Choosing between Two Worst Case Scenarios
A Thought Experiment on Nuclear Energy vs. Fossil Fuels
A Thought Experiment on Nuclear vs. Fossil Fuels
Recently I posted Intermittency and Energy Infrastructure, in which I wrote:
“It is not at all clear that the public would prefer the dangers of nuclear power to the dangers of climate change, and both issues are so charged that it would be nearly impossible to take an honest poll on the question.”
Suppose that we could poll the entire planet’s population and give them a choice between nuclear power and business as usual with fossil fuels. Both alternatives could be presented in a strong form in order to emphasize the differences between these options.
Option 1: Nuclear
A conversion to a fully nuclearized grid would mean plenty of electricity 24/7, but also the construction of many, many nuclear power plants, increased mining and refining of uranium, increased production of nuclear waste, which in turn means a return to the contentious question of where nuclear wastes are to be stored. It also means more frequent, and possibly also more severe, nuclear power plant accidents, as well as accidents elsewhere along the nuclear fuel supply chain, from mining to waste disposal.
If sufficient nuclear power generation were to be built, some of the capacity could be used for de-carbonization of the atmosphere, so that not only would power generation carbon emissions eliminated, but we would begin the long process to reducing the carbon added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.
Option 2: Fossil Fuels
A failure to make any conversion in the world’s energy infrastructure, in which both nuclear and renewables remain marginal to the overall energy infrastructure, but business as usual continues for energy production and consumption, presumably results in not having to make any immediate adjustments in the present to our way of life (including our energy production and consumption), but as the decades of the twenty-first century lapse, one after the other, and the planet gets hotter, we would find ourselves eventually forced to come to terms with our fossil fuel use.
The more the planet heats up, the more access we will have to the polar regions, and we would be able to drill for more hydrocarbons in formerly inaccessible regions, adding to the world’s oil supply, and further encouraging fossil fuel use and dis-incentivizing the conversion to alternative energy resources. One could think of this scenario as “fossil fuel accelerationalism.”
As our technology becomes more advanced, and we are able to get more out of each barrel of oil, we will be able to stretch our fossil fuel budget a lot further than we would have once thought possible, but the party still must come to and end sometime, whether that is in the 22nd century or the 23rd century or even the 24th century. What this means is that, not only will we have to face the consequences of our fossil fuel use in terms of carbon released into the atmosphere, one way or another, sooner or later, we will have to find other fuel sources when the fossil fuels run out. That, or we relinquish industrialized civilization, which, under these scenario, endures only as long as fossil fuels are available.
Comparison of the Scenarios
In both scenarios, there is property damage and loss of life. In the nuclear scenario, life is disrupted in the area of nuclear accidents, but elsewhere, for the majority of the world’s population, life goes on as usual. The cost of business-as-usual for life is accepting widespread nuclear energy, which means nuclear accidents and nuclear proliferation. In this sense, this alternative looks like another thought experiment that I spelled out in Trading Existential Opportunity for Existential Risk Mitigation: a Thought Experiment.
In both scenarios, again, the consequences of the choice only begin to manifest several decades on, and the further any energy agenda advances, the more difficult it would be to reverse the decision. However, as we have seen, the fossil fuel agenda must come to an end when fossil fuels run out. The nuclear agenda also must come to an end when we have exhausted Earth’s uranium ore, although breeder reactors could extend nuclear energy to almost any realistic horizon for the lifespan of an industrialized civilization.
In the business-as-usual scenario, entire nation-states are destabilized by climate refugees and perhaps by rising waters drowning coastal cities; in the nuclear scenario, entire nation-states could be destabilized by the loss of their largest cities to nuclear terrorism, given the increased opportunities for proliferation.
The cost of business-as-usual is accepting a planetary-scale redistribution of populations, widespread conflict due to climate refugees, the likely emergence of despotisms and tyrannies due to the need to enforce stability at the point of a gun. The cost of a conversion to a nuclear grid would be in nuclear accidents that could leave large geographical areas as poisoned no-go zones.
There would, of course, be many consequences in addition to the above, but those that I have mentioned strike me as the most catastrophic and the most controversial. But there are certainly scenarios in which our energy choices issue in even more catastrophic consequences. We will consider these possibilities next.
