Splitting atoms and opinions

This article is authored by Saurabh Thakur, PhD, international relations, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

The July of 2023 now holds the record for being the hottest month in recorded history. The rise in frequency and intensity of floods, wildfires, heatwaves, and other extreme weather events is now commonplace and the cascading nature of such climate crisis induced risks and hazards have exposed the lacuna in policymaking on the most critical questions of sustainability. This acceleration has also forced us to think about novel solutions for climate-proofing humanity’s collective future- There is now a greater focus on climate negotiations, green innovations, and behavioral changes that can subside the impacts of the climate crisis, however, the successes have been few and far between. The gradualist thinking which downplayed the risks of the climate crisis for decades is no more a viable alternative, but at the same time, an alarmist narrative, that is built around the imageries of climate breakdown and technological utopias, carries its own set of risks and contradictions.

Atoms (Ht Archive/For Representational Purposes Only)

Nowhere are such contradictions more visible than the vexing question of nuclear energy. It was, and remains, a controversial question that draws impassioned pleas from both its supporters and detractors. The raw horrors of the Chernobyl and Three-mile Island accidents returned with the Fukushima triple tragedy in 2011 and, at the time, that felt like a death knell for nuclear energy. However, the failure to keep up with the Paris Agreement targets and timelines has, once again, opened the debate on the issue. The nuclear option is now being reframed as an environment-friendly alternative that can cut through the political paralysis of global environmental politics. This resurgence is driven by the post-Covid-19 global energy shortages, further exacerbated by the conflict in Ukraine. European states including France and Germany, which has recently shut down its last existing nuclear power stations, have approved a new proposal that puts ‘other non-fossil’ sources of energy back in the mix with renewables, thus opening doors for nuclear energy. Despite strong objections, Japan is moving forth with its plan to release the treated wastewater into the sea from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station. The import-reliant country has had a bad track record on transition to cleaner fuels and this has led to its recent reversal on the decision to phase out the nuclear energy, which was put in place after the Fukushima disaster. China, with its rapidly expanding nuclear power sector, has left France behind to become the second-largest producer of nuclear energy. In the United States, the nuclear question seems to be the only issue that has drawn bipartisan support from both Republicans and Democrats. India too is revisiting its atomic energy legislation with an eye on expansion of its nuclear power capacity and investments in the sector. The first nuclear power plant in north India is currently being constructed 150 km from the National Capital at Gorakhpur, Haryana.

Nuclear energy offers a cost competitive and reliable solution to break the world’s dependence on fossil fuels. It produces minimal waste and its land footprint, in comparison to renewables, is much smaller, which makes it the only available carbon-free source of energy with the potential to operate at scale. Many countries also view this as a way forward to energy independence and an affordable and reliable means of securing human development in a carbon constrained world. Its supporters argue that no energy source comes without its own set of negative impacts but advanced nuclear technologies and smaller modular reactors are far safer and cleaner options available when compared with renewables, which have failed to achieve cost-effectiveness and carry the risk of land grabs, mining, food insecurity, and human rights abuse.

The failure of intergovernmental political processes to carve out carbon-neutral pathways has meant that nuclear energy is now being highlighted as a way of decarbonising the world and ensuring global energy security. The contradiction, however, lies in the fact that it poses a security risk itself. The repercussions of nuclear accidents in the past have left a dangerous imprint on both the geological records as well as people. The public acceptance of nuclear energy, therefore, does not rest on the safety assessments of power plants alone but rather on the level of risk and potential disaster that they are willing to accept in their vicinity. Nuclear energy and its ecomodernist optimism seem hurried as it takes a narrow view of the climate crisis as a ‘stock-flow’ problem that requires only a technological fix. The decades-long struggle to mainstream climate change has highlighted that when it comes to complex questions of societal and economic change, no technology, including nuclear, can remain untouched by the socio-political currents that will steer the transition to a carbon-neutral world. In order for nuclear energy to transform into a primary source of energy at a global scale, there are some critical hurdles it will have to pass including the disposal and management of high-level radioactive waste, fear of nuclear proliferation that may emerge with large-scale deployment, the existing nuclear apartheid, global public safety norms and standards, and energy equity. Despite its many benefits, it has consistently failed to gain the trust because, much like the challenge of the climate crisis that it intends to solve, the questions it raises are not technological but inherently political.

This article is authored by Saurabh Thakur, PhD, international relations, Jawaharlal Nehru University.