
Nuclear Energy Is Climate Justice - ericdanielski
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/nuclear-justice
======
chrisco255
"climate justice" is a charged term that's trying to piggy back on broader
social trends. It is not even close to constructive or scientific. It's
asinine. I'm all for nuclear energy. Not for the dilution of complex grey
topics like energy to be flattened into some sort of good vs. evil or right vs
wrong argument.

~~~
runarberg
“Climate Justice” is a _social_ scientific term. So if your focus is on
climate models given a current trend, focusing on climate justice is certainly
out of scope.

However, social scientists absolutely should focus on climate justice. And
policy makers definitely should bring social scientists to the table when
addressing policy to account for climate justice.

The climate disaster is disproportionately caused by a wealthy elite, and it
disproportionately affects poorer communities. An effective policy like carbon
tax could significantly slow the speed of climate change and potentially give
us enough time build these beloved nuclear plants.

Climate justice is simply asking the polluters to either stop polluting, or at
least to pay for their pollution.

------
taylorlapeyre
While I do agree with the premise of the article, my gut reaction is "tell
that to the community living in Hunter's Point in San Francisco."

That community has suffered from being around radioactive waste from nuclear
research for decades, with no real resolution. Regardless of whether that
radioactive material is because of (or relevant to) nuclear energy, I have to
imagine telling them "our solution to climate justice is nuclear energy" would
not get very far.

~~~
stingrae
For background Hunter's Point situation had nothing to do with radioactive
waste from a power plant. It had to do with careless handling of nuclear
materials following experiments. The Verge had a good video on this a couple
years ago,
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouzU08Byrwk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouzU08Byrwk)

~~~
taylorlapeyre
Right, no doubt about that. However, the perception of nuclear energy is just
as important for policy as the science of nuclear energy. Therefore, I think
gut reactions are important to discuss alongside the science.

------
korethr
Set aside any short-sighted focus on renewables über alles, or justifiable
concerns about nuclear wastes. Isn't part of the point of restrictions on
nuclear energy to have means of restricting nuclear weapon proliferation?
While the technology of a nuclear power plant and a nuclear bomb are not the
same thing, they are related. They have common technological roots and use
same or similar materials. Once you can refine the right elements to
sufficient purity and gather enough of that high-purity material in a single
location, you can kick of a fission reaction. Once you can kick of a fission
reaction, you are that closer to being able to do a couple different things.
You can use it as a controlled heat source for a power plant. Or, you can use
it for a runaway, all-at-once heat source to vaporize everyone in an area.
Iran claimed its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes. But I don't doubt
that Iran's leadership was also itching to glass Israel as soon they were
able.

Improving the energy situation and thus standard of living in various parts of
Africa may well reduce warlordism or inter-tribal fighting. But I'm not keen
on various conflicts in Africa escalating to nuclear exchanges. I can only
hope that those who would implement nuclear power in Africa have well
internalized the lessons of the West's sins and mistakes with nuclear tech.

~~~
runarberg
Not only nuclear weapons, but I’m also worried that if nuclear power plants
proliferate, we will start seeing deregulation and hap-hazard safety standards
that could lead to something like a nuclear scale Bhopal disaster. Not to
mention proliferation of nuclear waste which would really escalate in a world
where we can move these plants to an area with more lax standards.

------
rich_sasha
One thing I haven’t seen in this thread: so far, countries operating nuclear
power plants are mostly the world’s elite in terms of engineering culture.
Aside jokes about French cars or American approach to safety vs profit, these
are the countries that lead the world in engineering feats.

I’d be very cautious about extrapolating nuclear safety to the rest of the
world. And this is not a dig at Africans. In my native Poland, nuclear-free,
we have a lot of coal mines, some with very poor safety records. A number of
disasters happened when methane sensors were deliberately tampered with, so
that extraction could continue despite unsafe conditions. Both management and
front miners have been blamed for such events. What would happen when
operating a nuclear plant?

In both Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, there have been organisational
(political corruption?) issues as well that clouded the judgment in safety. So
abstracting from technical culture, would countries with lower standards of
governance do as well in keeping their reactors in top shape?

Maybe yes, and maybe even if not, that’s still better than coal, but I haven’t
seen this considered.