Iteration of this Thought Experiment
Let’s say, for an additional thought experiment — two thought experiments, in fact — that, when we go full steam ahead with one or the other of these options, we sow the wind, and we reap the whirlwind.
Catastrophic Failure of Option 1
Among the worst case scenarios of an electrical grid conversion to all nuclear generation is a scenario of multiple nuclear accidents, and a proliferation of nuclear weapons due to increased availability of nuclear materials, which in turn means the use of nuclear weapons, whether in warfare or in nuclear terrorism. One must imagine, in a worst case nuclear scenario, multiple Chernobyl-scale nuclear accidents, with similarly expensive clean up efforts, and large tracts of land contaminated and fenced off from human use. One must also imagine several major cities lost of nuclear strikes (much as I described in Trading Existential Opportunity for Existential Risk Mitigation: a Thought Experiment). Each city lost to a nuclear attack would also mean a large area contaminated by fallout. Even if our nuclear grid allowed us to clean up some of the pollution caused by fossil fuels, we might end up polluting more of the planet with radioactive waste, fallout, and unintentional releases of nuclear material from nuclear accidents.
Suppose, then, one looked back on a century punctuated by major nuclear accidents and nuclear strikes on major cities, and ask, ex post facto, whether it was worth it to maintain our comfortable industrialized mode of life at the cost revealed by the worst case scenario. Looking back over this worst case scenario, would one nod one’s head and tell oneself, “We did the right thing,” of would one shake one’s head and say, “We never should have pursued full nuclearization”?
Catastrophic Failure of Option 2
I scarcely need to outline a worst case scenario for continued reliance on fossil fuels, as these are the matter of daily editorials and articles. Since the worst case scenario is extinction, let us take a catastrophic scenario that does not involve human extinction, but nevertheless a catastrophic diminution in our way of life and our capabilities.
Suppose, then, that humanity survives, but that climate change is catastrophic, much of the polar ice melts, the oceans rise several meters, perhaps ten or twenty or thirty meters, and the great coastal cities of the world are underwater. Refugees flow from the coasts inland and from the hottest parts of the tropics to the temperate zones. The tide of refugees overwhelms many nation-states, whose institutions collapse and lawlessness prevails. The dead run to millions, perhaps tens of millions. The disruption is worse than fatalities, as those who remain alive are subject to disease, starvation, and misery.
The only things absent from the catalogue of woes are nuclear accidents and nuclear weapons — and if the failure of nation-states reaches a sufficiently severe state, then nuclear controls will be lost and nuclear war may be on the table as well.
Suppose, then, looking back over this worst case scenario (or nearly worst case scenario — presumably extinction would be worse, and that remains a possibility) of suffering and misery and instability and asking, ex post facto, whether it was worth it to maintain our comfortable industrialized mode of life at the cost revealed by the worst case scenario. Looking back over this worst case scenario, would one nod one’s head and tell oneself, “We did the right thing continuing to burn fossil fuels,” or would one shake one’s head and say, “We never should have continued on so unimaginative a course”?
The Renewable Option
Needless to say, our future is not bound by these two scenarios — we have other opportunities — and selecting one or the other of these options does not mean that the worst case scenario is an inevitable outcome. In the options above I did not include the transition to a renewable grid.
I never ceased to be surprised at the levels of skepticism that I encounter when I talk about renewable energy, as though we could send a man to the moon, build quantum computers, program artificial intelligence, and upload our minds into machines and live forever, but we are nevertheless incapable of designing an efficient and durable industrial power grid from windmills, solar (both photovoltaic and thermal systems), tidal, and hydropower. Recently I was having a conversation with a friend about renewables and he trotted out the old objections beloved of utility companies that windmills are loud and sometimes birds get killed by the rotating blades. No mention was made the birds that die from carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide or the noise involved in living close to any large industrial concern.
Given the catastrophic scenarios above, I would prefer the nuclear scenario, not only because it provides energy over the longer horizon and doesn’t put off the problem of the conversion of the grid that reliance upon fossil fuels involves, but also because it would result in a large nuclear industry that would allow experimentation with a great many advanced nuclear technologies that have never been given a chance due to proliferation concerns. However, I view nuclear energy only as a stepping stone, an extended grid conversion period, during which we can continue to supply industries that continue to consume power on a more-or-less business-as-usual basis, while we build the capacity of a renewable grid that can supply the power needs of a planetary-scale technological civilization.
