on the heels of a year plagued by a pandemic, tied for the top spot as the hottest on record and pushed to the limits of science denial and misinformation, scientists caution the world is poised at a decisive moment.

act now, before it’s too late, they warn.

in late january, the bulletin of the atomic scientists announced the 2021 time for its historic doomsday clock, which counts down to a “midnight” apocalypse. beginning last year, the clock displayed the time in seconds, rather than in minutes.

when the bulletin unveiled this year’s clock time at a news conference on zoom, the hands remained at 100 seconds to midnight, just as they were at the start of 2020. this is the closest the hands have ever been to this symbolic armageddon.

“the doomsday clock continues to hover dangerously, reminding us about how much work is needed to push the hands of the clock away from midnight,” said rachel bronson, president and ceo of the bulletin, at wednesday’s virtual news conference.

scientists founded the bulletin in chicago after the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki in japan in 1945 to highlight the threat of nuclear weapons. the doomsday clock, which began two years later, is a warning — but it also presents an opportunity to change. the world is at a moment in history where the “danger is high, and the margin for error is low,” bronson said.

the bulletin has warned in recent years of the threats of climate change and online misinformation, encouraging citizens to insist on facts in the face of lies from world leaders.

but “in 2020, online lying literally killed,” according to the bulletin’s 2021 statement. covid-19 has killed more than 2 million people as a mass of — sometimes contradictory — online content created what the world health organization called an infodemic.

“the pandemic serves as a historic wake-up call, a vivid illustration that national governments and international organizations are unprepared to manage complex and dangerous challenges like those of nuclear weapons and climate change, which currently pose existential threats to humanity,” bronson said at the conference. those two risks are the key influencers of the hands of the doomsday clock. 

so, after a year of worldwide strife, as climate change fueled massive fires, a pandemic ravaged world populations and nuclear war persisted as a real threat, why hasn’t the clock moved closer to midnight? turns out, there were a couple of important bright spots in 2020.

for one, renewable energy has proven to be resilient through the pandemic.

“once installed, renewable sources have nearly no operating source costs,” said susan solomon, professor of environmental studies at the massachusetts institute of technology and member of the bulletin science and security board, during the news conference. “and that shows how useful they can be in turbulent times like this.”

further, reports show that renewable energy sources may soon outpace coal use in the united states.

in the realm of nuclear weapons, the u.s. and russia intend to pursue a five-year extension of the new strategic arms reduction treaty, which caps each country’s deployed nuclear weapons at 1,550 each. and there are indications that president joe biden might commit to not using nuclear weapons first.

“as vice president, biden said there was no scenario in which the first use of nuclear weapons by the united states would make sense,” said steve fetter, professor of public policy at the university of maryland and also a member of the science and security board, at the news conference. “and his campaign stated that the sole purpose of the u.s. nuclear arsenal should be to deter nuclear attack. we hope president biden will take this important step.”

the doomsday clock is a tradition that goes back nearly 75 years. the bulletin of the atomic scientists first printed the doomsday clock on its magazine cover in 1947. then, it was seven minutes to midnight. in 2007, the bulletin included climate change in its calculations for the first time. since 2010, the hands of the clock have been inching closer to doomsday.

“i hope that we do more than just look at the clock and issue a few media reports and get on with our day,” said asha george, executive director of the bipartisan commission on biodefense and member of the bulletin science and security board, at the news conference. “i hope that we take this information and we act to bring those hands back farther and farther to make the world a safer place.”

at the virtual conference, former california gov. and bulletin executive chair jerry brown urged individuals to keep the pressure on world leaders and representatives in government.

“it’s time to eliminate nuclear weapons, not build more of them,” brown said. “likewise, with climate change: the u.s., china and the other big countries must get serious about cutting lethal carbon emissions — now, not tomorrow. it’s 100 seconds to midnight. wake up.”

if the wasteful byproducts our nuclear energy could be given a voice, perhaps this would be their collective cry. while the narrative was fictitious, the underlying facts are real: the united states really did once strafe barrels of nuclear waste with machine gun fire into the atlantic ocean. spent fuel rods really are left underwater for years, if not decades. while some nations practice fuel reprocessing, america is not alone in letting nuclear waste accumulate at reactor sites. and because of irresponsible waste management, real lives have been unjustly lost to slow, cancerous deaths.

