Marco Visscher is an award-winning journalist from the Netherlands. He was formerly a magazine editor at a bilingual alternative news magazine called The Intelligent Optimist. He has written extensively about climate policy and clean technology. His work includes interviews with prominent intellectuals such as Peter Singer, Lionel Shriver, and Francis Fukuyama. Until recently, he hosted the Dutch podcast Welcome to the Anthropocene.
What’s the big idea?
Nuclear power is an unusual technology that has been misunderstood from its beginning. The story of harnessing this energy is a tale of life and death, hope and fear. Within this narrative, myths have been perpetuated that now hold us back from a potential solution to some of the greatest threats of our time.
Below, Marco shares five key insights from his new book, The Power of Nuclear. Listen to the audio version—read by Marco himself—in the Next Big Idea App.
1. Enthusiasm about nuclear power was always exaggerated.
It was a time of warnings about depleting fossil reserves, leaders in the Middle East limiting oil exports, and the first news articles on rising carbon emissions and the possibility of a warming planet. Then came nuclear power: Clean! Modern! Cheap! In the 1950s, the first nuclear plants opened with grand promises that this was the future.
Throughout human history, we had known scarcity. Now, an abundant energy source loomed. Only one gram of uranium could produce as much energy as three tons of coal. In countries facing drought, nuclear plants could provide energy for desalination, eliminating conflicts over scarce water. They could power large-scale fertilizer production, ensuring fertile fields. Nuclear energy could fuel trains, ships, and planes. The possibilities seemed endless. A cigar lighter with an atomic pocket battery, anyone?
Not so fast. Some things proved more difficult to realize, but most importantly, believing a new energy source would be adopted without resistance was naive. In the 1950s, the fossil fuel industry was already so powerful it was hard to eat away a substantial portion of its business. Western societies were experiencing rising living conditions, allowing some to criticize or even ridicule the notion of progress and turn their backs on science and technology—without facing consequences. But most of all, it was foolish to think people would remain excited about an energy source that was introduced to the world in a bomb that scared the hell out of everyone.
2. Fear of nuclear power was always exaggerated.
Long before Chernobyl, there were fears that a nuclear reactor could not be contained: a simple malfunction or mistake could release invisible radiation, causing a spike in cancer and deformities. Storage containers with highly radioactive waste could burst. A reactor could explode like a bomb.
In Europe, these fears were popularized by Günther Schwab in his 1958 novel Der Tanz mit dem Teufel (Dance with the Devil). He founded the World Union for Protection of Life, which opposed the construction of nuclear plants as early as the 1960s. Historians have acknowledged Schwab’s significant role in shaping the anti-nuclear movement, and his book is seen as a “standard work on environmental protection.”
But Schwab was wrong. Of all the ways we produce energy, accidents happen in everything from mining resources to managing waste. When we tally deaths in kilowatts per hour, three sources are by far the safest: solar, wind, and nuclear power.
“The waste from nuclear reactors is well-managed and has never made anyone sick.”
A nuclear plant doesn’t emit greenhouse gases or air pollutants. The waste from nuclear reactors is well-managed and has never made anyone sick. The uranium inside the reactor doesn’t have the destructive power of a bomb. Safety measures are extensive, making accidents rare events. There’s nothing mysterious about radiation, which occurs in nature all around us. It’s easily detectable, and scientists understand its effects on our bodies. We now know that in the event of a meltdown in a typical nuclear reactor, the exposure to radiation among the general public is so low that it can’t do damage.
By the way, Günther Schwab was not a left-wing treehugger. He was a Nazi who joined the SA (a paramilitary organization) in the 1930s and became a Sturmführer. After the war, he remained a staunch supporter of eugenics, lamenting the “loss of prestige of the white race.” For his writings, he was regularly accused of racism. Schwab hated nuclear power for the same reasons some anti-nuclear activists do today: the loss of traditional life, our connection with nature, and the onset of a modern age for all.
3. In Fukushima, nobody died from radiation.
Fukushima has become a symbol of nuclear catastrophe, much like Hiroshima. On March 11, 2011—the day Japan was hit by one of the world’s worst earthquakes and a monstrous tsunami that claimed 20,000 lives—one of the nuclear plants experienced difficulties cooling the fuel rods in the reactor. This resulted in the meltdown of three reactors. Many witnessed hydrogen explosions on television, thinking, “This is what a nuclear disaster looks like!”
The big story of Fukushima is not what happened but what didn’t happen. People did not go to hospitals with acute radiation sickness. In two reports, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation showed there has been no increase in cancer, birth defects, or heart attacks. In fact, there has been no discernible increase in any health effects linked to radiation exposure. Nor does the UN expect such an increase because the radiation dose incurred by the population was, in the words of the UN, “low or very low.” The science says that nobody died from radiation released in Fukushima, and nobody will die from it.
However, UN scientists did find public health effects. More people suffer from depression, post-traumatic stress, obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, or alcoholism, especially among the tens of thousands who were told to evacuate, losing their homes, jobs, and sense of community. Years later, a study by several universities deemed the evacuation “excessive,” even “a mistake.” The public health crisis is not due to radiation but to the idea that a nuclear disaster must spell doom.
4. Don’t believe the industry hype about nuclear innovation.
You have probably heard that a wave of innovation is changing the face of nuclear power. There is much talk about small modular reactors and molten salt reactors using thorium. One design is perfect for coastal cities, the other for remote areas. Smaller, safer, more flexible—this is “advanced nuclear.” All these new reactors are cheaper and faster to build.
“The problems with nuclear power have nothing to do with technology.”
What message does it send when nuclear enthusiasts want to do things differently? They reinforce the opponents’ main point: today’s nuclear plants are flawed. It is as if there are fundamental problems with reactors currently in use, as if these are not advanced.
The problems with nuclear power have nothing to do with technology. The problems are between our ears. Innovation can be useful, but aren’t we being a bit naive if we believe the fancy PowerPoint presentations by start-ups looking for investors?
5. Now might be the right time for a nuclear revival.
Imagine that nuclear power did not exist: no atomic bomb, no Hiroshima, no nuclear plant, no Chernobyl. What if someone today figured out how to safely produce energy that would not pollute the air or heat up the planet by using a clean source available 24/7? What if that new energy source required few resources, which are available pretty much everywhere? What if it offered the possibility of reliable and affordable energy needed in poor and emerging countries to industrialize and prosper? And what if this source produced only a tiny bit of waste, better shielded from the environment than any other industrial waste, and even recyclable? Surely, we wouldn’t hesitate to develop such a mighty energy source.
To listen to the audio version read by author Marco Visscher, download the Next Big Idea App today:
