Nuclear power as an integral part of the energy solution; the case for nuclear power in Zimbabwe.

4 min readNov 15, 2021

Case for Nuclear Power. 2

Environmental and political activism has since the 1960s vigorously opposed nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The anti-nuclear movement grew as a disarmament initiative, evolving to incorporate a ban on electricity generation from nuclear power plants. Efforts by anti-nuclear movements have led to the spread of misinformation and fear, albeit their noble cause.

Nevertheless, nuclear power is far from being evil, to quote Richard Rhodes, a winner of the Pulitzer Prize, who has also been a visiting scholar at Harvard, MIT, and Stanford University :

“ For too many environmentalists concerned with global warming, nuclear energy is today’s Devil’s excrement. They condemn it for its production and use of radioactive fuels and for the supposed problem of disposing of its waste. In my judgment, their condemnation of this efficient, low-carbon source of baseload energy is misplaced. Far from being the Devil’s excrement, nuclear power can be, and should be, one major component of our rescue from a hotter, more meteorologically destructive world.” Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution By Richard Rhodes • July 19, 2018

Reasons compelling and extensive by green NGOs against the development and utilisation of nuclear power technology were persuasive. Over a decade of activism, nuclear power was on its knees, accidents like Fukushima, the partial meltdown of the Three-mile Island reactor in 1979 and the explosion at Chernobyl in 1986 added impedance to the adoption and expansion of nuclear power.

Indeed, activists have a justifiable case against nuclear power, which has three main cons; waste disposal, risk of accidents and set up costs. However technology has been an ally of Nuclear power, reducing the probability of accidents, improving the design and construction of power plants, and nuclear waste is recycled to produce energy.

Chernobyl explosion 1986 and Fukushima are two notable major accidents involving nuclear power reactors since the inception of commercial nuclear power in the mid-1950s.

However, have been three serious nuclear power plant accidents since the commissioning of the first full-scale power station in December of 1957. Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), the Chernobyl disaster (1986), the Three Mile Island accident (1979).

The Third-mile Island partial nuclear reactor meltdown, according to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Third -mile Island partial nuclear reactor meltdown 1976,

“This was the most serious accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history, although its small radioactive releases had no detectable health effects on plant workers or the public. Its aftermath brought about sweeping changes involving emergency response planning, reactor operator training, human factors engineering, radiation protection, and many other areas of nuclear power plant operations.”

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission further reported that roughly 2 million people settled around Third Mile Island-2 are calculated to have endured an average radiation dose of only about 1 millirem beyond the usual background dose during the disaster. It is worth noting that exposure from a chest X-ray is about 6 millirem and the region’s natural radioactive background dose is about 100–125 millirem per year. The actual release had negligible effects on the environment or physical health of the population, says the report.

In Fukushima, in the aftermath of a major earthquake that left a trail of disaster that saw a tsunami disable the power supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors that consequently caused a nuclear accident in March 2011.

In March 2021, UNSCEAR published its 2020 Report, Levels and effect of the exposure due to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, an update to the 2013 report. The 2020 Report states: “No adverse health effects among Fukushima residents have been documented that are directly attributable to radiation exposure from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident. The Committee’s revised estimates of dose are such that future radiation-associated health effects are unlikely to be discernible.”

At Chernobyl, The UNSCEAR assessments of the Chernobyl accident report indicates in its conclusion that though the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 was a catastrophic event for its sufferers, and those numerous afflicted endured incredible hardship. While the Chernobyl accident disrupted many lives and some of those involved in the emergency lost their lives, the data shows lower irradiation than what has circulated through the media. People exposed to radiation generally were predicted to have positive outlooks for their health in the future.

The history of nuclear disasters recorded in the past century reveals how less destructive compared to other major industrial accidents. Activists and interest groups have controlled the narrative on Nuclear power in the mainstream media, ignoring scientific peer review data and technological advances that address concerns they raise. The nuclear waste issue is more political than it is a technology problem.

Technological advances have enabled the use of nuclear waste to produce energy. Nuclear waste is recyclable and can produce power for almost 100years. Work is continuing to make this more efficient. Nuclear energy is friendlier to the environment as contrasted to renewables whose production and implementation have environmental consequences.

Whether nuclear is profitable must be left to the markets to decide. In this era of rapid technological advances, we are witnessing the birth of micro-reactors and small modular reactors that may help lower costs.

Nuclear power is a clean and effective way of heating water to make steam that turns turbines to generate electricity, providing crucial baseload energy.

References

Nuclear power as an integral part of the energy solution; the case for nuclear power in Zimbabwe.

Case for Nuclear Power. 2

Written by Xolani Gatsheni