Not to mention, we usually assume the only way a reactor could be deliberately
damaged is via a terrorist attack. But in a proper war, don’t reactors seem
like pretty obvious targets?

------
scohesc
I know it's a bit of a aside, but somewhat related:

I wonder if the lightening of regulations has something to do with China
starting to gain a foothold in the African markets.

I wonder if the next first-world war will be fought in Africa.

~~~
mikece
While it's true that China has poured billions upon billions of dollars into
infrastructure projects in Africa, most of that has been done with the sole
purpose of getting to and extracting natural resources to send back to China
for manufacturing purposes. Just about every foreign investor in Africa does
so in order to obtain value of some sort, either economic or political. A
question which must be asked is whether the locals are truly better off after
foreign investments by the US, EU, Russia, or China or if they end up more
impoverished in the long run and with useless or dangerous infrastructure they
cannot maintain. There might not be a good actor in all of this.

~~~
grecy
I recently spent three years driving around Africa - I went through 35
separate countries and I saw a lot of what you're talking about. The jungle in
Gabon being smashed down, deep sea shipping ports in Cameroon, massive bridges
in Uganda over the Nile, power plants in Guinea, the new train line in
Ethiopia, etc. etc. I feel so strongly about this I wrote multiple chapters
about it in my forthcoming book.

The history and situation goes like this:

Back in the day the European powers enslaved the Africa nations to pillage
their resources. Decimated the people and the resources. Gave nothing back.

When the African countries got independence, the West enslaved them
monetarily. They all owe so much money from that they'll never even meet the
interest payments, let alone pay it down. That way we control them because we
can make them do anything we want, else we'll call in the loans, or kick them
off the global financial markets (cough.. Sudan) and cripple them
economically. They're not our physical slaves, but they are our economic
slaves. There's a reason Switzerland is the 3rd biggest coffee exporter in the
world despite never growing a single bean and Ethiopia is #11. [1] . Ethiopia
would love to change that, but the World Trade Organization won't let them.
Don't get me started on the countries growing fields of cocoa and palm trees
that stretch hundreds of miles for global corporations we know the name of.

Now China are coming along and building bridges, roads, power plants,
hospitals in exchange for very cheap mineral extraction rights. No doubt
they're stripping the land, but they ARE actually improving the lives of
ordinary Africans much more than the West ever did. That is a fact.

It's a shame what's happening to the wilderness, but we'd be hypocrites if we
didn't let them develop in the same way we have, given downtown San Francisco
and Vancouver used to look like Redwoods National Park.

[1] [http://www.worldstopexports.com/coffee-exports-
country/](http://www.worldstopexports.com/coffee-exports-country/)

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYm3TbVNf-o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYm3TbVNf-o)

(some (punk?) bands piece about that in 1980, has lyrics)

------
mips_avatar
If I had infinite Nuclear energy I would pump fresh water to irrigate northern
rockies. They are just getting drier and drier, the fires are going to
drastically change everything.

------
temp-dude-87844
This is the kind of pushback that's needed against ostensibly well-meaning
activists from privileged and prosperous countries trying to export their
worldview, never having had to face a comparable situation nor achieving a
comparable victory at home.

Africa's countries are facing an energy deficit, and weak central governments,
and distributed solar and wind cannot be their only option to prosper while
everyone else sees fit to trade carbon credits, plant some trees in some place
afar, and even contemplate the tremendous luxury of nuclear phase-out.

