[Peace-discuss] We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal

[David Green]

We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New DealWe already have the
technology to stave off climate change, what we need now is the political
will to use it.
byEmmet Penney <https://www.thebellows.org/author/emmet-penney/>,Adrián
Calderón <https://www.thebellows.org/author/adrian-calderon/>
September 25, 2020
[image: A Russian nuclear technician checks a steam generator]
A Russian nuclear technician checks a steam generator. (Roman Denisov /
CC-BY-SA 3.0)

In July, presidential candidate Joe Biden released his climate and
infrastructure plan, “The Biden Plan to Build a Modern, Sustainable
Infrastructure and an Equitable Clean Energy Future
<https://joebiden.com/clean-energy/>.” From the automotive industry, to
infrastructure, to addressing racial inequality, to labor protections, to a
massive renewable energy build out, Biden aims to remake the American
industrial base, right past wrongs, and generate a gobsmacking 10 million
“good union jobs” in the process. For comparison, the Works Progress
Administration under the New Deal created 8.5 million jobs
<https://www.nytimes.com/1943/07/01/archives/wpa-pays-up-and-quits-turns-back-130000000-after-spending-10-12.html>
.

Biden’s capacious plan has raised eyebrows. Some believe it speaks to
his “deceptive
radicalism <https://www.ft.com/content/f207fc7e-2afc-407c-beda-6e7e38100739>;”
others rightly point out
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/20/joe-biden-has-endorsed-the-green-new-deal-in-all-but-name>
that
he’s “endorsed the Green New Deal in all but name.” Both Biden’s plan and
the Green New Deal rely heavily on “variable renewables” (i.e. wind and
solar, the output of which varies with the weather) to decarbonize the
economy. Renewables like solar and wind, which don’t create greenhouse gas
emissions, play a starring role in what is called an “energy mix”: a
combination of existing nuclear energy, variable renewables, hydropower,
and biomass <https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/>. Unfortunately,
the view of renewables as a naturally harmonious, carbon-neutral technology
is more romantic than scientific.

Take California as an example. Since 2001, the state has sought to replace
its fossil fuel energy with renewables. The subsequent instability of their
electrical grid caused blackouts
<https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/17/california-blackouts-expose-problems-in-states-transition-to-clean-energy/>
during
a heatwave this August; when wildfires broke out the following month, a
blanket of ash blotted out the sun in some places, cutting the state’s
solar energy output by one-third <https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063713459>
.
Any climate plan that doesn’t prioritize nuclear is destined to exacerbate
climate problems.

But the grid’s efficacy is only part of the problem. Energy in California
is incredibly expensive for ratepayers, despite the declining cost
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianmurray1/2019/06/17/the-paradox-of-declining-renewable-costs-and-rising-electricity-prices/#4311f37d61d5>
of
wind and solar installations. Since the state further expanded
<https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/breaking-news-california-electricity-prices-are-high/>
its
variable renewables portfolio between 2011 and 2019, consumer electricity
prices have leapt 30%
<https://www.theintelligencer.net/opinion/local-columns/2019/08/mandated-wind-solar-power-makes-electric-bills-soar/>
.

California could be a preview of what American life will look like if
Biden’s plan or the Green New Deal succeeds, but it doesn’t have to be this
way. Had California spent its money on nuclear energy instead of
renewables, it could have decarbonized by now
<https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/9/11/california-and-germany-decarbonization-with-alternative-energy-investments>.
That is why any climate plan that doesn’t prioritize nuclear above all
other energy sources is destined to exacerbate climate problems rather than
solve them.
Nuclear Superiority

Much of the anxiety about nuclear energy is due to the displacement of Cold
War-era fears
<https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-rise-of-nuclear-fear-how-we-learned-to-fear-the-bomb/>
of
military nuclear weapons. Fortunately, despite their shared history and
basic science, nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear energy couldn’t be more
dissimilar. Reactors from civilian plants don’t blow up like atomic bombs
<https://science.fusion4freedom.com/why-a-nuclear-reactor-cannot-explode-like-an-atom-bomb/>
and
nuclear waste isn’t a glowing toxic ooze.

Throughout seven decades of service, nuclear power has consistently been
proven to be safer <https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy> than
every other mass scale form of energy production. In one year, residents
who live near a nuclear power plant are exposed to less radiation than
anyone who has eaten a single banana
<https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/longform/what-know-you-go-bananas-about-radiation>.
Though it may sound counterintuitive, because elements such as uranium and
plutonium have such long half-lives, the radiation they emit is low enough
to safely hold in your hand. Nuclear is also far and away the most reliable
<https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close>
form
of energy generation in the US, which makes it ideal for providing baseload
power for the electrical grid. Nuclear reactors routinely spend years in
continuous operation. The current fleet of nuclear power plants have no
technical limits that prevent them from being in service for 80 years
<https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-reactor-much-longer-you-might-think>,
if not a century.
Waste from the entire history of American nuclear power can fit within an
area the size of a football field.

