The Nuclear Energy Trap

Nuclear power plants are directly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

Actually, nuclear power plants are unable to withstand the effects of global warming. However, this is just the first of many significant problems associated with the recent surge in global enthusiasm for nuclear energy. This blog post delves into the prospects of nuclear energy as a solution for combating global warming, questioning whether it might actually end up being negatively affected by it.

The global community is increasingly turning to nuclear power as a potential remedy for the alarming issue of global warming. This problem has been making headlines, having adverse effects such as causing rivers used for commerce to dry up, depleting significant reservoirs, and triggering uncontrollable wildfires. However, these are just a few examples of the consequences of global warming. Alarmingly, the situation is deteriorating each year, leading some individuals to question how much worse it can get before the Earth's climate system collapses, surpassing even the most extravagant scenarios depicted in Hollywood movies.

As a result, the growing acceptance of nuclear power is closely linked to the escalating global temperatures. The more the mercury rises, the more converts are attracted to this cause. However, there are numerous grounds to doubt its viability and consider it a misguided utopia. Perhaps in the future, this global push for nuclear energy will be seen as one of the greatest follies in history. Nevertheless, the momentum behind embracing nuclear energy continues to accelerate without encountering significant resistance. Maybe it's about time that opposition arises to scrutinize its implications.

According to a recent survey conducted by Gallup, the majority of adults in the United States, specifically 55%, are in favor of nuclear energy, marking the highest level of support in more than ten years. Recognizing its potential to combat climate change and achieve net-zero emissions, the Biden administration sees nuclear power as an important solution. In Japan, the government has decided to restart its previously dormant nuclear plants and even intends to construct more, despite the controversial decision to release stored radioactive water from the TEPCO nuclear plant in Fukushima directly into the nearby Pacific Ocean, causing concerns among neighboring countries and raising objections from many knowledgeable scientists. In the meantime, China's ambitious plans include the construction of 24 nuclear energy plants, while they aim to build a staggering 150 new reactors within the next fifteen years. Similarly, India has its sights set on commissioning 20 reactors by 2031. The construction of 60 new reactors is currently underway worldwide.

The use of nuclear power is gaining momentum at a time when an increasing number of cancer cases and fatalities are becoming widely known to the public.

Over time, Fukushima's statistics will mirror the data, frequently involving the second, third, or even fourth generations.

According to the organization Chernobyl Children International, Ukraine witnesses the birth of around 6,000 infants every year who suffer from congenital heart abnormalities known as "Chernobyl Heart."

The latest trend in nuclear power is the rise of Small Modular Reactors, which are set to be constructed and implemented worldwide. This means that nuclear energy could be readily available at all mining sites, on every ship, and even at popular shopping malls or telephone booths. Visualize a world where small nuclear power plants are abundant! However, this scenario may pose challenges once unforeseen issues arise.

Meanwhile, the progressive faction in America has embraced the idea of nuclear energy wholeheartedly. The ultimate proof of their newfound support for nuclear power lies in California, a state known for its strong anti-nuclear stance. Surprisingly, California has chosen to prolong the operation of its final nuclear power facility, Diablo Canyon reactor, instead of shutting it down. This change in allegiance towards nuclear power has caught the attention of National Public Radio. On August 30, 2022, they aired a report titled "Why Environmentalists are Backing Nuclear Energy."

However, it is important to take into consideration the opposing viewpoint towards nuclear energy that cannot be disregarded: "Society's intricate and interconnected nuclear reactor systems inherently contain numerous and unforeseen failures. These accidents are unavoidable and cannot be mitigated through design." (Charles Perrow, Normal Accidents, Princeton University Press, 1999)

The immense and enthusiastic enthusiasm surrounding nuclear energy is a deceptive trap. This is mainly due to the fact that reactors and global warming do not coexist harmoniously. They are conflicting forces, each with the potential to harm and undermine the other. Global warming acts as a formidable adversary to nuclear energy, with its intentions set on its destruction by causing the depletion of river resources and the overheating of ocean waters. As sea levels rise and relentlessly crash onto coastal reactors like the incident in Fukushima, the survival of these installations solely relies on the availability of cooling waters. However, the escalating ocean surges pose significant challenges and damages to these reactors. They simply cannot withstand periods of drought, which is one of the most effective weapons employed by global warming.

The truth about the vulnerability of nuclear energy is explained in a recent interview with Dr. Paul Dorfman, a renowned expert in the field. Dr. Dorfman, who has extensive experience in nuclear consulting and scientific advisory committees, emphasized the risk nuclear power faces due to climate change. He noted that nuclear power plants require access to large bodies of water for cooling purposes, either in coastal areas or near rivers and water sources. However, rising sea levels are faster than anticipated, while inland rivers are warming and may potentially dry up or face flooding and inundation. Coastal nuclear plants are particularly susceptible to storm surges, where high tide coincides with extreme weather conditions, similar to what occurred in Fukushima. (Source: Interview with Dr. Paul Dorfman, Nuclear Energy Is Already a Climate Casualty, Hot Globe, July 19, 2023)

In the past few years, nuclear power plants in Northern Europe have had to close or decrease their production due to the excessive warmth of seawater, which posed a risk to cool down the reactor cores safely. In the last ten years, the Millstone energy plant in Connecticut experienced multiple closures during scorching summer days, until regulators decided to raise the acceptable temperature limit of its cooling waters by 5 degrees Fahrenheit.

France serves as a case study for the failures of nuclear energy. A recent report from the French Court of Auditors shed light on the precarious situation surrounding the supply of water required to cool the country's 56 reactors. This issue raises concerns about the stability and safety of France's nuclear fleet, and how climate change and water scarcity exacerbate these challenges.

