Panacea. Google defines panacea as a noun that describes “a solution or remedy for all difficulties or diseases”. There is no such thing as a panacea; you are exactly as likely to find a panacea as you are to see a unicorn. That doesn’t stop us from supporting some plan claiming it is a panacea or opposing it because it isn’t. Every choice has both benefits and costs. The trick is to adopt only options for which benefits outweigh costs.
A case in point, the wide-spread opposition to nuclear electricity generation. Opposition is based largely on fears of extremely unlikely events or failure to recognize that its benefits greatly outweigh its costs compared to fossil fuel power generation. Keep in mind some of the more important costs and benefits of power generation by all means are not easily measured in dollar terms and, in some instances, are felt far into the future. Granted construction, maintenance and fueling of all power generating technologies are very costly in dollar terms. I focus instead on the benefits and costs of nuclear versus fossil-fuel generation that are not readily measurable in dollars but may be far more important.
The blame for our aversion to nuclear power is at least partly due to an unfortunate coincidence that occurred in March 1979. The movie, “The China Syndrome” was released on the 19th. It depicted a purely fictional failure of a nuclear plant. Nine days later unit 2 of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant experienced a partial meltdown. To this day that is the most serious nuclear accident of any kind in the U.S. Whatever the reasons, many of us stridently oppose nuclear power because of an outsized assessment of its costs, mainly accident risks, with no consideration of its benefits.
The movie released unfounded fear and spurred anti-nuclear sentiment. The Three Mile Island accident released a miniscule amount of radiation, about the equivalent of what those living nearby would have been exposed to by a dental X-ray. No one died during the accident and subsequent deaths in the area have not been reliably connected to the accident.
Of course, around the world there have been very serious nuclear accidents, particularly in Chernobyl in 1986 and the Fukushima Daiichi accident in 2011. Two people died in the Chernobyl explosion with 28 more soon dying from acute radiation syndrome. Though no one died during the Fukushima event 573 later deaths were attributed to radiation release.
Here is a counterfactual highlighting the differences in mortality rates and greenhouse gas emissions based upon recent data. In 2021 U.S. fossil fuel plants produced about 2,500 terawatt hours (TWh, one TWh is one billion kilowatt hours) for which the death rate was 10,000 per TWh. The death rate from nuclear powered generation was just 90 per TWh. If only half of the fossil fuel production had been produced by nuclear plants, there would have been about 12.4 million fewer deaths. Greenhouse gas emissions would have been about 2.5 billion tons lower.
There are also huge geopolitical costs of relying on fossil fuel generation. Germany has shut down all of its nuclear power plants thereby increasing dependence on Russian natural gas. Furthermore, recently our “good friends,” the Saudis, cut crude oil production exacerbating inflation around the world, now 10.1% in the EU and 8.2% here. World-wide reliance on fossil fuel supports Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that is driving inflation not to mention the toll in death and suffering. Avoiding a cost is a benefit. Conversion to nuclear electricity generation frees us from costs of energy extortion by foreign oil producers.
The conclusion is obvious. So why aren’t we converting to nuclear power generation at warp speed? The answer is, of course, politics. Advocates for nuclear power face extremely stiff political opposition from very well-heeled fossil fuel interests. Others oppose nuclear power on technical grounds because of the risks and expense of mining the raw materials, disposing of spent reactor fuel and reactor accidents. Those are legitimate costs of nuclear power, though risks are minimal, especially compared to fossil fuel plants, as data above show. Recycling spent fuel rods for reuse is being done making waste disposal unnecessary, though not in the U.S. at present.
Nuclear power generation is no panacea because there are none. However, a full, unbiased assessment of the costs and benefits of nuclear power compared to fossil fuel generation shows the clear superiority of nuclear electricity generation for our wellbeing. For environmental and health and safety reasons and energy independence I urge that we go nuclear.
Patrick Taylor lives in Ridgeland.
