Nuclear energy: What might cool a hot debate
Climate change may be placing nuclear power in a new light. Our writer describes how a willingness to be humble helps opposing sides consider some trade-offs in the search for energy solutions.
It’s one of the hottest of hot-button issues.
Proponents of nuclear power hail it as a clean alternative to fossil fuels – no greenhouse gases produced. Opponents point to the long-lasting effects of nuclear mishaps and issues around where to build facilities and store waste. What’s changing is the backdrop: rising awareness of the urgency of climate change.
“Nuclear has shifted from this big, fearful thing to a possible solution to this other big, fearful thing,” says Stephanie Hanes, who covers the environment and climate issues for the Monitor. She spoke to Samantha Laine Perfas about how a controversial source of power generation is being viewed in a new light, why two sides are considering trade-offs, and the story she wrote with Lenora Chu.
“There’s been this really important shift,” Stephanie says, from debating whether action is needed to discussing what combination of actions offers a way forward. “And in some ways, this is a creative and sometimes contentious but [also] forward-moving conversation now,” she says.
Episode transcript
Samantha Laine Perfas: As the climate change crisis continues, many are having to think outside the box about how to best address it, even if that means shifting a long-held belief.
[MUSIC]
Welcome to Rethinking the News. I’m your host, Samantha Laine Perfas.
[MUSIC]
In today’s episode, we’re going to be talking about a hot button issue: nuclear energy. Many have fought against the use of nuclear energy for decades, citing its dangers and toxic-waste byproducts. But there’s a growing number of people who are shifting their stance, saying that it is a zero-emissions energy source that we can’t afford to lose if we want to address the growing threats of climate change. Stephanie Hanes, the Monitor’s environment and climate change writer, joins me today to talk about this shift. Welcome, Stephanie.
Hanes: Hi, how are you?
Laine Perfas: Good. So thinking about nuclear energy, why were people hesitant to embrace it in the first place?
Stephanie Hanes: There is a long history of environmentalists opposing nuclear energy. This is for a number of reasons. There is a lot of waste that’s produced with nuclear power, and there is a fear that this can be dangerous. There have been a number of – not many, but a number of nuclear power plants that have had accidents. Think of Chernobyl or Fukushima. There are social justice questions about where nuclear plants are located. There is also just a link between nuclear weapons and nuclear power, at least in perception. And so people who are against nuclear power do worry that some of the material in nuclear power could be used for bad purposes as well.
Laine Perfas: It’s interesting because I think there’s still fear now, but there’s almost been a generational shift where that fear is less about nuclear and more about the effects of climate change, as it is this growing crisis.
Hanes: Absolutely. And I think in some ways the fears are really similar. You have people who are looking at the destruction of the world at the extreme end of it. And people who are younger tend to be more concerned about climate, and recognize that climate change is this huge growing crisis. Just this summer there have been catastrophic floods and heat waves. There is sea rise. And for this generation, that’s more top-of-mind. And nuclear has shifted from this big, fearful thing to a possible solution to this other big fearful thing.
Laine Perfas: In your reporting, you actually met a lot of people who have been very adamantly against nuclear energy, and even those people are starting to shift their stance. What do you think is helping with that shift?
Hanes: I think a lot of people recognize how urgent the climate situation is. Even for people who for many years did not want anything to do with nuclear power – even those people are looking at numbers, or looking at models of the way that our energy and electricity system work, and are saying the big concern right now is that we need to get our greenhouse gas emissions down. And nuclear power takes on a different light. It’s a zero-carbon energy source that is always around. Renewables fluctuate in the amount of energy they can produce, because the sun’s not always shining, the wind’s not always blowing. And while that’s sort of a superficial look at it, there does need to be some baseline power that’s always available. And when nuclear is on, it provides that. When power plants close, that’s typically replaced with fossil fuel-burning power sources. And so a lot of these people who have been concerned about nuclear in the past all of a sudden see it as a really key thing to help create an energy system that lowers carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.
Laine Perfas: You mentioned renewable energy sources. And I think there’s almost this debate between, “we either need to invest in nuclear,” or “we need to invest in renewables.” Is that really the debate?
Hanes: In some places that is the debate. You do see people almost taking their football team sides of power sources here. However, at the same time, there really is this growing group of people who are saying, we need all of the things. I do think that the majority of people who are worried about climate are ending up in the middle, saying, “Yes, there are going to be tradeoffs. And yes, we need to have everything we possibly can be doing to try to get emissions down.”
Laine Perfas: During your reporting, was it interesting to see people shift their stance?
Hanes: It was really cool to talk to people about that thing exactly. I think in this culture, we don’t see people shifting their views very much or saying, “I really believed this one thing. And now that I’ve learned more about it and thought more about it, I’m going to shift away from this position that maybe was part of my identity before.” It was profound because it got into that humility of what it is to change one’s mind.
Laine Perfas: Was there anyone in particular who stood out to you that embodied that shift of like, “Maybe I was a little too hard on this in the past”?
Hanes: I spoke to one analyst at a center-left think tank called Third Way named Lindsey Walter. She was really matter-of-fact, she said, “Three years ago, if you talked to me, I would have been super anti-nuclear. But I’ve been looking at models. And you can only go so far with renewables. There was another woman I spoke to who actually formed a group called Mothers for Nuclear. She works at the Diablo Canyon (nuclear) Power Plant in California. And her background was that she was an environmentalist, an outdoors woman. She was really skeptical about nuclear power until, again, she started really learning about climate change more and learning about what we could do in California, where there’s a lot of pressure on the electric grid right now. So she started this advocacy group and says that she got a lot of pushback, a lot of abuse on social media and things like that, but that for her, she felt like she was doing what she needed to help the environment.
Laine Perfas: As a reporter, what do you find encouraging about the way that people are thinking about this issue?
Hanes: In the world of covering climate and the environment, there’s been this really important shift. We’re not arguing anymore over whether climate change exists. Now people are really working to try to find solutions. And in some ways this is this creative and sometimes contentious but forward moving conversation now. In a lot of ways it’s a lot more of an exciting thing to cover right now.
Laine Perfas: Thank you so much, Stephanie.
Hanes: Oh, my pleasure. Thanks so much.
[MUSIC]
Laine Perfas: Thanks for listening. To find a transcript of this episode and to see links to some of Stephanie’s stories, visit csmonitor.com/rethinkingthenews.
Also, we want to let you know about an upcoming change to this podcast. Next week we’ll be renaming and rebranding, rethinking the news, updating the music logo and title, and going deeper on the stories behind our reporting. We’re excited about this change and can’t wait to share it with you! If you subscribe, you won’t experience any interruptions. This podcast will simply look a little different. Stay tuned.
This episode was hosted by me, Samantha Laine Perfas. It was co-produced with Jingnan Peng, edited by Clay Collins. Our sound engineers were Tim Malone and Alyssa Britton, produced by the Christian Science Monitor. Copyright 2022.
[END]