but it doesn’t have to be this way. the technology to reduce or even outright eliminate, the existence of nuclear waste already exists. waste can be re-processed through a complex separation method known as purex (plutonium and uranium by extraction), which is already practiced by countries such as japan. through purex, radioactive residuals are separated through pyrometallurgical processing, which is essentially a redox reaction based on electroplating. the uranium can be reused in the fission process, while the transuranic elements (known as residual actinides) are encased in glass. this process, called vitrification, minimizes the containment risks of nuclear waste to safe levels, while also enhancing fuel abundance.

in addition, there are reactors capable of producing a nonhazardous variety of waste.  these are known as tri-structural-isometric, or triso, reactors. triso reactors contain a “pebble bed” of fuel spheres with a 0.5 mm uranium dioxide core. this core is covered in dozens of carbonous layers for absorption. once spent, the pebbles can be securely contained, do not require cooling storage, and are impervious to water leaching and seismic damage. the pebbles are much smaller and safer than a pile of uranium-filled barrels. what could possibly be a more ideal solution, except for perhaps switching to other renewable energy sources altogether?

in order to phase out fossil fuels and mitigate the colossal impacts of climate change already being observed, a transition to renewable energy is a must. this is truer today than ever before due to our rapidly closing time window to mitigate the worst of the climate crisis. but the transition must be done in a way that is responsible and fully minimizes the potential risks. this will be difficult with only ten years remaining to limit the catastrophic potential of the climate crisis. but the technological framework is already in place: all we need to do is pressure lawmakers and industries to use it! funding its implementation should be a priority, since the department of energy accrues >$1 million a year for nuclear waste research and policy. in fact, research has found that funding for nuclear waste disposal has practically zeroed out between 2012 and 2016.

have you listened to our friend’s story? (if not, click here or scroll back to the beginning and hear them out). by producing nuclear energy in an irresponsible and polluting manner, humans are violating our inherent duty to protect and respect all forms of life. we are not to be conquerors and subjugators of this unique creation. no, we are to be supportive members of the natural world that birthed us, raised us, and helped us thrive into the species we are today. that is not to say that we cannot use the gifts nature blesses us with, but it must be done in a way that will value life and our ecosystem services as highly as we value ourselves. for nature is but a delicate machine made from many moving and interdependent parts: remove or foul up one gear, and the rest will spectacularly collapse. 

even though it is easy to think this won’t impact me, realize this: if the earth and the resources we all rely on become poisoned (i.e. the atmosphere from an explosive rocket launch failure), then we are all doomed to the same fate. and it could happen much, much more quickly than the geographically and temporally vast consequences of climate change. as odd as this sounds, it is not about saving the planet in the end. earth has been around for 4.6 billion years and will continue to be, however battered and broken, until it is swallowed by the red giant our star will become in 5 billion years. no, in the end, it is about saving ourselves and our children. so we should strive to be compassionate and merciful to the rest of nature: if not for the sake of benevolence, then for our very existence.

now that you know there are better ways to harness nuclear energy, i encourage you to be loud, speak up, and demand change. you may not believe your voice matters, but without each and every one of you calling your representatives or visiting them in office, the wave of the peoples’ will ceases to exist. collectively, when our persistent voices rise loud above the din, we are the change we seek. but perhaps the most important thing to remember, above all, is to be kind.

washington – thirty-seven years ago, congress decided the federal government should be responsible for disposing of the waste from the nation’s nuclear power plants. but the waste still is being stored at the plants today.

several leading senators want the federal government to step up to its commitment by switching from the permanent repository site that had been proposed – yucca mountain in nevada – and put the nation’s 80,000 metric tons of spent fuel into several centralized interim storages. experts say the proposal would save millions of dollars without compromising safety. but the local opposition that eventually doomed the yucca mountain site is likely to occur at any interim sites.

economics of nuclear waste

a small parking lot sits by the shore of the back river in bailey point peninsula, maine. sixty-four white concrete casks, each one 26 feet high, stand in lines on the lot. they are the storage system for the spent nuclear fuel – the only reminder of the maine yankee nuclear power plant, which completed its decommissioning in 2005 and demolished.

the lot is approximately 11 acres, a minuscule share of the former 800-acre plant site, but the federal government has spent $176.5 million since 1998 to maintain the storage system, and the cost is growing by $10 million every year, according to eric howes, spokesman for the yankee companies, which include maine yankee and another two decommissioned yankee nuclear power plants in massachusetts and connecticut.

