--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Support for this show comes from ServiceNow. AI is only as powerful as the platform it's built into, don't you know? That's why it's no surprise that more than 85% of the Fortune 500 use the ServiceNow AI platform. Didn't know that. While other platforms duct tape tools together, ServiceNow seamlessly unifies people, data, workflows, and AI, connecting every corner of your business. And with AI agents working together autonomously, anyone in any department can focus on the work that matters most. I've never met an AI agent. Learn how ServiceNow puts AI to work for people at servicenow.com.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Not all journalism is the same. Take The Guardian. Our coverage has something unique. Fierce independence. Nobody owns us or tells us what we can and can't say. So we're free to report the whole picture. We connect what's happening in Washington to the rest of the globe. Expose corruption wherever we find it. And give fresh perspective on everything. From wellness and soccer to culture, the climate and more. Read, watch, and listen to The Guardian for free at theguardian.com.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Dragon SpaceX, go for launch. Ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one, zero.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: In a world with many problems, one problem reigns supreme. The climate emergency. The stakes have never been higher. The odds of bipartisan agreement on this issue have possibly never been lower. But there's a new president in town, and he's hot for science. We're already waiting too long to deal with this climate crisis. We can't wait any longer. It's Earth Week at Today Explained. We're going to talk about what's in store for this planet. The future of our future. Welcome to Earth Week on Today Explained. Happy Earth Day.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: We're celebrating with Earth Week here at Today Explained. On yesterday's show, we explored the expanding universe of electric vehicles. Today, we're going to focus on what fuels them, our energy. Bill Gates says that if you want to be serious about our climate emergency, you've got to get serious about nuclear energy. People at least should be open-minded that a next-generation reactor can have far better economics, far better safety, you know, no proliferation, no waste problem. And Bill's putting his money where his mouth is. The thing I'm investing in, and not because I expect to make a ton of money on it, it's because it, I think, because it's zero CO2, because the economics are so good, is a fourth-generation design. And there are many fourth-generation designs. This one is very, very attractive from an economic point of view. I mean, way cheaper.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: We reached out to Bill to ask why he's such a fan of nuclear, but he was busy upgrading to 5G or something. So instead, we asked Robinson Meyer. But you can call me Rob. Rob writes about energy at the Atlantic.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: So we asked Rob why Bill makes this argument that if you're serious about climate, you got to be serious about nuclear. Because right now, you know, nuclear generates an absolute enormous amount of zero carbon electricity worldwide. And we know, you know, to decarbonize the energy system, to fight climate change, right, we need to reduce carbon emissions to zero. To reduce carbon emissions to zero, we need to electrify way more stuff. And to electrify way more stuff, we need to have reliable, cheap sources of zero carbon electricity. And right now in the U.S., I believe nuclear actually generates about half of our zero carbon electricity nationwide.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: And a big risk for us in the U.S. is that there are a lot of old nuclear plants, and they are about to go offline soon. And just the way costs kind of come out, they're likely to be replaced by natural gas. And so, you know, this is happening in California. It's happening in New York. As these old nuclear plants shut off, they don't get replaced by renewables, which are also zero carbon. They get replaced by natural gas, which is fossil fuel and emits methane and CO2.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: Well, I think people would argue with clean and functional. Ah. Yeah. Okay, well, before we get into all of the history and even all of the issues in the way of a nuclear future, let's just talk about how this works. Can you give us, you know, the elevator ride version of how nuclear power functions?
