A couple of weeks ago, just as I started researching an upcoming series on nuclear energy, a book on the history of nuclear power landed in the vicinity of my desk. It was extraordinarily convenient. Up until recently, my knowledge of nuclear was marked by the names of accidents and today’s soundbites of politicians calling for nuclear energy as part of a “clean energy mix.”
It wasn’t hard to get into reading Stephanie Cooke’s “In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age.” Cooke has worked as a writer for the industry for many years, and she is adept at weaving stories into the greater fabric of nuclear’s history. She chronicles the Manhattan Project and isolated cities of nuclear scientists, the Cold War and backdoor dealings of countries swept up in the nuclear arms race, Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” and electricity “too cheap to meter.”
You can guess what Cooke’s perspective on nuclear is from the subtitle of her book. She writes, “I started out as a believer in nuclear energy… having little understanding of the relationship between the civilian side of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Gradually my views changed.”
Cooke characterizes nuclear as a highly scientific weapons project gone out of control. Starting with the Manhattan Project, scientists developing the atomic bomb were so focused on their work, so caught up in the pursuit of science, that few of them stopped to think of the implications of the bomb. Or if they did, they were willing to make justifications. A small number walked away from the project.
Once the goal of ending the war was accomplished, more powerful and fearful bombs were be built and tested – with a worldwide audience. Cooke describes Operation Crossroads, a series of bomb tests held in the South Pacific, which she sees as the beginning of the postwar atomic era. Viewed directly by representatives from around the world, The expense put towards this spectacle (including a fleet of boats filled with goats and rodents to measure the impact), as well as the ignorance about radiation (Navy sailors started cleaning the ships’ decks about 40 minutes after the blast, shirtless), and the lengths the military was willing to go in order to complete the operation (moving the atoll’s entire population to another island, blasting off coral heads in order to fit the ships) was quite shocking. Certainly, we live in a very different age now.
But the main thing I took away from the book was the absence of communication between scientists, politicians, and the public. Politicians were making decisions about nuclear weapons without knowledge about the implications, scientists lived in cities cut off from the public due to atomic secrecy, reports on tests were edited and withheld, and the public didn’t know whether to feel fear or complacency. And advocates of nuclear were able to sequester enormous amounts of money to build bombs which were intended never to be used.
Cooke characterizes nuclear power as an afterthought of the weapons program – a way to make this expensive endeavor useful to the public. She has a particularly thorough chapter on Chernobyl, which put a big dent in nuclear power’s aspirations for the past 20 years.
So what does this all mean for today’s nuclear renaissance? I’m not quite sure. Certainly, nuclear’s dangerous history provides plenty of fodder for the opposition. But it’s also true that many bright scientists, with less of a tie to weaponry than the previous generation, have been working to make nuclear safer and smarter than it has been in the past. Now, we have to look at nuclear with a perspective on our energy needs, costs, and comparisons to other renewable energy sources. As nuanced and difficult as the energy business can be, one thing is clear: the future of our energy won’t stem from an easy decision, or an easy action.
Interesting piece. Nuclear power, like fire, can be used for good or evil.
I have worked in four separate nuclear power plants and on two nuclear waste sites. Once one works in the industry a while, one realizes that much that passes for news on the subject is propaganda and has little to do with the truth.
If folks truly want to cut our dependence on hydrocarbon fuels ( and that will include the electric car and train) one must at least take a look at nuclear power. It is the only known way to make enough power in a small enough place to be useful. It is clean and safe. the plants are expensive to build but last a long time. (R.E. Ginna in Ontario, NY went critical in 1969 and is still running). The fuel is cheap when one looks at dollars per kilowatt. And, as an added bonus, nukes release much less radioactivity into the environment that a coal fired power plant.
There is concern about disposal of the waste, and reasonable concern as well. the high level waste (spent fuel rods) are a problem as our government shut down the only facility that successfully reprocessed fuel rods back in the early ’70′s. The rods were then to be stored indefinitely in the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada. This was part of the contraact the government signed with the entire nuclear power industry. It might be hard for some to believe, but the industry has kept their part of the bargain and the Federal Government has not. Thus, the rods are still being stored on site in spent fuel storage pools.
The low level waste is a bit of a problem. It consists of PC’s (protective clothing), scaffold planks, broken tools and the like. It is extremely low level and presents no hazard to anyone. However, the regulations require expensive and extensive management. And there are few places authorized to take it.
If you get a chance, read the book written by the engineer that helped design Cherynoble and also went there after the accident (caused by nosy bureaucrats with no knowledge but plenty of authority). It is an excellent description of how not to do things.
Nuclear renaissance? We still have not found away to clean up the waste product, how are we going to go forward with out first finding a way to keep the waste safe.
@ Brian “Nuclear renaissance? We still have not found away to clean up the waste product, how are we going to go forward with out first finding a way to keep the waste safe.”
A very good point indeed
Great book Lindsay
If you could have any old timepiece, which would it be.
FYI two years later:
“Rad Decision: A Novel of Nuclear Power” culminates in an accident very similar to the Japanese tragedy. (Same reactor type, same initial problem – a station blackout with scram.) The author (me) has worked in the US nuclear industry over 25 years. The book is an excellent source of perspective for the lay person — as I’ve been hearing from readers. There is nothing like it on the market — I have provided a never-seen insider’s perspective on the people, politics and technology of this controversial energy source. Believe me, the real world of nuclear (good and bad) bears little resemblance to what most people think — and I include in that group most of the journalists, academics and advocates currently chatting away on TV and radio.
Rad Decision is currently available free online at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com . (No adverts, nobody makes money off this site.) Reader reviews are in the homepage comments – there are plenty of them. There is also a paperback version available and a PDF download.
Unfortunately, my media presence consists of this little-known book and website, so I’m not an acknowledged “expert”. I just happpen to do the nuclear stuff for a living.
I used to be very pleased to find this net-site.I wanted to thanks on your time for this wonderful learn!! I definitely enjoying every little little bit of it and I’ve you bookmarked to check out new stuff you blog post.