“the only reason we’re still in business is because the federal government has yet to remove the spent fuel,” howes said.

maine yankee is one of the 80 plants across the country that store spent nuclear fuel onsite. seventeen are shuttered plants like maine yankee, while others are still in operation. onsite storage of spent fuel is an expensive process. it requires 24/7 security and periodical monitoring to make sure the chemicals inside the casks are in good condition; the companies have successfully sued the federal government to cover the storage costs.

a 1982 law decided it’s the federal government, not private companies, that is responsible for disposing the nuclear waste, and congress in 1987 designated yucca mountain as the single central point for storage. it was to be operational by 1998. two decades have passed, and paying for the waste storage to 80 sites has cost the federal government $7 billion.

“the real crime here is what is happening to the taxpayers,” said rodney mccullum, senior director of fuel and decommissioning at the nuclear energy institute, a nuclear power advocacy organization funded by the nuclear industry. “a tremendous amount of infrastructure goes into keeping these casks safe and the taxpayers are paying for every penny of it.”

for communities where the closed plants are located, the economic damage has included the lost tax revenue from the plant and the difficulty in repurposing the land.

wiscasset, the town hosting maine yankee, collected $700,000 in taxes from the plant last year, a drop from $12 million when it was operating. although many of those plants –like maine yankee –have hundreds of acres of vacant land, it is very difficult to get new businesses to locate on the land.

“the land is basically useless as long as the spent fuel is sitting there,” mccullum said. “technically, i can tell you i could build a luxury condominium right next to those used fuel and it would be perfectly safe. but that’s not how real estate works.”

the new plan

to remove the spent fuel, the original plan was to build a permanent repository in yucca mountain, nevada. but although the site was designated by congress in 1987 and around $15 billion was spent on evaluating and developing the site, the plan stalled in 2009 after strong opposition from nevada politicians.

in april, republican sens. murkowski of alaska and lamar alexander of tennessee and democratic sen. dianne feinstein of california introduced a bill that proposes to build a few centralized interim storage sites of spent nuclear fuel. the bill also would establish an independent federal agency to manage nuclear waste and design a consent-based approach to determine the sites of nuclear waste storage facilities.

“storing fuel in one or two locations will be less expensive than storing it at the 17 locations where the reactors are currently shut down,” mccullum said. the idea is to gather concrete casks from “small parking lots” across the country to a few larger parking lots and centralize the management.

“these are passive systems with no moving parts, the number of people and amount of equipment you have to have, train and maintain doesn’t grow as much as you add casks,” mccullum said, “i think it’s safe to say the savings would be in the millions.”

and centralized storage won’t increase the safety risk, mccullum said, because “the [casks] don’t interact with each other and they are built to the same rigorous safety standards.”

before the bill was introduced, two companies – holtec international in new mexico and interim storage partners in texas – had filed applications for consolidated interim storage site to the nuclear regulatory commission.

nrc spokesman david mcintyre said both applications are still in early stages of technical, safety and environmental reviews with an expectation to finish in spring or early summer 2021. mcintyre said it is “uncertain if [the bill] will have a direct impact on either application review.”

like yucca mountain, sites in new mexico and texas face opposition from local politicians. new mexico gov. michelle lujan grisham wrote, in a letter to the department of energy and nrc, that the project poses an “unacceptable risk” to oil, gas and agriculture industries surrounding the site. and texas gov. greg abbott vetoed a popular domestic violence bill because of an unrelated provision about radioactive waste fees.

“unfortunately, the bill author’s good idea about domestic violence has been dragged down by a bad idea about radioactive waste,” abbott wrote in his veto statement.

consent-based approach

the senate bill makes it clear that choosing a site for nuclear waste storage facilities would need local consent, which includes approval of local government and the governor. but social scientists argue consent should be more than that.

“lasting consent is essential, and it has to come from more than just the elected officials,” said seth tuler, an associate professor at worcester polytechnic institute who is an expert in risk governance and policies in nuclear waste management. elected officials come and go, tuler said, “and they were not elected to make this decision.”

the bill would give discretion to the proposed new agency for deciding whether communities contiguous to the storage facilities would be included in the consent-seeking process. tuler said neighboring communities and communities through which nuclear waste is transported should have a say in the decision-making process.