--:-- Robinson Meyer: So nuclear energy at its heart and boy, oof, I'm so sorry to physicists listening to this. Please keep this in because I'm really like, I got to apologize to them off the bat. generally the way nuclear works is you use radiation to generate heat you use that heat to heat up water you have these fuel rods there submerged in water, they heat up the water by virtue of radiation the water turns into steam, you use the steam to turn a turbine and that turbine generates electricity the same way any other turbine generates electricity, right? I mean, it's just a, it's a magnet. It's an electromagnetic effect.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: And is this why nuclear power plants are always next to bodies of water? Yes, because they have to cool the water somehow. That's also why they have the giant cooling towers with the steam coming out of it. I guess what I would say as a curiosity here is that basically every way we generate electricity just comes down to turning a turbine somehow, usually with steam, right? With coal and gas, eventually all you're doing is just turning a turbine. With wind, you're using the power of the wind to turn a turbine. With nuclear, you're turning a turbine. All of them actually accept solar, which makes solar really interesting. I realize that's not in the purview of this podcast, but what's so interesting about solar to me is it's the only form of electricity generation where you're not turning a turbine. You're like exciting the electrons actually in the solar panel and they're moving into the wire.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Next year on Today Explains Earth Week, solar. But this is about nuclear. We spoke to David Wallace-Wells early in the week about clean energy a whole lot. We didn't dig into the question of whether nuclear counts as clean. It sounds like probably not. I mean, it really, really depends on how you define clean. And I'd say if you hear a politician talking about clean energy, they are probably including nuclear in that because they mean zero carbon energy. I think critics of nuclear would tell you that because nuclear generates this waste material, it is not clean. You know, because you have nuclear waste at the end of the process, it is not clean in the same way that, say, solar or wind are clean.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Well, let's talk about the waste. Yeah. What is the byproduct of this zero carbon form of energy? Spent fuel rods that emit radiation for hundreds of thousands of years. Wow. And what do we do with these spent fuel rods? That's been a live question in American politics for a couple decades. You know, we were supposed to store them in Nevada. Beginning with the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982, Congress has attempted several times to address the back end of the fuel cycle. In an effort to resolve an earlier stalemate, the federal government was supposed to begin taking title to used fuel and moving it to a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada beginning in 1998.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Why Nevada? What did they do? Because it's really remote. You know, basically the idea, you store them at Mount Yucca and it's super remote and no one gets near it. There actually a lot of really interesting almost like anthropological work done in the 80s and 90s to figure out how you can possibly communicate to people living 25 years from now not to get near the fuel rods And so there were ideas about how do you put up signs? How do you make huge signs in the land that indicate to people this is a bad place that you don't want to go? What's the thinking that people will forget that all of our nuclear fuel rods are stored there? Yeah. We know very little about people who lived 10,000 years ago. And I think the thinking is we know very little about people who will live 10,000 years from now. And in case there's some loss of, you know, civilizational knowledge between now and then, which we also know happens from time to time, and they forget, there should be some markers that indicate, you know, the classic line is like, this is not a place of honor. You don't want to come here.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: There's also a lot of thinking about, could you breed cats? There's this idea you could breed cats to turn a different color when they're near radiation. And then you write songs and develop this lore around, you don't want the cats to change color. I'm sorry. Excuse me? This is a real solution that was proposed by a real human? Put together in these kind of like, you know, blue sky brainstorming sessions about what you could do to try to just communicate the hazards of nuclear waste over the tens of thousands of years that it will remain active.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Has anyone written the song yet? I have heard versions of this song actually on another podcast. This is 99% Invisible. I'm Roman Mars. I think it was just written for that podcast. Don't change color, can you keep your color, can you stay that pretty gray? Don't change color, kitty, keep your color
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So, you know, in the U.S., we put all this thought into it. In Europe, they just bury it really, really deep underground in Finland. And they pay the communities that live on top of it. It's supposedly so deep that it doesn't intersect with the water supplies. I think in the U.S., it remains a live issue. And I think what most nuclear plants do is they just have spent fuel rods on site, like under protection in containers where the radiation isn't escaping.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: I've also always heard this idea about nuclear waste that we should just launch it at the sun. Is that a serious idea? I wasn't going to ask you about it, but now that you mentioned singing cats, I feel like it's fair game. Okay, I have to be honest with you. I have also always wondered this about nuclear waste. I believe the reasons why not to do it are that, first of all, launches do fail. so it's bad if suddenly you've sprinkled a thin dusting of fuel rods across you know the atlantic coast of florida the other half of this is like costs matter there too and nuclear is kind of expensive it requires some level of subsidy at least in in the u.s and um it's expensive to launch things
