The criminalization of nuclear - ANS

https://www.ans.org/file/4059/nuclearnews-2021-06.pdf Please see link above for source text, embedded hotlinks, and comments.

The criminalization of nuclear Mary Lou Dunzik-Gougar President, American Nuclear Society Nuclear News - June 2021 Nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest, densest, and most reliable energy source. The value proposition for nuclear energy is unparalleled. It is the only commercially proven, “dispatchable” clean energy technology that can be scaled up fast enough to meet the demand for electricity in a decarbonizing scenario. It is the answer for governments and nongovernmental organizations worldwide that are clamoring for a reduction in human-generated CO2 emissions. Humans flourish when they have access to plentiful, safe, and reliable energy. Nuclear excels at all of these.

Unfortunately, nuclear energy is also the most regulated source, thanks, in part, to an unfounded fear of radiation and resulting regulation based on the linear nothreshold (LNT) hypothesis. It is time to end the war on nuclear energy, starting with how we think about radiation. Crafted in the early days of the Cold War, the outdated LNT model supposes that all radiation poses a deadly risk, and thus, any radiation dose is harmful. This claim, however, is scientifically unsubstantiated at all but very high doses.

Under the LNT, the regulated dose limit to the public from nuclear power must be less than 100 millirem per year. According to the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, however, the average American receives a radiation dose of 620 mrem/year. The natural environment and medical procedures contribute 98 percent of this annual dosage. Nuclear power contributes less than 0.1 percent. Under the LNT, significant resources go into getting doses lower than the surrounding natural background. This adds considerable expense to nuclear operations without any added benefit.

Much of the LNT’s regulatory burden is due to a misinterpretation of the ALARA principle, which urges us to make doses “as low as reasonably achievable.” Rather than optimizing safety, as originally intended by ALARA, LNT-based regulation focuses on minimizing exposure. Nuclear energy has had a far less negative impact on the environment than any other energy source while at the same time enabling more humans to flourish within in a limited space. A typical 1,000-MWe nuclear plant 1

requires roughly a square mile of land. Wind turbines would require 360 times more land to produce the same amount of electricity.

Finally, nuclear produces less waste than any other energy source. Nuclear generation is emissions free, avoiding more pollution per megawatt-hour than other sources, thanks to its energy density and superior capacity factor. Nuclear energy also has the lowest life cycle emissions among all energy sources, including renewables, which require more energy usage for mining, component production, and transport.

According to Danish economist Bjørn Lomborg, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased from about 305 parts per million to more than 400 ppm from 1920 to 2017, while global average temperatures increased by about 1°C. Yet, worldwide, the individual risk of dying from climate-related disasters declined by 99 percent, mostly in countries with increasingly adequate supplies of electricity, much of which is nuclear generated.

So, rather than focusing on a proxy goal of eliminating CO2 emissions with the hope of eliminating variations in a geophysically dynamic climate, perhaps the focus should be on decriminalizing nuclear and getting sufficient power to those who need it.

2