June 10, 2019

by Dan McKeown

Nuclear power had the most effective marketing campaign of all time. The startling debut of nuclear bombs as dropped by the US on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in 1945 led to an unprecedented rollout of hype about atomic power that mostly never came to pass and is now finally collapsing as fission power generation continues an inexorable decline. America has seen only one new nuclear reactor go online in the last 25 years while Germany has pledged to eliminate all of its nuclear reactors. This wasn't the result that nuclear's numerous promoters have been calling for--during the 2000s Tony Blair and George W. Bush both shilled for new nuclear plants--and some of atomic power's advocates were self-styled "environmentalists." The problem with arguing with these people is that they, like much of the public, have accepted unscientific garbage and propaganda about nuclear as fact and see that as the starting point for policy discussions. The catastrophic risks of nuclear power, as seen in massive meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima, are just the starting point for discussing the downsides of nuclear energy. Rebutting lies like "zero carbon" and "environmentally friendly" takes time away from discussing the actual science--again, this propaganda has been so very effective at warping and confusing people, so the discussions all happen at the edge of the envelope. Nuclear is a long-running "big lie" where the exaggerations and falsehoods about the cost-effectiveness and safety are so audacious that many people's sense of personal incredulity that they would be lied to so shamelessly is manipulated in such a way that they tend to continue to believe lies despite evidence as a mechanism of self-protection. A look at past claims by the nuclear power industry is a good illustration of the willingness to lie under cover of awe at the splitting of the atom: how long has a viable fusion reactor been "30 years away?" How long has the promise of a "molten-salt reactor" been hyped up without any working commercial implementations? Once offered as a better alternative to coal, nuclear power will ultimately be swept away by the same market forces currently ending the centuries-long centrality of coal in powering the Industrial Revolution. As nuclear can't compete with renewables like solar and wind power on cost without subsidies, more governments are likely to abandon the costly industry. America's aging fleet of around 100 plants will inevitably thin out over the next few decades but for the people living within fallout range of plants built along the sea or on fault lines the decommissioning likely can't come soon enough--not that shutting plants down does anything about the spent fuel. The terrifying implications of nuclear waste generated by so many plants is often left as an afterthought. But the long-running talk of moving all of America's nuclear waste to a facility in Yucca Mountain, Nevada (never a well thought out concept) seems to have quieted down and radiactive waste continues to be stored in all sorts of sketchy facilities around the country. New Mexico was long the site of major nuclear events, from the World War II era Manhattan Project setting off the "Trinity" nuclear bomb test to Los Alomos to the vast underground nuclear storage facility used for Defense-related waste. But it isn't all there--look at the island in the Pacific where rising sea levels threaten the integrity of the concrete dome that covers nuclear debris left over from the testing done in the area by the United States in the early Cold War. The futility and danger of suggesting nuclear energy as a solution to climate change couldn't be better illustrated.