Nuclear is Not the Solution
New book out by INRAG member M. V. Ramana on the folly of atomic power in the age of climate change.
In his book M. V. Ramana points out the problems with nuclear power and argues against its expansion.
Q: When did you actually write the book, and when did it come out?
It took me many years–the actual number is embarrassingly large–to write the book. Suffice it to say that I have been thinking about these topics since multiple reactors melted down at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The book was published in July 2024.
Q: Could you please summarise your main messages?
My main message is that expanding nuclear power production is neither a desirable nor a feasible solution to climate change. It is not desirable because expanding nuclear energy to mitigate climate change will inevitably result in a variety of undesirable risks and environmental impacts. All nuclear reactors, including small ones, are at risk for severe accidents due to their essential technological characteristics. The other undesirable result of a nuclear expansion is increased production of radioactive waste. Some of these wastes remain radioactive, and thus hazardous to human health, for hundreds of thousands of years. Despite decades of well-funded research, there is no demonstrated way to safely manage these wastes. Finally, should the global market for nuclear power expand rapidly, as proponents claim, then many countries that are currently without requisite capabilities will acquire some of the technical means to make nuclear weapons. Which ones will go on to actually build weapons will depend on political circumstances that are always changing.
Some would argue that these risks are to be tolerated because climate change is such a grave threat. While I agree that global warming is a grave threat, the argument offered by nuclear advocates does not make sense because expanding nuclear energy is not a feasible solution to climate change. The potential role of any energy technology in climate mitigation depends on two important parameters: cost and time. Nuclear power, today, is among the most expensive ways of generating electricity, especially when compared to the ever declining costs of solar and wind energy as well as those of batteries and other storage technologies. The high cost of building reactors is a key reason for the expansion of nuclear power essentially ending in the mid-80s. Nuclear capacity has been stagnant since then. The share of global electricity flowing in grids from nuclear reactors reached its peak in 1996, when it was about 17.5 percent; in 2023, it was barely over 9 percent. If one were to think about nuclear power as a solution to climate change, that share should be increasing while the share of fossil fuels must be decreasing. That is simply not happening.
The second parameter, time, is also critical. A nuclear plant takes at least a decade to go from start of construction to producing electricity. The requisite planning, regulatory evaluations of new designs, and raising the finances might add another decade. Further, investing in nuclear power means that there is less investment in renewables and serves the fossil fuel incumbency by causing delay and under-investment. Nuclear plants also occupy “grid space” and prevent renewables from joining the grid.
Some of these reasons are why organizations supporting nuclear power are often also deeply invested in fossil fuels and do not really want rapid action on climate mitigation. It is this larger picture that explains why elites support nuclear energy despite the well-known problems associated with the technology.
Q: What do you think about the argument that all available technologies are needed to fight climate change?
One constraint on dealing with climate change is the economic impact of doing so. Because nuclear reactors are more expensive, a country investing in nuclear power would be reducing its carbon emissions more slowly compared with a country investing a similar amount of money in renewables. In other words, there is an opportunity cost. Peter Bradford, a former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, captured this very well when he said, ” Those who assert that the problem of climate change is so urgent that we have to do everything … overlook the fact that we can never afford to do everything. The urgency of world hunger doesnt compel us to fight it with caviar, no matter how nourishing fish eggs might be. Spending large sums on elegant solutions (especially those with side effects) that provide little relief will diminish what we can spend on more promising approaches.”
Q: If nuclear power is not the solution, what is/could be the solution?
I would like to offer renewable energy technologies as the solution. But these are no panacea. This is because the climate crisis is a symptom of a deeper problem that cannot be addressed by simply switching energy technologies. Our economic system relies on unending growth with continuously increasing material and energy resource use. But we live on a finite planet. If we are to confront climate change, as well as the multiple, cascading ecological crises that are also related to our economic system, we should start on the process of effecting social and political changes that are compatible with our ecological constraints. Nuclear power is incompatible with the kind of social and political transformations needed to address climate change.
Q: What kinds of reactions have you received so far?
Overall, the reactions have been quite positive. There have been a number of reviews that spoke well of the book and I have been interviewed in a lot of outlets. I have collected these on the book’s webpage: https://sppga.ubc.ca/nuclear-is-not-the-solution/. I continue to update these.
In addition, various people that I don’t know from earlier, i.e., strangers, have emailed me appreciative notes. Examples are an Emeritus Scientist from the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and a musician who has written an anti-nuclear song called Nuclear Power Will Kill Us All.
Q: Do you have any suggestions how the message of the book could best be spread, especially with a view on its global significance? Are you (or like-minded colleagues) actively promoting the book’s message within the nuclear lobby / to newcomers who want to join the nuclear club?
We do what we can. So far most of the interest in the book has been in North America, in part because there is a lot of talk about new nuclear plants (even though there is not a single plant under construction as I write this). I have been invited to go to Taiwan because there is a debate there over the closure of its last nuclear plant.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/741210/nuclear-is-not-the-solution-by-mv-ramana/
Among others, the book was reviewed in The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/sep/04/mv-ramana-why-nuclear-power-not-solution-energy-needs