In France, the longest river in the country is the Loire River, spanning 625 miles. By early 2023, the river had been severely impacted by global warming, leading to certain areas drying up completely and a drastic decrease in its flow rate, which now stands at only 1/20th of its normal rate. This is concerning because some of the country's nuclear energy plants rely on the river for cooling purposes. So far, these plants have only been forced to shut down during the summer months. However, France's Court of Auditors has issued a warning, stating that unless global warming subsides, these forced shutdowns are likely to occur 3-to-4 times more frequently. Unfortunately, France's environmental minister believes that the country is heading towards a 4°C increase in temperature due to global warming. Additionally, for the first time since 1980, France has become a net importer of electricity. This signifies a significant shift, as France has been a net exporter of electricity for the past 40 years, thanks to its renowned nuclear energy capabilities which provided 70% of the country's electricity. Yet, these capabilities have been greatly impacted by the effects of global warming.

Given that traditional nuclear reactors, which are water-cooled and make up 95% of the 436 reactors worldwide, are at risk from the effects of global warming, can a molten salt reactor be considered a miraculous remedy?

No, it isn't!

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists recently released an in-depth study on molten salt reactors called "Molten Salt Reactors Were Problematic in the 1960s – and Continue to Pose Challenges Today," which was published on June 20, 2022. This comprehensive article examines the historical attempts to develop molten salt reactors since the 1950s. Several different approaches to experimentation were explored, but unfortunately, they encountered numerous obstacles. One particular passage highlights this ongoing issue: "These challenges persist. Even to this day, no substance can effectively withstand the highly radioactive, high-temperature, and corrosive conditions within a molten salt reactor. In 2018, scientists at the Idaho National Laboratory conducted a thorough review of various materials and ultimately concluded that 'a systematic development program should be initiated.' In simpler terms, even fifty years after the discontinuation of molten salt reactors, technical experts are still uncertain about the advancement of materials for a new design."

To sum up, according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, building molten salt reactors is not a reliable option. It would pose numerous risks to safety and security, as well as create multiple types of waste that would need complex handling and proper disposal methods. Consequently, the Bulletin advises against investing in molten salt reactors due to their high costs and the extensive effort required.

Could Small Modular Reactors ("SMR") be the saviors if traditional large-scale reactors fail?

As per a recent publication in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in 2021, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are still in their initial phase of development and can be considered as technologies that are not yet proven. It will require a minimum of ten years to bring them from conceptualization to actual production, and even longer to evaluate their effectiveness as per the intended design. Unfortunately, this slow and expensive process may not align well with the time-sensitive requirements to combat climate change.

A recent study by Stanford News has discovered that small modular reactors (SMRs) will make the already challenging issue of highly radioactive nuclear waste even worse. According to the study, SMRs will produce a greater amount of radioactive waste compared to traditional nuclear power plants. The researchers found that the volume of nuclear waste that needs to be managed and disposed of will increase by 2 to 30 times for the SMRs examined in their case study.

An examination conducted by Bent Flyvbjerg, a renowned scholar specializing in the accomplishments and failures of large-scale projects, analyzed more than 100 mega projects. The analysis, titled "Nuclear Fallacy: Why Modular Reactors Cannot Compete With Renewable Energy," was published on Cleantechnica on February 18, 2023.

Well, considering the immense demand for nuclear energy, are there any contemporary "innovative" nuclear reactor concepts worth exploring?

No, based on a study conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists called "Report Finds That 'Advanced' Nuclear Reactor Designs Are No Better Than Current Reactors— and Some Are Worse" on March 18, 2021, it has been concluded that none of the three types of reactors mentioned in the report - sodium-cooled reactors, molten salt-fueled reactors, and high-temperature gas-cooled reactors - adequately meet the criteria of being safer, more secure, and posing a lower risk of nuclear proliferation and terrorism when compared to the existing fleet of nuclear reactors. The comprehensive report, consisting of 140 pages, provides detailed analysis and research on this matter.

Moreover, the study examined unverified assertions that developers are making regarding designs and the lack of substantial evidence to support their claims. As an example, Bill Gates has stated that the 345-megawatt Natrium will generate less nuclear waste and be safer compared to traditional light-water reactors. However, according to the UCS report, the sodium-cooled fast reactor Natrium is not as efficient in terms of uranium usage, and it will not actually decrease waste production. Moreover, it is prone to significant safety issues that are not present in conventional light-water reactors. For instance, the sodium coolant utilized in Natrium has the potential to ignite when in contact with air or water, and its fast-reactor may undergo uncontrolled surges in energy, ultimately leading to rapid core melting - a major drawback of nuclear energy.

The timing aspect is a major hurdle for modern designs, as indicated by the Union of Concerned Scientists. To comply with the requirements set by federal regulators, it may take up to two decades and a considerable sum of money to make non-light-water reactors, fuel cycle facilities, and related infrastructure commercially viable. Time is of the essence when it comes to meeting the urgent need to achieve net zero emissions, as global warming does not wait for solutions. It is rapidly accelerating, as highlighted by Dr. James Hansen from Columbia University, who states that Earth's energy imbalance has significantly increased. Hansen's calculations suggest that reaching a temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius is a real possibility in the near future. This raises the important question: How much time is required for the planning, approval, construction, and activation of a nuclear reactor? Well, that remains uncertain.

To sum up, the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests: "The Department of Energy and lawmakers should contemplate allocating additional funds towards enhancing the safety and protection of conventional water-cooled reactors, instead of investing in unripe and excessively praised alternative reactor designs."

In typical situations involving highly challenging scenarios related to nature, finding simple solutions is rare but there are numerous pitfalls to be cautious of. In this context, should we consider nuclear energy as a deceptive tactic that further aggravates the issue of catastrophic global warming?