The US is smart to propose lifting this development ban. Russia and China have
no qualms about assisting African states with their nuclear energy programmes,
or at least dangling the suggestion that they are willing to do so: they are
enticed by the prospect of gaining economic allies that they may one day turn
into political allies.

~~~
runarberg
Africa is not a major contributor to the climate disaster, but is becoming an
ever more victim of it. I would say that suggesting that “Africa build more
nuclear plants” is exactly the kind of “privileged reasoning” you could expect
from a “well meaning activist” of a “privileged position”.

First a little reality check. If a country does not have the resources and
infrastructure to build a distributed system of solar and wind power plants,
it certainly does not have the resources to build a nuclear plant.

Second, there are safety and environmental concerns. Nuclear power
proliferation can not come at the cost of deregulation and laxer standards. A
poorer community with a weaker government is in ever more risk to be exploded
with a sub-standard facility. We have seen this happen in the chemical
industry (look at the Bhopal disaster, or Cancer Ally, Louisiana), and I would
rather not see this in the nuclear power industry.

And finally the climate disaster is happening at a pace where we simply don’t
have the time build the amount of nuclear power required to phase out fossil
fuel. Let alone building them in places with very limited infrastructure.

Building more nuclear power plants in Africa will contribute nothing in the
battle against the climate disaster. And I’m extremely skeptical that it will
result in any economical benefits for the vast majority of the population in
African Countries (except maybe in Nigeria).

------
jariel
"lifting a longtime ban on financing the construction of nuclear power plants
in developing countries."

Nothing will kill nuclear faster than having these built in developing nations
with political and operational instability.

Why do we think that that can't keep an electricity grid regular, will be able
to manage this? They will do that 'one little thing' wrong and it will end up
in disaster.

This is the paradox of Nuclear: if you build a safe kind of reactor (CANDU
anyone?) in a stable area, with stable political regimes (Canada?), with
excessive oversight, then, you're going to get the benefits of nuclear. (We
still have to figure out a few things and there is more work to do).

But the messy, poor places of the world who ostensibly need it the most ...
have too much risk.

In fact, it's not really a paradox at all: 'more power' usually means 'more
consequence' and therefore likely 'more responsibility'.

Why do we presume that 'high concentrated power', orders of magnitude greater
than the concentration of energy in Fossil Fuels, would be anything but 'very
dangerous'?

A society can only use the power sources its responsible enough to harness.

There has to be strong credibility in all the surrounding institutions to make
it work.

Also - 'terrorism' in all its forms has not gone away, some group 'hates' some
group somewhere, the theft of some dirty spent fuel, simply 'put' in NYC could
make city blocks a 'no go zone' for 100 years.

The worst thing we can do is build Nuclear power in Columbia or Morocco. At
very least, they could be built in 'International Zones' where the land is
declared sovereign (like a diplomatic house) managed by some other nation
literally troops from that 'other nation' can guard the place.

Of course, that has really ugly echoes of colonialism, and issues of
sovereignty etc., which is why it won't work.

It only takes one stupid dictator, wanting to 'grab it all for himself' to
build an insanely dangerous operation.

I'm very cynical about this move, I think it's just big business lobbying so
they can make money.

Instead of 'foreign financing' \- they should be spending on R&D for safer
reactors and fuel processing - as well as establishing rigid operational
guidelines and oversight so that 100 solid reactors can be built in the US.
With rigour in place, unit price can be brought down.

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
Who the fuck are you to decide what to build in Morocco, or not? When I look
at [0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco)
it looks rather civilised now. And has for long times, until western
colonialism meddled with it. Very rich history! They even have an expanding
high speed rail service operating at 200mph. Beat that!

Also: _Masters of Kif!_

------
noja
Yes, if you can guarantee that the system that underpins it is stable. That
means: political situation, economic situation, safety/checking mechanism,
engineering ability, and the ability for none of these to be compromised. Then
yes: nuclear energy.

------
misiti3780
Can anyone recommend any good books on nuclear power?

~~~
uranium
Are you looking for technical how-it-works stuff, or more
political/environmental things, including safety and waste disposal? For the
latter, I liked "Power To Save The World" by Gwyneth Cravens. For the former,
I've mainly kept up with the differences between new reactor designs by
wandering around the web.

~~~
misiti3780
i was looking for both - thanks for the rec!

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Being against nuclear energy, is like being against vaccines because of risk
of side effects. A lot of the anti-vaxxers have the same form of argument,
demanding absolute safety and talking up the rare incidents where people were
harmed, instead of considering the risks in context of what it is preventing.

Climate change if we can't control it, will end human civilization as we know
it and at best result in tens of millions of people dying and many more being
displaced. Compared to this, even a 100 Chernobyls would be an acceptable
risk.

~~~
runarberg
This is a gross oversimplification and simply wrong. There are number of
unsolved problems with nuclear energy, including:

* Safety – e.g. we don’t trust Iran to operate a nuclear power plant).

