by Jordan Wilkerson
figures by Shannon McArdel

The United States emits an immense amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it is extremely likely that the rising global temperature trends since the mid-20th century is dominantly due to human activity. No scientific organization of national or international standing disputes this. Furthermore, the US Department of Defense has officially stated that climate change poses a serious national security threat. In light of all of this, the United States recently ratified the Paris Climate Agreement, which means we are committed to significantly reducing our carbon emissions. How do we do that?

Given that, in 2015, we released 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from electricity generation alone, and fossil fuels accounted for over 99% of these emissions, a great place to start would be to begin replacing fossil fuel power plants with alternative energy sources. The main alternatives are solar, wind, and nuclear. The first two are certainly alluring, attracting the investment of a lot of government money worldwide. However, they are also variable. The wind isn’t always blowing; days aren’t always clear and sunny. This isn’t to say relying solely on renewables is impossible or even unrealistic with some clever storage and transportation strategies. However, it is a challenge to replace the constantly running fossil fuel power plants with sources that are intermittent.

Ideally, we’d have a source that doesn’t emit CO2 and is consistently reliable; this is known as a baseload energy source. In this context, nuclear energy is the main alternative energy source that works. Yet, unlike its fickle counterparts, nuclear energy is subjected to hostile attitudes adopted by a number of governments in the world which restrict the building or continual operation of power plants. Fear for Chernobyl and Fukushima-type catastrophes exacerbate the unpopularity of going nuclear. The US, currently the world’s largest producer, relies on nuclear energy for 20% of its overall electricity generation. Yet there has historically been a strong anti-nuclear movement in the US, and the sentiment is still somewhat present today, as demonstrated by closures of nuclear power plants and stances held by prominent political figures such as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. In order to assess whether such notoriety is deserved, we need to learn about the physics of nuclear power and compare the statistics of its supposed dangers with that of existing energy sources.

What is Nuclear Energy?

Nuclear energy and fossil fuel energy have similarities in the way they are extracted. The basis behind running a fossil fuel power plant can be illustrated by examining a typical fire. In this instance, organic matter such as wood or natural gas is burned and converted into CO2 (see Figure 1). In this case, we change which atoms bond to each other and harvest the energy that is released when they reach a more stable configuration (as CO2). In a nuclear power plant, we are doing the same thing: extracting energy from atoms that ultimately gets converted to electricity. However, in a nuclear reaction, we don’t just rearrange which atoms bond to which. We change the atoms themselves, and the energy released is enormous.

Figure 1: In both combustion and nuclear fission, the particles that make up atoms and molecules are rearranged into a more stable form, which causes a release of energy.
Figure 1: In both combustion and nuclear fission, the particles that make up atoms and molecules are rearranged into a more stable form, which causes a release of energy.

How do the atoms change? In a nuclear reaction, the nucleus of the atom breaks into several pieces and releases an immense amount of energy. This process is known as nuclear fission. The nucleus we break apart for energy in most nuclear power plants is that of the uranium atom, specifically uranium-235 (that number indicates the total number of neutrons and protons in the nucleus).

To start a fire, which is an ongoing chemical reaction, we merely need some friction. Ongoing nuclear reactions do not begin so easily. To initiate the chain of reactions that supply us with energy in a nuclear power plant, we must bombard the uranium rod with high-energy neutrons. After we do this, the uranium breaks into two smaller nuclei (e.g. krypton and barium) and ejects several high-energy neutrons that cause more uranium to undergo fission.

This chain reaction provides a lot of energy, and the best part is that it does so without emitting any CO2. In fact, the only CO2 emitted due to nuclear power plants is what’s released indirectly from developing the construction materials! How does this compare to other energy sources? Coal power emits the equivalent of 820 g CO2 worth of greenhouse gases for every kilowatt-hour (g CO2eq/kWh) of electricity produced. (A kWh is a standard unit of energy used in billing by electrical utilities). Natural gas has a lower output at 490 g CO2eq/kWh. Nuclear power, though? A mere 16 g CO2/kWh. This is the lowest of all commercial baseload energy sources (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: The amount of greenhouse gases emitted from each energy source is shown above. Notice that, unsurprisingly, sources that don’t use carbon-based fuel release the least amount of CO2.
Figure 2: The amount of greenhouse gases emitted from each energy source is shown above. Notice that, unsurprisingly, sources that don’t use carbon-based fuel release the least amount of CO2.