“imposing a decision on local community in the states hasn’t worked very well. in fact, it hasn’t worked at all,” tuler said. “yucca mountain is a perfect example.”

——

editor’s note: a quote attributed to seth tuler has been clarified, and a new version of this story published july 25, 2019. 

washington –a bipartisan group of senators has revived the longstanding issue of where to store and dispose of nuclear waste with a new bill proposing centralized interim storage while a search for a permanent disposal site is conducted.

thirty-two years ago, congress designated yucca mountain in the nevada desert 90 miles northwest of las vegas, as the permanent repository for all u.s. nuclear waste, and spent $15 billion on the site throughout the years. but facing strong local opposition, the site was never put into use and the project was abandoned by then-energy secretary steven chu in 2009.

three bills aimed at solving the nuclear waste disposal problem have been introduced since then, but all failed to get congressional approval. the latest attempt was introduced in april by alaska sen. lisa murkowski and tennessee sen. lamar alexander, both republicans, and california sen. dianne feinstein, a democrat.

“do we continue to delay in the face of the stalemate over yucca, or do we try to find another path forward for used fuel storage?” murkowski asked at a senate energy and natural resources committee hearing on the measure thursday.

the bill would establish a federal agency to manage nuclear waste by finding storage sites while looking for a permanent disposal location. the agency would be required to get buy-in for a site from area residents as well as the state’s governor and the local government.

the interim storage sites are intended to circumvent the kind of opposition gridlock that surrounded the yucca mountain site.

every day, the federal government spends $2.2 million to store a total of 80,000 metric tons of radioactive spent nuclear fuel at 80 nuclear power plants – some still operating, some closed, according to the government accountability office and nuclear energy institute. it will take thousands of years for the spent fuel to decay. a 1982 law made the u.s., not the private companies that operate the plants, responsible for disposing of the nuclear waste.

the lack of a permanent solution to nuclear waste storage has hampered the development of the nuclear power industry, said steve nesbit, chair of the american nuclear society’s public policy division, who represents 10,000 nuclear scientists and engineers.

but geoffrey fettus, senior attorney of the environmental advocacy group natural resources defense council, said in written testimony that the bill “prioritizes consolidated storage at the expense of a meaningful repository program,” adding that storage sites could become de facto repositories.

maria korsnick, president of nuclear energy institute, told the committee it should seek to make yucca mountain the viable permanent site alongside authorizing interim storage in order to alleviate concerns like those of fettus that interim storage will become permanent repositories.

but maine sen. angus king indicated that even finding interim storage sites could face the same fate as the yucca mountain site.

“what if every state says no?” he asked.

an ever-changing climate, with hazardous effects on the earth and its atmosphere, coupled with a malfunctioning political structure, led to a disastrous energy crisis. 

furthermore, skeptics of these worsening conditions tarnished the previously stellar reputation of leading scientists and engineers around the world. yet, the altruistic nature of these scientists and engineers allowed for perseverance through these societal and political hindrances, to make way for the silver bullet of the deteriorating energy industry: nuclear fusion.

since the mid-20th century, nuclear fusion has been a scientific mystery that had the potential to solve the world’s energy crisis. nuclear fusion is so revolutionary because it utilizes the most abundant element in the universe, hydrogen, to produce electricity without any toxic waste byproducts. fusion technology utilizes the energy emitted from the collision of hydrogen nuclei at high speeds. 

conversely, nuclear fission technology splits atoms of expensive, radioactive, and rare earth elements such as uranium and plutonium. while nuclear fission has been utilized extensively, primarily for electricity generation and thermonuclear weapons, sustained nuclear fusion reactions have since alluded scientists. 

due to the extremely high temperatures required to sustain a fusion reaction, as well as other engineering limitations, nuclear fusion fell to the wayside of the cheaper and more abundant coal and natural gas.  as the years passed, the energy crisis only became more serious, forcing almost all oil, natural gas, and coal to be mined to power the ever-increasing economy and population. 

alongside the depletion of natural resources, the earth’s temperature continued to increase, due to greenhouse gas and particulate emissions. the increasing atmospheric temperature continued the melting of polar ice, with decreasing albedo (ice reflectivity) creating a positive feedback loop, resulting in rising sea levels. 

