What do you think of when you hear the words “nuclear energy?” Does it conjure images of Chernobyl or Fukushima? Perhaps you think of nuclear weapons and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The point is most of the time, when someone mentions nuclear energy there’s a fair amount of fear associated with its use. That’s unfortunate because not only is nuclear energy extremely safe, it’s also carbon friendly.
Let’s take a closer look at nuclear power, explore the Sierra Club’s campaign to vilify it and discuss why nuclear is one of the best options when it comes to green energy.
Nuclear Energy
There are two kinds of nuclear energy: fusion and fission. A neutron collides with an atom (typically uranium) in fission, causing the atom to split and release energy. Further, the splitting of the uranium atom is repeated, called a nuclear chain reaction, resulting in heat. Currently, all nuclear power plants use fission. However, the downside of fission is that it generates unstable nuclei, which can be radioactive for millions of years.
Still, this type of nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during operation, and throughout its lifecycle, produces approximately 12 g CO2eq/kWh, according to the World Nuclear Association. That means nuclear energy from fission is better for the environment than wind and solar.
Fusion happens when two low-mass isotopes unite under intense pressure and temperature, releasing a significant amount of energy — fusion is the energy process that powers the sun and stars. Unfortunately, controlling fusion reactions is easier said than done, and fusion is not currently used.
However, if scientists can harness fusion, it has the potential for virtually unlimited low-carbon and low-radiation energy. Instead of generating long-lived radioactive material like in fission, fusion reactions produce helium, an inert gas, and tritium, a beta emitter (a radioactive element) with a half-life of 12.3 years.
Indeed, the idea of fusion is so promising that governments worldwide have teamed up to investigate the possibility of achieving ignition, a runaway fusion reaction that is self-sustaining, and thereby, a fusion future.
This collaboration has resulted in two main fields of study: Magnetic confinement, which uses magnetic fields to contain the hot plasma, and inertial confinement, which uses laser or ion beams focused very precisely onto a target that’s a few millimeters in diameter.
These areas of research have resulted in several notable projects. These include, but aren’t limited to:
- The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) — The world’s largest tokomak (a magnetic fusion device) superconductor, which scientists hope will be the first fusion device to produce net energy. ITER is currently under construction in the south of France and is designed to produce a tenfold return on energy, demonstrating the feasibility of future fusion power plants. Operations are projected to begin within the next few years, with full fusion in 2035.
- Joint European Torus (JET) — JET began operating in 1983 and is currently the world’s largest and most advanced tokomak. Earlier this year, JET produced a total of 59 Megajoules of heat energy from fusion over five seconds. While five seconds doesn’t sound like much, JET can’t run longer than that because its copper electromagnets get too hot. Importantly, this demonstration was great news for ITER, as ITER will use internally cooled superconducting magnets, allowing for longer reactions.
- The Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokomak (EAST) — Located in Hefei, China, EAST successfully maintained a high plasma temperature of 216 million Fahrenheit for 1,056 seconds in December 2021. This is significant, as fusion requires astronomically high temperatures.
- The National Ignition Facility (NIF) — Instead of utilizing a tokomak, NIF uses 192 powerful laser beams to focus on an area the size of a pencil eraser and generate temperatures of more than 180 million degrees Fahrenheit and pressures of more than 100 billion Earth atmospheres. This causes hydrogen atoms to fuse and release energy. In August 2021, NIF achieved 1.3 Megajoules of fusion energy; a significant step toward proving fusion ignition is possible.
The above is a small sampling of fusion projects pursuing ignition. But even if one of the above labs successfully achieved ignition tomorrow, fusion would still be years away from full-scale commercial production.
The earliest projection for fusion power hitting the grid is the 2040s. Nuclear fission, on the other hand, is already a stable and reliable form of green energy. So why aren’t we using it?
Demonizing Nuclear
In the 1950s, nuclear energy was projected to help eliminate poverty. President Eisenhower told the United Nations General Assembly on Dec. 8, 1953, that though the invention of the atom bomb was one of the most destructive forces ever developed, it also held immense promise.
Eisenhower stated, “The more important responsibility of this atomic energy agency would be to devise methods whereby this fissionable material would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind. Experts would be mobilized to apply atomic energy to the needs of agriculture, medicine and other peaceful activities. A special purpose would be to provide abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world.”
Following this speech, representatives from every nation rose to their feet and applauded for 10 minutes.
During this same period, the Sierra Club, which was and is the largest active membership environmental group, was urging nations to slow their population growth. The Club’s policy states, “Ending population growth in this country and around the world is an essential part of any effort to protect the environment, sustain the ability of the earth to support life, and enhance the quality of life for all human beings.”
However, nuclear energy promised fresh water, fertilizer and abundant food forever, resulting in population growth, writes Forbes’ Michael Shellenberger. Consequently, the Sierra Club viewed nuclear energy as a threat and started a campaign to frighten the public. They also hired lobbyists and filed lawsuits against nuclear developments.
“Our campaign stressing the hazard of nuclear power will supply a rational for increasing regulations… and add to the cost of the industry,” stated Sierra Club Executive Director Michael McCloskey. The Sierra Club’s campaign against nuclear energy is still active today.
The Sierra Club’s demonization of nuclear was furthered by the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and more recently by the Fukushima disaster in 2011 — but were these “disasters” really that bad, or were they hyped by media and the government?
The United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of atomic radiation from Chernobyl stated, “There is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident.” Thirty people died right after the Chernobyl disaster, and since then, there have been 15 fatalities due to thyroid cancers linked to Chernobyl. This number is current as of March 2022.
There were zero immediate deaths due to the meltdown at Fukushima. And since 2011, there’s been one death attributed to radiation sickness from the nuclear accident. Unfortunately, approximately 2,313 people died due to the government evacuation. These numbers are current as of April 2021.
On the flip side, new environmental research from Harvard found that in 2018, eight million people died from fossil fuel pollution. That means one in five deaths worldwide is due to burning fossil fuels like coal and diesel.
Furthermore, in 2013 NASA found that global nuclear power prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and prevented 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) GHG emissions from entering the atmosphere. It also found, “On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000-7.04 million deaths and 80-240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of unconstrained natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power.”
Embrace Nuclear
Nuclear energy is clean, abundant and cheap. It’s also reliable, and fission is available right now. Unfortunately, powerful environmental groups have actively sought to destroy the public’s trust in nuclear, and the government’s overreaction to past nuclear “disasters” helped those efforts.
That’s unfortunate because science shows that nuclear is not only helpful in reducing GHG emissions, but its use leads to fewer pollution-related deaths. Consequently, it’s time to reject powerful interest groups and embrace nuclear fusion and fission.
The above includes a brief look at the Sierra Club’s campaign against nuclear energy, but there is much more to this story. To learn more, check out Critical Masses Opposition to Nuclear Power in California 1958-1978, and Energy: A Human History.
