Why aren't we relying on nuclear power? (with Isabelle Boemeke)

Nuclear energy is crucial because global electricity consumption is rising significantly, especially with advancements like AI. While solar, wind, and hydro are clean, they are intermittent and geographically dependent, making them insufficient to meet constant, large-scale energy demands without extensive and costly storage and transmission infrastructure.

Solar and wind are intermittent, meaning they don't produce power consistently (e.g., sun doesn't shine at night, wind doesn't always blow). Storing enough electricity from these sources for extended periods (days or weeks) requires massive battery overbuild and extensive transmission grids, making a renewables-only system technically complex and extremely expensive.

While nuclear projects in the U.S. have been expensive and delayed (e.g., Vogtle units), this is partly due to a lack of continuous building for 30 years, leading to lost expertise and first-of-a-kind costs. Other countries like China build competitive nuclear plants quickly, demonstrating that it's technically possible to reduce costs and build times with consistent practice and standardization.

Regulations play a role, especially when they change mid-project, as seen after the Three Mile Island accident. However, recent U.S. projects like Vogtle were also expensive due to a lack of experience and construction errors. Regulations, while adding cost, are also critical for making nuclear one of the safest ways to produce electricity, similar to aviation safety standards.

The anti-nuclear movement in the 1970s certainly played a significant role, but it was one of many factors. Other influences included the 1970s oil shock, the fragmented private utility structure in the U.S. (unlike government-led programs in France), and high-profile accidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, which amplified public fear already linked to nuclear weapons.

Chernobyl, the worst nuclear accident, had 59 confirmed immediate fatalities, with an estimated 20,000 thyroid cancer cases and about 4,000 premature deaths overall. This is tiny compared to the 200,000 deaths from a single hydropower dam collapse in China (1979) or the 4 million annual deaths globally from air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels.

According to data from 'Our World in Data,' nuclear power is as safe as solar and wind, and even slightly safer than hydropower when considering historical accidents. While nuclear accidents make headlines due to their dramatic nature, the actual fatality rates are very low due to stringent safety measures and continuous learning from incidents.

Nuclear waste is not a glowing green goo but solid pellets, very compact and contained. It's initially stored in deep 'spent fuel pools' where water blocks radiation, then transferred to large concrete casks that are highly resistant to damage. The amount of waste is small; a person's lifetime energy from nuclear would fit in a soda can.

No, fusion power is currently an experimental technology that requires immense energy inputs to recreate sun-like conditions. While recent lab experiments have achieved net energy gain, it will likely take 40-50 years to develop a commercially viable product. It is a mistake to consider it an existing technology or a near-term replacement for fission.

The two biggest barriers are a lack of focus, meaning a fragmented approach where different entities build different reactor designs without achieving scale, and challenges with financing, as utilities risk their entire balance sheets on these massive projects. Overcoming these requires significant coordination and de-risking financial investments.