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Let's talk more about cost. How expensive is nuclear energy compared to other sources? It depends a little bit plant by plant, but it is not cheap. And it tends to require some level of estate subsidy when we build it. It's not cheap in part because the safety regulations are very high in the U.S. People understandably want to make sure it's safe and it's very high cost burden to comply with that. Nuclear is more expensive than renewables, basically, period. It's much more expensive. And that's pre-subsidies. And we tend to see nuclear get subsidized.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And of course, where nuclear is different, and I think why climate people get very excited about nuclear is because nuclear is a source of what's called firm power or firm electricity. And this is arguably why, even though it's expensive, it's worth paying for. Because nuclear, you know, generates electricity all the time. Like once you get a nuclear plant going, you're basically running it all the time, especially a conventional big multi-reactor giant cooling tower nuclear plant. And power all the time is like the hardest and most important part of the electricity system. The Texas blackouts happened because actually natural gas was unable to supply power all the time. And we know like with wind and solar, solar farms attached to giant batteries might eventually play this role. But just like more sources of really super reliable zero carbon electricity would be something that would be good to put in the electricity system. And nuclear is a potential source of that.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: A third impediment here that you haven't mentioned is death. Why haven't you talked about the death, Rob? Because the death, how would I put this? People get very worried about the safety of nuclear plants. And like, understandably, right? If you have a nuclear incident, there is potentially waste around for a long, long time. Which we did have just about 10 years ago, almost to the month. This is a potentially catastrophic disaster. And the images of destruction and flooding coming out of Japan are simply heartbreaking. You know, Fukushima killed, I believe the estimates are, the stress of evacuation killed way more people than the radiation itself. You know, the estimates are hundreds of people may have died as a result of the overall Fukushima tragedy.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: But most would say, you know, several dozen people died of, you know, immediate exposure to the Chernobyl waste. And then somewhere on the order of thousands to tens of thousands died as a result of like increasing their exposure of cancer or another radiation induced illness later on. And these are public health estimates. These are not, these aren't counts, right? You know, in Chernobyl, officially, the count is 31 people, but we know it is probably higher. You know, here's the thing. Compared to coal or really any part of the fossil fuel system, which we know causes hundreds of thousands of cardiopulmonary injuries a year, heart attacks, strokes, cardiac disease, early death, asthma attacks. nuclear is almost certainly below the public health burden of the fossil fuel system.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Like just cumulatively, nuclear has almost certainly injured and harmed and killed fewer people than the fossil fuel system overall. We just are used to living with the result of the fossil fuel system. We're used to people having heart attacks, right? We're used to people growing up with asthma. We're used to, you know, people in the most polluted parts of the world just underdeveloping and having lifelong cardiac and pulmonary problems because they live in heavily polluted air.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: You're saying the fear of nuclear versus the fear of coal is a lot like the way more people are scared of flying than they are of getting in a car and driving, even though they're far more likely to meet with a fatal accident behind the wheel of a car. Yeah, I actually think it's a perfect analogy, and it's exactly like that. Because when a nuclear plant fails, usually, just like in a plane crash, several different things have gone wrong. It's outside the control of anyone experiencing it, and it's quite dramatic, like a plane crash. You know, while fossil fuel deaths are just something, they happen in the background, they're hard to associate with the actual fossil fuel system.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: You know, someone dies in their late 50s or early 60s of a heart attack and they've lived downstream of a coal plant for 20 or 30 years. You know, we don't count that. That's not front page news, but that is a death in the same way a plane crash death is a death. It's just a whole lot less dramatic. And so it's less salient. If you want a generally lower risk system, I understand why people get scared of nuclear. However, that being said, you know, would I live next door to a nuclear plant or a coal plant? Absolutely no question, nuclear every day of the week, because nuclear is basically fine Like you know if I live next door to a coal plant I taking years off my life While if I live next door to a nuclear plant the most likely thing is that nothing ever happens. And I have very cheap electricity.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: More with Rob in a minute. I'm Sean Ramos for him. It's Today Explained. Thank you. You can be eligible for free overdraft, up to $200 on debit card purchases and cash withdrawals. Plus, they say you don't need to worry about monthly fees or maintenance fees. You can work on your financial goals through Chime today. You can open an account in two minutes at Chime.com slash explained. That's Chime.com slash explained. Chime feels like progress. Chime is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services and debit card provided by the Bancor Bank N.A. or Stride Bank N.A. Members FDIC. Spot me eligibility requirements and overdraft limits apply. Timing depends on submission of payment file. Fees apply at out-of-network ATMs. bank ranking and number of ATMs according to U.S. News and World Report 2023. Time checking account required. credit approval, AppleCard is issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City Branch. Terms and more at AppleCard.com.