Many nuclear advocates
<https://grist.org/energy/nuclear-powers-big-new-idea-is-really-small/> direct
attention to the innovative (though pointedly market-based) nuclear
technology breakthroughs that always seem to be years away
<https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/nuclear-advocates-fret-as-first-maker-of-small-reactors-encounters-trouble>
from
commercialization and are dependent on massive, inconstant government grants
<https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/what-will-be-required-for-a-significant-expansion-of-global-nuclear-energy/>.
As impressive and potentially useful as these developments may be, many
existing reactors in the global fleet have capabilities that could be
considered “advanced” in and of themselves: the currently operating BN-800
plant
<https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Russian-fast-reactor-reaches-full-power-1708165.html>
in
Russia is a fast breeder reactor, which means it can use nuclear waste as
fuel, and the 1950s design CANDU reactor
<https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/14/720/14720546.pdf>
is
small enough to be considered “modular” and can also use unenriched uranium
or thorium as fuel. Nuclear power works now and works well.

Probably the biggest bugbear for anti-nuclear environmentalists is the
question of radioactive waste disposal. But not all nuclear waste is
created equal; in fact, most is composed of low-level waste (LLW) made up
of protective clothing, cleaning materials, equipment, and tools exposed to
neutron radiation. LLW accounts for 90% of nuclear waste by volume but only
1% of its total radioactivity
<https://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx>
and
can be disposed of safely and permanently. After about half a decade of
providing carbon-free energy in the reactor core, the uranium fuel itself
must be replaced. This high-level waste (HLW) is the highly radioactive and
long-living stuff that you see caricatured in popular imagination. Yet this
type of waste comprises only 3%
<https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx>
of
total nuclear waste. To put this in perspective, all of the waste from the
entire history of American nuclear power plants can fit within an area the
size of a football field
<https://environmentalprogress.org/the-complete-case-for-nuclear>, 50 feet
high—half the height of a single wind turbine.
Graphic provided by Erik Vogt <https://www.linkedin.com/in/erikvogtchicago/>

Meanwhile, weather-dependent renewables require 400-450 times the land to
produce the same amount of electricity as nuclear. Leveling an area of land
larger than almost a third of all U.S. states for energy production might
be an acceptable compromise to some, but it does not solve the
weather-dependent nature of those sources. Further complicating matters is
the fact renewable energy must be stored for later, which requires the use
of lithium batteries. But the sheer scale of mining and land use required,
and the fact that it involves the domination and exploitation of
predominantly developing countries, makes the choice not only inefficient,
but unethical. With the abundant uranium reserves already in the United
States today, we have the capacity to cultivate an industry
<https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/building-uranium-reserve-first-step-preserving-us-nuclear-fuel-cycle>
to
domestically fuel our reactors right now.
We are 100% funded by readers like you.Subscribe to our Patreon today to
keep the Bellows alive.SUBSCRIBE <https://www.patreon.com/thebellows>
The Nuclear New Deal

No nuclear energy program has ever launched without heavy state
intervention—the capital costs are just too high for private entities to
take on. The Biden campaign says <https://joebiden.com/clean-energy/> it
wants to rely on “innovation” and “rapid commercialization” to drive down
costs for nuclear energy, but that means praying to the gods of Silicon
Valley for rain.

The price-trolling is disingenuous. Other countries, especially those that
at least partially subsidize their nuclear industries pay
<https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-nuclear-power-plants-cost-so-much-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/#:~:text=The%20design%20and%20construction%20of,costs%2C%20which%20can%20become%20significant.&text=Because%20of%20its%20high%20construction,plants%20by%20the%20discount%20rate.>
l
<https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-nuclear-power-plants-cost-so-much-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/#:~:text=The%20design%20and%20construction%20of,costs%2C%20which%20can%20become%20significant.&text=Because%20of%20its%20high%20construction,plants%20by%20the%20discount%20rate.>
ess
<https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-nuclear-power-plants-cost-so-much-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/#:~:text=The%20design%20and%20construction%20of,costs%2C%20which%20can%20become%20significant.&text=Because%20of%20its%20high%20construction,plants%20by%20the%20discount%20rate.>
than
we do for nuclear. Russia’s Rosatom, for example, benefits
<https://www.rbth.com/economics/2015/02/27/why_electricity_from_russian_nuclear_power_plants_is_cheaper_41689>
from
its industrial capacity and experience, the two ingredients necessary for
cheaper nuclear production. Unlike most industries, innovation actually
makes nuclear more expensive. As researchers Michel Berthélemy and Lina
Escobar Rangel have pointed out
<https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00956292/document>, construction
costs can only be reduced by mass-producing identical reactors,
assembly-line style.