The Problems with Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy isn’t all good news, though. The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster is the latest testament to that. This disaster was a consequence of the combination of a tsunami and a powerful earthquake in March 2011. Although the chain fissile reactions were shut down automatically in response to the earthquake, the tsunami damaged generators responsible for cooling the reactors of the plant. Without cooling, the components of the core of the reactors can literally melt from all the energy released from these reactions. In this case, they did. Radioactive material was subsequently released along with several chemical explosions, which were initiated by the immense heat released by the nuclear reactions.

Why is radioactive material dangerous? To start with, to be radioactive refers to the fact that this material is actively emitting radiation. This is not the same kind of radiation we’re familiar with such as visible electromagnetic radiation from a light bulb. Electromagnetic radiation emitted as a result of nuclear fission, known as gamma rays, has 100,000 times more energy than visible light. Radioactive material can also emit highly energetic electrons (beta particles) and small clusters of protons and neutrons (alpha particles). This concentrated energy causes the molecules in our body to react in ways that can be extremely damaging, sometimes giving rise to cancer.

Radioactivity isn’t just a characteristic of the material being used in the nuclear reactor. Even in the absence of a nuclear accident, nuclear power inevitably produces dangerous materials: radioactive waste. This waste, composed of mostly unconverted uranium along with intermediate products plutonium and curium, stays radioactive for extremely long periods, too, presenting a major problem in regards to storage.

Putting Nuclear Power in Perspective

There is no doubt that nuclear power has problems that can cost human lives, but such risks are borne by all major modes of energy production. Therefore, the question shouldn’t be, ‘is nuclear energy deadly?’ Instead, we should ask ‘is nuclear energy more dangerous than other energy sources?’

Fossil fuels have a host of problems themselves. The byproducts from burning fossil fuels are toxic pollutants that produce ozone, toxic organic aerosols, particulate matter, and heavy metals. The World Health Organization has stated the urban air pollution, which is a mixture of all of the chemicals just described, causes 7 million deaths annually or about 1 in 8 of total deaths. Furthermore, coal power plants release more radioactive material per kWh into the environment in the form of coal ash than does waste from a nuclear power plant under standard shielding protocols. This means that, under normal operations, the radioactive waste problem associated with one of the most mainstream energy sources in use actually exceeds that from nuclear energy.

In fact, on a per kWh of energy produced basis, both the European Union and the Paul Scherrer Institute, the largest Swiss national research institute, found an interesting trend regarding the fatalities attributable to each energy source. Remarkably, nuclear power is the benchmark to beat, outranking coal, oil, gas, and even wind by a slight margin as the least deadly major energy resource in application (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: The figure is based on estimates from Europe Union, which account for immediate deaths from accidents and projected deaths from exposure to pollutants. These estimates do not incorporate fatality rates in countries such as China where cheap coal combined with poor regulation are causes of considerably more fatalities.
Figure 3: The figure is based on estimates from Europe Union, which account for immediate deaths from accidents and projected deaths from exposure to pollutants. These estimates do not incorporate fatality rates in countries such as China where cheap coal combined with poor regulation are causes of considerably more fatalities.

The nuclear industry is constantly developing innovative technologies and protocols towards making the energy production process failsafe. Newer generations of nuclear reactors, particularly what is called a pebble-bed reactor, are designed so that the nuclear chain reaction cannot run away and cause a meltdown – even in the event of complete failure of the reactor’s machinery. Geological stability considerations will also likely play a bigger role in approving new sites of construction. And although long-lived nuclear waste may remain dangerous for considerable periods of time, that timescale is not prohibitive. In fact, even without recycling the fuel, which would further shorten the lifetime of radioactive waste, the radioactivity of the waste is reduced to around 0.1% of the initial value after about 40-50 years.

The primary proposal for long-term storage of nuclear waste is burial in very carefully selected deep geological repositories. Yucca Mountain in Nevada was once a promising candidate, though this option was shut down in 2011 due to strictly political reasons. There is now only one deep waste repository in the US: the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. However, this plant itself has faced some problems that highlight the need to research better alternatives for the Yucca Mountain repository. Unfortunately, the same sentiments that inspired closure of the Yucca Mountain repository have also inspired reducing research funding and preventing investigations of other potential geological locations. Finding a replacement for the Yucca Mountain repository is possible, but this requires greater cooperation between researchers and policy makers than is currently taking place.

Dangers associated with nuclear power are, in many ways, different from the dangers we face from other methods of getting energy. This might explain why fear of nuclear power persists and why the above fatality rates may surprise you. However, we know that nuclear energy does not produce the greenhouse gases that fossil fuels have been producing for over a century. Research also concludes that the more familiar dangers from using fossil fuels claim far more lives. Furthermore, with the advent of modern reactors such as the pebble-bed reactor and careful selection of plant sites, nuclear accidents like the one in Fukushima are actually not possible. When balanced with these notable benefits, the problems associated with nuclear power do not justify its immediate dismissal as a potential energy source for the world.