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Rob, okay, so I think we've established that it's a little bit unreasonable to fear living next to a nuclear power plant. You know, personally, fun fact, I grew up next to a nuclear power plant, and here I am. Oh, really? Ten fingers, ten toes. You can't see them, But trust me, I only got 10. But tell me. The third eye might be below the beanie. That's right. They don't know I'm wearing a beanie, right? I know they don't know they're wearing a beanie. Wildly unprofessional. He's wearing a beanie. Tell me, how's the world doing on nuclear? Oh, it's all over the place. China is building a lot of new nuclear and seems to be having lower costs. But generally, in the West, we haven't done a giant nuclear build out in a little while.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: You know, the whole history of energy, like in Europe and North America, is basically energy was really, really cheap until the 1970s. We did this crazy thing, which was burning oil for electricity. It wasn't a huge share of generation, but like we burned oil. And then the oil embargo happened, the back-to-back oil crisis, in the 1970s. And one out of every seven gallons of oil we'd been using to power our homes, our cars, our businesses, and our schools just wasn't there anymore. Cost of oil really went up. We started to care about energy. And all these countries across Europe and North America kind of were like, oh, we can't just plan on importing cheap oil forever. What are we going to do for electricity generation? We were caught by surprise with a crisis that could recur and recur unless the entire country recognized the dangers of a quite real energy shortage.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: In the U.S., what we did, actually, fun fact, we said we have coal and nuclear in the country. And so we'd be able to generate, this is what we should use for electricity. and coal, which was actually on the way out in the 1970s, it was like really fading as a source of power, came back as a source of electricity and made up market share. We also tried to build a lot of nuclear plants, but there was a lot of opposition to them from environmentalists, from local communities. No more news! No more news! No more news! The 60s and 70s is the birth of the modern environmental movement. and they won a number of victories really quickly. In 1962, scientist Rachel Carson published a groundbreaking book, Silent Spring, arguing that pesticides like DDT were also deadly to birds, fish and even humans. Silent Spring became a national bestseller. Can anyone believe it is possible to lay down such a barrage of poisons on the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: The hippie, you know, boomer energy winds up getting devoted to opposition to nuclear. And not for awful reasons. I mean, there were some really scary scenarios floating around to people. We've seen recently India evolve an explosive device derived from a peaceful nuclear power plant. And we now feel that several other nations are on the verge of becoming nuclear explosive powers. If you're not worried about climate change, maybe, you know, there's lots of reasons to oppose nuclear, and climate change hadn't emerged as a major environmental concern in the 70s yet. They succeed in making it so expensive and so onerous to build a nuclear plant that nobody tries for decades. So from 1977 to 2013, no one tries to build a new nuclear plant in the United States. Not one? Not one.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: So this isn't even like a partisan thing, like this movement so effective that it shuts down any ideation about nuclear energy across the country? The partisan dynamics are like really, they're not quite as cut and dry as they are now. You know, like, what does start to develop, especially in the 90s, is like, Republicans do start to kind of embrace nuclear, especially as a quasi-solution to climate change. Okay. And Democrats continue to some degree to oppose it. Though Democratic opposition is, like, quite fractured between the kind of historic base of, like, older environmentalists and then, like, a newer base of, like, professional Democratic elites.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: And what I think is really important to know about, like, the history of energy politics in the U.S. is, like, you know, in the 1970s, we respond to the oil crisis by, like, investing in R&D, a ton of different energy solutions R&D. Then in the early 80s, like, oil prices go back down again and it becomes less of a pressing, like, pocketbook issue. And energy politics start to get really cultural. So we have this kind of bizarre situation in the U.S. where Republicans support nuclear, even though what we know is that the nuclear industry is highly unionized and requires heavy state subsidy, while Democrats often oppose it, even though it's zero carbon and heavily unionized and requires state subsidy. The politics of it are not what you would expect in the U.S., given international context.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: Tell me more about the international context. I imagine our situation in this country is a little more complicated and fraught than others. That's right. Although, you know, after Fukushima, we saw a number of countries who were heavily reliant on nuclear also move away from it because of that incident. But the most important international story about nuclear, I'd say, is in France. Énergie nucléaire. France responded to the same oil and energy crisis in the 1970s as we did. But instead of building out coal, they built out nuclear. And from 1976 to 1990, actually France's CO2 emissions fall really, really dramatically because it switches to nuclear power. And I believe the fastest drop in CO2 emissions while the economy is growing in the history of developed countries because they switched to nuclear.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: Now France does it through a heavily centralized basically like state supported industry you know the opposite of everything you think Republicans would want in the U But they do it And even today you know France still gets you know, 70, 80% of its electricity from nuclear. It remains a major industry in France. And France is in some ways like able to decarbonize and able to respond to climate change in a much easier and simpler way than the U.S. has because so much of their electricity system is already zero carbon.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: Has anyone looked at this example in France and tried to replicate it? divide among environmentally concerned people around nuclear power. So if you are older and were involved or exposed to that 1960s, 1970s moment, like you really oppose nuclear a lot. Still, you don't want to see it happen. And so what's your biggest fear? A meltdown, a spent fuel fire, sabotage, tsunami, earthquake, man-made error, human mistakes, engineering mistakes. I'm not sure which one is biggest.