additionally, the particulate emissions from the transportation sector and coal-fired power plants led to health issues for citizens in densely populated areas. despite how apparent these problems became, many governments around the world failed to respond, whether it be for a lack of resources or a yearning for power.  as the human population continued to grow at an exponential rate, these problems were exacerbated. thus heightening the necessity for a solution to the economic, environmental and energy related crises the earth was facing.

however dark a picture these issues painted, the scientists and engineers of the world continued their research to find a solution. while advances in solar, wind, and hydropower technologies were important, their life cycle emissions, low efficiencies, and intermittency could not bear the peak load of power that the world continuously demanded. however, after decades of research, came a sustained nuclear fusion reaction that could potentially power a large city.  while the scientists knew that the feasibility of nuclear fusion power was low, the energy crisis was not going to solve itself. 

despite political pushback, they continued to lengthen the sustained reactions – improving the feasibility of the project. one issue that could not be hurdled was the high cost of this research. it is estimated that it would cost roughly $4 billion u.s. per year to continue improving fusion technology to a developmental stage. although this seems too expensive, in a time of economic and environmental crisis, nuclear fusion (when completed) has relatively no fuel or maintenance costs. unlike any other power source used at the time, a fusion reactor would use roughly enough hydrogen fuel to fit in the bed of a pickup truck, to produce 1,000 mw, and the reactor would operate all year long. 

as of 2050, nuclear fusion reactors eliminated the intermittency problems faced with solar and wind power, minimized fuel and maintenance costs, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions dramatically. yes the upfront costs for research, development, and building of these reactors were large, but they have proven effective. with electrical infrastructure already in place, these reactors can be constructed virtually anywhere, creating clean, renewable power for thousands of structures. 

and as for the scientists, engineers, activists, and supporters of clean power for a sustainable future, that did not see their hard work in action, they are the martyrs that solved the energy crisis.

—

reference:

• fedoruk centre (2016). fusion 2030: a roadmap for canada. retrieved from http://www.fedorukcentre.ca/docs/fusion_2030_roadmap_20160930.pdf

the nuscale plant uses natural forces to operate and cool the plant. this eliminates the need for many of the large and complex systems required in today’s nuclear plants. this simplicity allows the nuscale power module to be factory-built and transported to site. this makes nuscale plants faster to construct, and less expensive to build and operate.

each nuscale power module generates 45 megawatts of electrical power. additional modules can be added, providing scalability as electricity demand grows. this gives customers with smaller power requirements economical, reliable, and carbon-free power in their portfolio. nuscale’s 160mw thermal output also makes it a perfect fit for process heat and steam applications, such as refining, desalination, and district heating.

i used to operate a real-time x-ray machine to examine jet-engine parts but do not have that job any longer. all i would need to do is to x-ray a solar cell (or a stack of them) hooked up to a voltmeter to see if it will work. if this does work or even is remotely feasible, all of those fuel rods wasting away could be used to power many different things and in this configuration should not need a cooling system. since there would only be one rod per “battery,” the “battery” housing could be lead, tungsten, or some other material since the radiation from the rod is not too high.

photo credit to paul stevenson.

after the nuclear disaster in japan, thorium’s gained more exposure as a cleaner, safer alternative to uranium. if this technology exists, do we have to wait for the planet to melt-down (pardon the way too realistic pun) before we go to it?

photo credit to paul j. everett.

general atomic’s em2 has the capability of helping solve the $100-billion problem of america’s current nuclear waste stockpile, and harnessing its enormous unused energy. our nation’s stockpile holds the energy equivalent of 40 saudi arabias. burying it in underground repositories will cost an estimated $100 billion. spend billions or recycle so effectively we can help end u.s. dependence on foreign oil?

em2 is the energy multipler module: virtually unlimited energy production, economically competitive with minimal waste (only 3% of conventional light-water reactors). created by the energy and advanced concepts group of general atomics, a san diego-based technology company with more than a half-century of world-changing innovation.

in addition to clean tech, this great technology offers seriously improved safety and flexibility: no water needed, so it can be sited anywhere – away from vulnerable coasts and heavily populated areas like southern california’s troubled san onofre nuclear plant, with 7.4 million people and a major military base within a 30-mile radius.

em2 is like using the lumber-mill sawdust without ever having to cut timber again.

could tornadoes be linked to climate change?

do you prefer the freedom of boxers or the security of briefs?

bill nye answered two of those questions when we sat down with the science guy on friday, plus more submitted by the planet forward audience on facebook.