Jordan Wilkerson is a PhD candidate in the Department of Chemistry at Harvard University.

This article is part of our Special Edition: Dear Madam/Mister President.

For More Information:

1) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (learn how we know man-made climate change is happening)

2) Discussion of Nuclear Waste Disposal by American Physical Society

3) Six Air Pollutants Regulated under Clean Air Act (virtually all derived from fossil fuel combustion)

4) Comparing Radioactivity of Waste from Coal and Nuclear

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

28 thoughts on “Reconsidering the Risks of Nuclear Power

  1. This article does not address the real issues people have with nuclear energy and why they don’t trust it or want it in their backyards. The real problem with nuclear power lies within the people who operate it, regulate it, fund it and make money from it. For example, lackadaisical Operators running plants well past there prime without good inspections or knowledge of the material and component aging issues; accidents waiting to happen (e.g., Armenia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Romania). Regulators held captive by greedy utility corporations and parsimonious governments. The unknowing public waiting for some 20 years before a new plant can come on line all the while being asked to pay billions in taxes to fund just one of these things. Nuclear energy never could and never will be a good answer to climate change because the climate will have already gone to hell long before enough NPPs can be built to stop the process. Start this article with “once upon a time…” as it makes for a good fairy tale.

    1. I completely disagree. The real issue, as with anything in this world, is ignorance. This article is informing you, with corroborated references, of the facts. If we were only to base our strategies on fact, instead of conjecture and feeling, we would move forward with much more ease. I am glad I do not share your pessimism. On what analysis do you base your remark about things going to hell before enough NPPs, as you put it, can be built? What is your proposed solution? Are you imagining the world covered in little windmills and solar panels. Do you have any idea how many of these would be needed to replace just one NPP? Run the numbers, look at the facts; I am not interested in anything else. Get the chaff out of the way and assess the risks. We do not suggest we all stop flying in aeroplanes just because one crashes. We do our best to understand why things happen, based on facts, and move forward. We are a resourceful and ingenious species. The latest pebble bed reactor designs using Thorium solve a great deal of the perceived problems of waste and safety. Research into nuclear fusion is moving apace, an will, perhaps in my lifetime, have a solution that produces no nuclear waste, completely safely.

  2. This article inaccurately suggests Yucca Mountain was a political decision. Our colleague, William Alley, was Chief of the USGS on site and wrote in his Cambridge Press book, “TOO HOT TO TOUCH,” the cracked mountain floor leads to aquifer contamination below in event of any leak. Should a canister go critical, or simply leak, contamination would spread readily below the mountain.

    The current cost of remediation at Fukushima is estimated at perhaps $2 trillion. Imagine that US has 100 aged facilities, many not even shut down, yet. Jordan ought reconsider why SC billions of dollars invested are coming to a halt, including excessive construction costs, excessive operating costs, excessive costs following catastrophic failure, are few Jordan does not address when wearing his rose colored glasses.

    Full disclosure ought to make note if Jordan’s student loans were paid off by the nuclear industry, now on the wane..

  3. Hey, Bart!

    Author here. My statement that the decision was strictly political is based on a report by the Government Accountability Office – an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. You can access the report via the imbedded link in the article. In accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Secretary of Energy was specifically given the opportunity to state any technical or safety issues associated the Yucca Mountain site. No issues were reported.

    Your second paragraph primarily focuses on the economic feasibility of nuclear power. Broadly speaking, I completely agree that’s an important part of the policy conversation. However, a full economic analysis is not really a scientific evaluation, so it’s outside the scope of this article. In fairness, the article is called ‘Reconsidering the Risks of Nuclear Power,’ not ‘Embracing Nuclear Power with No Further Questions.’ My ultimate assertion is that there should be a more sincere conversation about nuclear power because it does provide climate and health benefits (relative to fossil fuels), which are two important factors that weigh into whether society should adopt a particular energy source.

    Finally, to briefly address your last comment: we’re a graduate student organization. As graduate students, we get limited funds from Harvard, but we’re otherwise on our own.