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: And if you're younger and, you know, the primary environmental cause that you grew up with was not nuclear waste or nuclear war, but climate change, in my experience, people tend to be a little more open-minded about nuclear and even excited about it. I actually have a really funny story about this. So I was in Greenland with a bunch of climate scientists and, you know, on the trip was this, one of the most respected climate scientists in the country who did a ton of work to really help us understand. I'm not going to name him, but he did a ton of work to really help us understand how dramatic modern climate change is in the context of historical climate change. It's like modern climate change, really bad.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: He helped us understand that. And he was with a bunch of, it was with a couple younger grad students about my age, 90s kids. And nuclear energy came up in discussions. We were sitting by the fjord one day after a day of field work and nuclear energy came up. And the younger postdoc was like, oh, we got to do it. It's so important. It's like the future of energy. We got to research it. We got to build out nuclear. It's a good source of zero carbon electricity. It's like there's still so many technological advantages there that remain untapped with nuclear. Like it's still the future.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: And this older climate scientist, who, again, has devoted his life to how bad climate change is, was like, no, no nuclear ever. Nuclear is worse than climate change. Climate change is bad. It will impose all these costs on us. But nuclear produces literally the worst substance in the world. And we can't have it at all. And it was just really stark to me how even among people who have devoted their lives to trying to get policy action on climate change, they were not willing to entertain the benefits of nuclear or the potential benefits of nuclear.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: And frankly, this is still a pattern I see in emails. And whenever I write about this generational divide in nuclear, I get a bunch of, to be frank, older readers, I'm thrilled are reading my work, who are very upset that I've made that argument. Is there an argument to be made here that, you know, if we have renewable energy that doesn't have this harmful byproduct, hydro, solar, wind, I know they're still not used at the levels they need? Well, of course, we stopped building dams, too. Like, we stopped building hydro for other environmental reasons. I mean, part of the, sorry to just completely interrupt your question, but like, actually in 1950, a larger share of U.S. electricity was generated by zero carbon sources than it is today.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: What? And that's because a ton of it came from dams. But there is all these, you know, other conventional problems of building dams. And so that's kind of gone out of favor as well. so in some ways you can see the like story of electricity in the u.s being we used to be really excited about hydro and nuclear as like two zero carbon sources back in the 50s and 60s and then we kind of fell out of love with those and then we got into coal and then we discovered coal and natural gas had all these issues and now we're into solar and wind anyway i'm sorry you should I apologize for interrupting. No, I mean, that's really interesting.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: I guess I'm asking, is there some sort of established tier that we can all agree on, on the cleanest, most preferable sources of energy to the dirtiest and most harmful sources of energy? And if so, ultimately, do we have any consensus on where nuclear falls in that tier? This is a tricky question. You know, in my brain, I guess, it's like wind and solar at the top. then nuclear, then the fossil fuels. Where's hydro? Off to the side somewhere. I don't know. Not even touching that one. Hydro is good. I mean, actually, if we could figure, there's a lot of excess hydro in Canada. And if we could figure out how to bring it into the US, like how to use that electricity in the US, that would be really cool. But you got solar and wind at the top, nuclear in the middle, and all the dirty stuff below it.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: Yes, but... Look, we really, really need solar and wind. And what I'm about to say is not to take away from their cleanliness at all. However, especially solar has huge mineral costs, like huge mining costs. Where we mine some of the minerals we use in solar is really up for grabs. A huge share of the world's, and we're talking more than a third of the world's minerals that we use in solar, come from Xinjiang, the same province where the Chinese regime's imprisonment and alleged genocide of Uyghurs is happening. So, and it's coming from facilities staffed by forced Uyghur labor. So as the demand for solar and wind increases, we are also going to face questions about what kind of communities bear the costs and how do we share the cost of solar as we expand.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: And don't get me wrong, I think there are ways to do that. I think solars and wind are exciting. And I think potential advanced nuclear where the waste output is different or the risks are different is also really exciting. I just think, let me take the ultimate journalist cop-out and say these kinds of conversations are really important to have because as we change how our energy system is powered, we're going to discover that there's trade-offs kind of no matter where we go. And how we navigate those trade-offs is like still quite up in the air.
--:-- Robinson Meyer: What I'm getting is wind is the safest bet. Well, wind has some mineral needs too just because you got to put like copper and nickel in there. Can't wind. But wind is pretty good. Wind's good. We should build a lot more offshore wind. I'll leave it there.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Rob, thanks so much. Absolutely, thank you. Rob Meyer, he's a staff writer at The Atlantic. We are wrapping up Earth Week tomorrow at Today Explained with a movement. A movement to conserve 30% of planet Earth by the year 2030. And Vox Podcasts have been making a whole month out of Earth Day, by the way. You can find everything the Vox pods have been doing on climate and energy and biodiversity and even movies about planet Earth at Vox.com slash Earth Month. Thank you.
