongoing efforts to rectify and improve, underscoring the tragic but transformative impact of the Chernobyl disaster on nuclear safety practices.
The Chernobyl accident stands as a catalyst for the comprehensive overhaul, improvement, and augmentation of safety protocols and operational standards in nuclear power plants globally. The imperative is to forestall the occurrence of another catastrophe of comparable magnitude anywhere across the world. Recognising the far-reaching implications of such incidents, the fallout extends beyond the borders of the affected country, necessitating a collective commitment to internalise the lessons derived from Chernobyl. In light of the interconnectedness of the global community, it becomes imperative for all nations to heed the profound lesson offered by Chernobyl. The shared interests in preventing and mitigating the repercussions of nuclear disasters underscore the universal relevance of the safety measures instituted in response to this tragic event. The Chernobyl legacy serves as a poignant reminder of the critical need for diligence, transparency, and continual improvement in pursuing nuclear energy.
While strides in scientific and technical advancements have been evident, and nuclear power has resumed its routine operations, the Chernobyl incident remains a persistent stain on the public perception of nuclear energy. Research suggested that public acceptance of nuclear power has not returned to pre-Chernobyl levels despite rebounding. On average, in Europe, for example, opposition to nuclear power immediately post-Chernobyl increased by ~24%. Even in the US, which was far removed from the tragedy, opposition to nuclear power increased by 5%, peaking at 49%, the highest in its history at that point. Although opinions moderated over time, it never quite recovered. The collective memory, encompassing Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and events like Three Mile Island, has created an entrenched scepticism among the general public. Convincing Joe and Jane Public," about the utility and advantages of nuclear power is a task fraught with frustration, leaning towards seeming impossibility. In the public consciousness, Chernobyl has assumed the role akin to the Babay in Slavic Folklore—a creature invoked by parents to instil fear and discipline in misbehaving children. In the adult realm, Chernobyl has metamorphosed into a symbolic Babay, akin to the bogeyman of Western folklore. The prospect of constructing a nuclear power plant is thus viewed through the lens of an impending disaster, with Chernobyl serving as the ominous spectre that could materialise and wreak havoc sooner or later. The deep-seated apprehension stemming from historical nuclear incidents has entrenched a perception that remains a formidable barrier to public acceptance and advocacy for nuclear energy.
The global momentum towards clean energy and the pursuit of net-zero emissions has propelled once-trendy energy sources, such as solar and wind, back into the forefront of public discourse. Alongside these, hydrogen power and the hydrogen economy have also gained prominence. The set targets are undeniably ambitious—from achieving net-zero emissions to phasing out gasoline cars by 2050. The breadth of these objectives reflects a collective aspiration towards a more sustainable and environmentally conscious future. Yet, amid the optimism surrounding these lofty goals, a pertinent question looms large—one that, as of now, remains largely unaddressed: can we realistically attain these targets given the current state of technological progress and trajectories? Opinions on this matter diverge, with some proponents expressing confidence in our ability to meet these ambitious objectives, while sceptics raise doubts about the feasibility of such endeavours. The dichotomy between optimism and scepticism underscores the complexity of the transition to cleaner energy sources and the challenges inherent in achieving net-zero goals. It is a discourse that demands careful consideration of technological capabilities, policy frameworks, and societal commitment to usher in the transformative changes required to meet these ambitious targets. As we navigate this crucial juncture, the conversation should evolve beyond aspirations to encompass pragmatic assessments of our current technological capacities and the necessary strides that must be made to realise these ambitious objectives.
In the discourse surrounding green energy and the pursuit of net-zero goals, a conspicuous absence prevails—the unaddressed 500-lb elephant in the room, namely, nuclear power. This mature technology stands as a potential remedy for the looming power gap, offering a clean and cost-effective alternative. Nuclear power not only has the capacity to fill the energy deficit we urgently require but also imparts valuable, unique skills that can be seamlessly transferred to benefit various industries. Simultaneous advancements in solar and wind energy, working in tandem with nuclear power, hold the promise of effectively closing the power production gap essential for achieving our ambitious targets. The challenge, however, lies in convincing Joe and Jane Public that nuclear power is not the Babay of folklore but rather a saviour. Overcoming decades of ingrained scepticism necessitates a fresh approach emphasising nuclear power's positive attributes and transformative potential in securing a sustainable, low-carbon energy future. It is an imperative shift in narrative, moving away from historical apprehensions to a renewed perspective that recognises nuclear power as an indispensable ally in our pursuit of green and net-zero objectives.
Thanks forr the well-written post. I am afraid that nuclear energy is one more case where people choose sides and only see the benefits of the side they support.
As an engineer working in the energy sector, I agree it is a very good candidate to help with the energy problem. And we most likely have come a long way in terms of handling the risks.
On the other hand, while everyone is concerned about the risk of another chernobyl, we are not concerned enough about the problem of nuclear waste. And that is not even risk, it is a certainty. We seem to have put that problem in the drawer and deliberately avoid talking about it.
Not to make this comment too long, as an engineer but also as a citizen, I would like to see a proper investigation that includes a proper risk assessment of the whole lifetime of a nuclear power plant and its effect after decommissioning, alongside a plan to mitigate those risks. If that assessment concludes that the benefits overshadow the risks and that the risks are under control, then we should go all in with nuclear.
Very interesting. Chernobyl was indeed a tragedy, not just to the people directly and indirectly affected by it, but also the development of nuclear power tech and public perception towards the so-called nuclear option. However, you’re right, in current and future discourse, we need to be able to exercise the nuclear option if we are to move away from fossil fuels towards a greener and cleaner future, but at the same time not completely discount the potential catastrophic consequences should we proverbially sleep on the job…