Grassroots/Hank Kalet

The Nuclear Debate

Las Vegas is in the midst of a record-setting heat wave. Phoenix, too, and much of the Northern Hemisphere. In New Jersey, we have suffered through a humid summer, interrupted by torrential rains that have done nothing to cool things.

It is hot and there appears little relieve in sight.

“Less than two weeks after the Earth recorded what scientists said were likely its hottest days in modern history,” The New York Times reported in July, “punishing heat waves are gripping much of the Northern Hemisphere.”

The record-breaking temperatures are being driven by emissions of heat-trapping gases, mainly caused by the burning of fossil fuels, and by the return of El Niño, a cyclical weather pattern.

Average temperatures world wide are up “about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since the 19th century,” the Times said, and will continue to grow hotter until humans essentially stop burning oil, gas and coal, scientists say. The warmer temperatures contribute to extreme-weather events and help make periods of extreme heat more frequent, longer and more intense.

We are in the midst of a climate catastrophe that demands action — a severe reduction in emissions and a change both in the way we use energy and in how we generate it. Conservatives in the Trump mold may not agree, but these are the facts. There is a scientific consensus that this warming is real and that it is doing tremendous damage.

Enter nuclear power’s supporters, a group that includes not just industry people but a growing number of liberals and progressives who see the atom as a way to move quickly away from carbon-based fuels. Bhaskar Sunkara, president of The Nation magazine and the founding editor of Jacobin, described nuclear power in The Guardian in June 2021 as “an idea whose time came and seemed to have passed, but may indeed have a future,” recognizing the historical opposition while arguing that it is misplaced.

Oliver Stone’s new documentary “Nuclear Now” argues that those who oppose nuclear power rely on caricatures and myths. His film, produced independently with “unprecedented access to the nuclear industry in France, Russia, and the United States,” according to its website (https://www.nuclearnowfilm.com/home#about), “explores the possibility for the global community to overcome the challenges of climate change and energy poverty to reach a brighter future through the power of nuclear energy.”

Others make similar cases — and rely on similar rhetorical strategies designed not to open dialogue but to undermine their opposition. Most of these arguments begin from the argument that wind and solar cannot provide the power needed to generate the electricity needed — “cannot” rather than “may not” or “is unlikely to,” a definitive “no” that shuts down other possibilities. And it is true that, at this moment, we do not have the wind and solar capacities to provide enough power to reduce carbon use, but it there is not a consensus as to whether ramping up spending on those renewables will plug that gap. Instead, nuclear power is presented as the only existing technology that can do this.

The other argument, that nukes’ dangers have been over blown and that, in any case, nuke plants have improved in safety minimizing their potential threat, treads the same fine line. Yes, nuclear power’s dangers — radiation fallout, the potential for meltdowns in reactors — have portrayed in apocalyptic language. But there have been clusters of increased cancers (especially of the thyroid), higher levels of radiation in food sources, and the environment at large — in areas where accidents occurred.

I’m open to these arguments but remain skeptical, due most likely to the images I retain from Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima — accidents that the nuclear industry and government officials had told us were not possible. This history colors my views, makes me question the kind of language, the certainty used to defend nukes today and to dismiss critics. They make it sound too easy.

Serhii Plohky raises these concerns in his book, “Atoms and Ashes.” He acknowledges that the “nuclear industry has indeed made a major contribution to our lives,” but questions whether the 10% of worldwide electricity it provides is a “game changer.” There are dramatic costs, he says, that undermine the argument for nuclear power. Simply, it remains far more expensive to build, operate, maintain and eventually decommission nuclear plants than it is to burn fossil fuels or generate power with renewables. This does not take into account how long it takes to win approval and build new plants.

Should this rule out nuclear power as a possible alternative to carbon-based energy? Maybe. The threat it poses is still real — the connection of nuclear power and nuclear weapons, political instability in some nuclear nations, the impact that climate change is having on weather patterns (remember, the Fukushima disaster was triggered by an earthquake and tsunami), remaining design flaws, human error.

I don’t have an answer. My gut says we need to find solutions that do not rely on expansion of nuclear power, but the accelerating threat of climate change makes it impossible to ignore. We have to have the debate, but it has to be an open one, free of rancor and the kind of biased rhetoric that has characterized it to date.

Hank Kalet is a journalist and poet. He teaches journalism as an adjunct at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ, and teaches writing at two community colleges. Email, hankkalet@gmail.com; Substack, hankkalet.Substack.com.

From The Progressive Populist, August 15, 2023

Populist.com