THE LAST WORD
ew will lose sleep over news that the Three
Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania,
scene of the worst nuclear accident in US
history, is to close.
What happened there on 28 March 1979 showed
the world how small things count for a lot when it
comes to nuclear safety. A single faulty valve and
some dodgy instrumentation led to one of the plant’s
reactor cores melting, resulting in the release of
radioactive material, and almost 200,000 people
fleeing the area.
Many of them probably feared they were about
to witness the so-called China Syndrome, where
the incredibly hot reactor core burns through its
containment vessel, then the ground beneath – and
doesn’t stop until it emerges somewhere in China.
That sounds like some ludicrous scenario for a
Hollywood disaster movie – and that’s exactly what
it is. Just days before the ‘TMI’ accident, cinemas in
the US began screening a movie called The China
Syndrome, about a nuclear plant that goes out
of control... because of faulty equipment and
misleading instruments.
Nuclear industry experts dismissed the
plot as fanciful. One even told the The New
York Times he simply did not believe a
serious accident could ever happen. As
statements by the nuclear industry go,
that’s right up there with its claim in the
1950s that it would one day produce
electricity “too cheap to meter”.
While the China Syndrome might
be nonsense, TMI proved to be
a real-life disaster for the nuclear
industry. Construction of a new
plant in the US had already slowed
through falling demand for energy
and – ironically – the punitive cost of
all the safety measures. TMI stopped
projects dead. Over 100 orders for
new reactors were cancelled, and
not a single new power plant was
built in the US until 2013.
In the intervening years, opponents
of nuclear power seemingly saw their
case bolstered by the disasters at
Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima
in 2011. But something else happened as well. Some
of the best-known names in the environmentalist
movement – James Lovelock, George Monbiot and
Stewart Brand among them – came out as advocates of
nuclear power. Their argument was simple. Yes, nuclear
energy is potentially dangerous, but the ‘disasters’
have to be put in context. They took place in plants
based on obsolete designs, and in the case of TMI and
Fukushima the radiation released killed no one.
According to international estimates, the Chernobyl
disaster will eventually lead to 4,000 premature deaths.
A terrible toll, to be sure – but far smaller than the WHO
estimate of seven million deaths due to fossil fuel-
generated air pollution each year. As Monbiot pointed
out in his volte-face, nuclear power is preferable to
fossil fuels on every measure, from global warming
potential and local pollution to industrial energy – and,
yes, fatalities. Most importantly of all, it’s a vital source
of reliable, carbon-free energy.
But what about all the deadly nuclear waste,
produced in huge quantities even if nuclear
power stations don’t explode? Safe methods
for dealing with that were developed
decades ago, prompting Lovelock to declare
he’d be happy to store even the worst stuff
in his garden. These brave dissenters
believe today’s nuclear technology has
a key role to play its part in combating
climate change. And that means calling
out the imaginary threats and wildly
exaggerated accounts of real ones.
But now, just when we need it most,
nuclear power is facing its biggest
threat yet. It’s the reason Three Mile
Island will close in 2019, and no
replacement built: soaring production
of far cheaper shale gas and oil – ie,
carbon-rich fossil fuels.
It’s hard to believe that’s where
the eco-warriors wanted the world
to be, 40 years after TMI, but that’s
where we are. Way to go, guys. ßILLUSTRATION: DANIEL BRIGHTF
Robert Matthews is a visiting professor in
science at Aston University, BirminghamROBERT MATTHEWS ON...
THE NUCLEAR OPTION
WHY WE SHOULD LEARN TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE
NUCLEAR REACTOR“NUCLEAR
POWER ISPREFERABLE TO
FOSSIL FUELS
ON EVERY
MEASURE”