Last Thursday I was fortunate enough to catch the screening of Pandora’s Promise in Dana Auditorium and the star-studded panel discussion that followed. The film offered an engaging narrative that provides an argument for nuclear energy that I’m sure supporters of the technology have been waiting for. Pandora’s Promise makes nuclear power seem sexy: clean, efficient and edgy. But, as the tension that filled the air during the panel discussion implied, the future of fission as a player in our energy mix — to say the least — is a touchy subject.
Director Robert Stone’s film tries very hard to debunk some of the main sticking points opponents to nuclear energy have held on to over the years. The film argues that nuclear power is far cleaner than any of the energy sources that make up substantial portions of our national energy mix (read: coal, oil, and natural gas), harmless in terms of the supposed health effects of background radiation and ready to meet our world’s energy needs as we transition into a fossil-fuel-free future. Stone’s story is driven by the testimonies of converted opponents of nuclear energy and gives detailed looks into the science behind the technology at play in the present generation of nuclear reactors. Many will certainly notice how little effort the film makes to address some of the more pressing criticisms of nuclear technology — namely, its cost — but charitable addresses of the opposition notwithstanding, the big question the film leaves unanswered is how big of a role nuclear power can realistically play in a renewable future.
One of the main criticisms that came out during the panel discussion in which Middlebury’s own Schumann Distinguished Scholar Bill McKibben took part concerned the expense associated with nuclear energy. Building nuclear power plants isn’t cheap and resources put towards nuclear development are resources taken away from that of other renewables like wind and solar. An interdisciplinary study published by MIT concluded that nuclear energy isn’t cost competitive with fossil fuels, but becomes more competitive if price is corrected by taking into account the social cost of carbon. It also specifies that once-through reactors (the conventional type that put out a lot of stuff we have to bury away in the ground) are more cost-effective and safe than thermal and fast reactors running on less wasteful closed-cycles. Further complicating the judgment on nuclear, the US Energy Information Administration identified the levelized capital costs of one megawatt hour for new for new electricity plants to be roughly equal to that of coal plants with carbon control and storage technologies, and far cheaper than offshore wind and solar (but more expensive than land-based wind operations, which bested coal as well). So it might seem like nuclear might be doing alright for itself after all in terms of the economics of energy.
What worries me more is the consideration of whether or not we live in a world that’s politically ready for large-scale implementation of nuclear energy. In industrialized countries, we might find fewer worries regarding the possibilities of nuclear plants becoming targets, or the development of nuclear grids leading to the development of nuclear arsenals. But in regions of greater political instability and conflict, throwing fission reactors into the fray as potential targets in countries with volatile power structures seems a bit more dangerous than giving them solar panels or windmills. We live in a world where we still have trouble getting along with one another on the national, much less international scene. The carbon footprint of the developing world is important, but we might want to consider whether large-scale nuclear development is appropriate for all parts of the globe.
However, I don’t think we should eliminate the potential role of nuclear power as a contributor to a cleaner future close to home. The technology will only get better so long as we continue to give it research attention and as much as I’d like to think that solar and wind can feed our country’s energy needs on their own, it’s unclear when photovoltaics and wind will scale up to the level required to completely phase out fossil fuels. Another consideration is importantly related to the last — whatever choices we make considering viable sources of energy will have to be made with the needs our society will and should have in the future. Unless we decide that decentralization of the grid is the way to go, whatever energy sources we commit to will need to meet the full needs of our economy. The question of what constitutes those needs is the subject of a value judgment that I think we have, at least up to this point, struggled to find an answer to. Keeping our options open until we answer that question might prove prudent.
Comments