In order for this to work in the United States, the federal government
could consolidate the nuclear arms of General Atomics, General Electric,
Westinghouse, and others into a single public corporation. This federal
entity would be mandated to decarbonize the American electricity grid.

First, the US will need to commit to an industrial policy like those of
France
<https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Radiance_of_France_new_edition/8yl2BbxqFY0C?hl=en&gbpv=1>
 and South Korea
<https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/south-korea.aspx#:~:text=History%20of%20the%20nuclear%20sector,was%20established%20by%20the%20government.>,
which allowed them to create their own nuclear programs to manufacture the
necessary reactors. These reactors (and their plants) will need to be
standardized if they’re going to recoup the aforementioned benefits of
repetitive construction. A substantial number
<https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/what-will-be-required-for-a-significant-expansion-of-global-nuclear-energy/>
of
new reactors will need to be built per year, so American industry would
have to increase its construction capacity, especially to provide the
necessary heavy forging
<https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/environment/article/21946577/us-cedes-capability-for-largest-nuclear-forgings>.
Reactors already in service should undergo safety reviews that extend their
licensing. They should also undergo refurbishment and retrofitting with
technical upgrades to increase efficiency and safety. Alongside the reactor
buildout, a strong domestic fuel cycle industry
<https://cnpp.iaea.org/countryprofiles/France/France.htm> to provide the
uranium would need to be developed.

Second, the US will have to train a workforce. Staffing these new plants
would strain the capacity of the currently existing nuclear engineering
programs in both academia and industry, which need to pass along decades of
expertise to a new generation of nuclear workers. In the original spirit of
the National Defense Education Act of 1958
<https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf50/nsf8816.jsp#chapter3>, the federal
government should forgo market incentives and directly award government
grants to higher education institutions, vocational schools
<https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operator-licensing/licensing-process.html>,
and students in nuclear energy and related fields to scale up along with
the growing industry as quickly as possible. Not counting construction, and
taking the Diablo Canyon plant
<https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/business/article121404573.html> as a
model, an estimated 250,000 workers will be needed to operate some 230 of
these plants *in perpetuity*.

If the American rollout of its 21st century nuclear fleet is in line
with historical
nuclearizations
<https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/the-green-new-deal-and-the-legacy-of-public-power>,
the annual decarbonization rate should end up being 0.5% less than the 5%
per-year “carbon law
<https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2017-03-23-curbing-emissions-with-a-new-carbon-law.html>”
emissions reduction suggested by  the Stockholm Resilience Centre. This
steep rate would reduce the risk of blowing past our carbon budget to stay
under 2°C by 2050.

But the emissions reduction does not stop there. Once the energy grid is
nuclear and carbon-free, we could then turn our attention to producing
district heat, high-temperature industrial heat, and hydrogen and ammonia
production. We could also decarbonize transport and agriculture.
Decarbonizing electricity would only be the first part of a larger goal of
completely decarbonizing the US.

Since the 1970s, America has seen rapid deindustrialization, offshoring,
and an ever-strengthening sense of diminishing expectations. Plans that
rely on renewables speak to a waning sense of confidence in the national
ability to overcome problems. Whereas we once dreamed of a future of plenty
for all, many wonder how much will be left to go around.

But a carbon-free and abundant future is possible. We must commit ourselves
to an American Prometheanism, a commitment to persevere and excel through
even the toughest of problems by virtue of industry and pursuit of the
public good. A Green Nuclear Deal would be the realization of this dream.
AUTHORS
Emmet Penney <https://www.thebellows.org/author/emmet-penney/>
@dumbaristotle
<https://twitter.com/@dumbaristotle>
Emmet Penney is a writer and researcher whose work has appeared in Paste
Magazine, Popula, Invisible Oranges, Post Trash, and elsewhere. He also
co-hosts the ex.haust <https://exhaust.fireside.fm/> podcast.
Adrián Calderón <https://www.thebellows.org/author/adrian-calderon/>
@adrianeaux
<https://twitter.com/@adrianeaux>
Adrián Calderón is a writer living in Chicago.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20201004/931c642b/attachment-0001.htm>