Groucho Marxism

The atomic nucleus is the small, dense region consisting of subatomic particles known as protons and neutrons at the centre of an atom. A nuclear reaction is a process in which two nuclei, or a nucleus and an external subatomic particle, collide to produce one or more new nuclei, releasing a massive amount of energy in the process. Nuclear power is the use of nuclear reactions to produce electricity, and is usually considered a safe and sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions. However the dangers of nuclear power were raised again recently when Russian forces occupied of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine. Although no radiation leaks have been reported, the occupation has highlighted the danger of such a plant falling into the wrong hands.

The world’s worst nuclear accident also occurred in Ukraine, at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986. The resulting explosion created a cloud of gas containing 20 times the amount of radiation realised by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Had the wind been blowing in the opposite direction on the day, towards the densely populated city of Kyiv rather than sparsely inhabited countryside, the human cost would have been catastrophic. The Chernobyl reactor was of a type which, rather worryingly, are still in operation across former states of the Soviet Union. Western observers attempted to pin the blame on features specific to Soviet communism, deliberately ignoring the fact that a similar explosion occurred 7 years earlier at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in the US.

In 2011, within weeks of the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe, a disaster took place at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan when an earthquake struck just off the coast. The earthquake cut off electrical power to the plant’s cooling system, but the diesel-powered back-up system kicked in as planned, so things seemed under control at first. However the earthquake also triggered a tsunami which easily overcame the coastal defences around the plant, putting the diesel generators out of action. This caused the plant’s reactors to massively overheat, ultimately resulting in an explosion which released a cloud of radiation into the atmosphere, just as with the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island disasters.

The nuclear lobby had claimed that the release of significant radiation was extremely unlikely at Fukushima due to the reactors’ failsafe design. (This is reminiscent of the claim that the Titanic was unsinkable.) When that was proved not to be the case, the nuclear lobby changed its position, claiming that even if a large amount of radioactive waste is released the danger to humans is acceptable. It is hard to counter this claim definitively as it is very difficult to estimate the human cost of nuclear disasters. Estimates of the number of deaths resulting from the Chernobyl explosion vary wildly: a UN report in 2008 estimated the number at 4,000, whereas other sources put the death toll far higher. But even if we take the most conservative estimate of 4,000 deaths, this can hardly be considered negligible.

Aside from people dying, there is also a long-term health risk caused by low-level radiation leakage. Again it is difficult to estimate the impact of this with any certainty. However a study at the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona estimated that radiation leakage from the Chernobyl plant will result in around 25,000 incidences of cancer by 2065. Another problem associated with nuclear power is that of storing toxic nuclear waste. To give an idea of the scale of this problem, 88,000 tonnes of highly radioactive waste had to be stored in the US in 2023. This material will remain radioactive for around 100,000 years. Nuclear waste is either buried underground or dumped at the bottom of the ocean. Neither of these methods is guaranteed to be safe and secure for 100,000 years.

In the face of the uncertainty surrounding the number of victims of nuclear accidents and low-level radiation leakage, as well as the unsolved problem of how to safely store nuclear waste, a precautionary approach seems sensible. Advocates for nuclear power argue we should press ahead as whatever the risks are, they will be small when compared to the devastation caused by global warming. This argument implicitly assumes there are only two alternatives available to us for energy generation: nuclear power or burning fossil fuels. But of course there is another alternative: renewable energy. It is often argued that renewable sources are too expensive and / or insufficient to meet our energy needs. I think this view is wrong-headed. I will explain why in a future blog post.