* Waste – There are some expensive solutions that can store the waste (and the problem) for the foreseeable future, but we lack a permanent solution.

* Time – Global warming is already out of control, we simply don’t have time to build all the new plants required.

* Cost – Nuclear plants are _really_ expensive, spending that money elsewhere is probably cost effective for the battle against the climate disaster.

A more apt analogy is probably GMO. Sure there are concerns about the safety,
pollution, and marketability of GMO product, but what grosses most
environmentalists about GMO is the false promise that GMO will safe humanity
from a potential food shortage. It doesn’t. Food shortages are a problem of
distribution, not quantity. There are other safer, cheaper and quicker ways to
solve the problems. Focusing on GMO is simply derailing us from talking about
actual solutions.

------
sam_lowry_
Bitcoin Is Climate Cancer

------
typeformer
Nuclear energy is dangerous, extractive, and wasteful. If Germany can make due
without nuclear the world can.

~~~
TomMarius
Germany is not making it without nuclear. They are buying power from abroad
(mostly coal sourced) and opening _new coal_ (!) and gas (less bad, but still
bad) powerplants. While they're a net exporter on average, averages mislead
and Germany buys _a lot_ of power during winter.

Nuclear is the least exploitative, least wasteful, least deadly and most safe
power generation method. Every other method is at least 10 times less safe,
more wasteful and more exploitative, going up to absurd amount of exploitation
and waste in case of solar due to low conversion efficiency and the
requirement of a large amount of rare elements and absolutely absurd amount of
required land _which should be nature and not solar panels_ \- think about all
the lost ecosystems when you drive past solar arrays (same goes for hydro,
which completely destroys water ecosystems).

[https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-
energy](https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy)

~~~
imtringued
Can you show me which part of this graph [0] indicates that Germany is opening
new coal? What about CO2 emissions [1]? Shouldn't they go up because Germany
is so dependent on new coal?

Okay, lets investigate the claim about Germany buying a lot of power during
winter. [2] shows that the seasonal variance in the renewable share is
reasonably low. There is one big 9% dip in November but that is about it. That
same site also has a nice export chart [3]. Germany did indeed import 1.2TWh
from France in December but what about the other months?

Amount of electricity Germany imported from France in 2019

January 130GWh

February 543GWh

March 962 GWh

April 848 Gwh

May 1.8 TWh

June 2.1 TWh

Juli 1.6 TWh

August 2.2 TWh

September 1.7 TWh

October 1.1 TWh

November 673 GWh

December 1.2 TWh

Well, I'm actually surprised by this myself. Germany imported very little
energy during Winter and a huge amount during every other season. Overall
french electricity imports make up 2.8% of energy consumed in Germany. In
terms of energy trade this is quite a significant number but in terms of
energy self sufficiency that is almost nothing.

[0]
[https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig2-gross-
power-production-germany-1990-2019.png?itok=b60n1-1q)

[1]
[https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...](https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/ghg-
emissionsgrafik-trend-1990-2019-nach-ksg-einteilung-0.png?itok=Htalj0Wh)

[2] [https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share_de.htm?source=ren-
sha...](https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share_de.htm?source=ren-
share&period=monthly&year=2019)

[3] [https://www.energy-
charts.de/exchange_de.htm?source=de_pf&ye...](https://www.energy-
charts.de/exchange_de.htm?source=de_pf&year=2019&month=12)

~~~
est31
> Can you show me which part of this graph [0] indicates that Germany is
> opening new coal?

Look up Datteln 4. It's one block of an existing coal plant that opened in
1964 with the other three blocks ceasing operation in 2014 and the new block
having opened this year. So it's not in your graph yet but even if it were I
doubt it would show up. Not much in the great picture, but still a sad symbol.

Agree with the other parts of your comment.

------
lsb
Nuclear Energy does not exist without severely controlling access to fissile
material, which is a strong police state.

Nuclear Energy does not exist without being aware of where the fissile
material is, and who is trying to get access to is, which is a strong
surveillance state.

The politics of Nuclear Energy are aligned with cops and surveillance.

Wind and solar power are sold at retail, plutonium isn't.