    1. This is false: ” it is extremely likely that the rising global temperature trends since the mid-20th century is dominantly due to human activity. No scientific organization of national or international standing disputes this.”
      Why?
      Because there are in fact a number of highly educated people in the scientific world, not worried about grant money that firmly detest that human activity is the leading cause for any warming or cooling of the Earth. Furthermore, it seems your research is done poorly, and leans on the side of political fulfillment rather than empirical evidence gathered from all sources. It seems you skip right past all those that do refute the man made climate issue, to include the British Antarctic Survey, which shows much more is due to Earth’s natural cycles. To suggest that no organization of national or international standing disputes the claims is beyond dishonest, and borders propaganda. The founder of the Weather Channel, and founding member of this climate change scare has come out and called for a stop to this idea that it is set in stone that people are causing climate change. It seems there needs to be a history lesson on propaganda for purposes of obtaining control/power, and money, which is a tool to achieve power. Controlling industry through regulatory product is a great deal of power, especially if one can condense that power and control global industry. The means of production have been a target by those seeking power for a very long time, stretching back to recorded history.
      https://www.nas.org/blogs/press_release/estimated_40_percent_of_scientists_doubt_manmade_global_warming

      1. Hello Eric,
        I ask that you please reconsider the legitimacy of your source. Fred Singer, claiming that an “estimated 40 percent of scientists doubt manmade global warming”, had his research funded by ExxonMobil, Shell, Sun Oil Company, and other wealthy companies with a vested interest in keeping the fossil fuel industry alive (Singer is also known for rejecting findings from peer reviewed research). Such companies invest a lot of money into casting doubt upon anthropogenic climate change (through funding/influencing researchers to produce reports favorable of their agenda, for example), because it’s better for their bottom line. They are using the incredibly effective tool of spreading false information to make the public uncertain, thus undermining progress in climate action. If you will, take a look at the pages below. For a deeper understanding of how our activity impacts the Earth’s systems, I’d even recommend looking into an Earth sciences textbook. That would be a good source of information without much of a political slant.
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4711825/
        https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
        climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
        Cheers.

  4. I am not a hater good job guys. You really helped me out with my ELA projects. Hope to see other great work like this in the future.

  5. Yes it is true that there are some cons of nuc enrgy but now you cant use your all renewable energy potential and ı believe that it is better than oil

  6. So nuc energy ıs the best solutıon but for right now. At the future all of the countrys wıll have the potentıal to use all of theşr renewable sources.

  7. Any event that causes nuclear reactors en masse to be unmanned is an extinction level event. For that reason they should NEVER have been built in the first place. All 500 of them containing hundreds of thousands of tons of hot radioactive waste. Any event that causes even a handful of these reactors to be unmanned would be an extinction level event. The entire premise for nuclear power is based on the assumption that nothing calamitous will ever occur again in the history of mankind. Really….

    1. Hey, Greg!

      Author here. The estimates displayed in Figure 3 include loss of life from historical nuclear power plant disasters. Therefore, the assertion that nuclear power is safer than other mainstream energy sources is based on 1 assumption: that historical trends can represent future trends.

      This might be a poor assumption, but it’s because nuclear power is expected to be safer for the following reason. Pebble bed reactors are a modern reactor design that passively cools. This is a contrast to traditional nuclear reactors, which naturally get hotter and melt down if they aren’t actively cooled – a feature that I’m sure was on the forefront of your mind as you wrote your comment. Because pebble bed reactors passively cool, even a complete failure of the nuclear power plant would not result in a disaster like the one Japan experienced with its Fukushima plant.

      This is not to say these modern reactors are 100% safe. However, they are considered much safer than traditional reactors. And traditional reactors are considered safer than other mainstream energy sources as I discuss in the article.

      1. The problem remains that older reactors are going to wear out, and require “hands-on” management to keep them safe, even as they are decommissioned, not to mention if some natural or political disaster causes them to become unmanned. Thorium is highly toxic, as well as being radioactive.

        Perhaps, in a perfect world, nuclear power can be made safe. But it is the problem of human activity that we are talking about. And human beings are not always sane. They are prone to the self-immolation of wars and political cruelties. However “safe” nuclear energy can be engineered, the bottom line is that human beings can not be trusted to do the right thing.

      2. Hi Jordan! I recently ran across your article and I am a current college student doing research on nuclear fuel and storage. If you don’t mind me asking, what are your thoughts on dry-cask storage and how it’s better than the cooling pools. Or any other things that should be important for a college student doing research about the topic?
        Thanks

    2. I respectfully disagree. I am a practicing professional chemical engineer working for a company that operates its chemicals plants on a partial unmanned schedule. Skilled technicians are present part of the time performing maintenance, quality assurance tasks, safety reviews etc. The process operates in automated fashion and with redundant controls. Process and supervisory controls available are better today than at the time of TMI or Chernobyl. Fukushima systems should have been programmed to shut down in all scenarios without manning. Japan has restarted 9 of its 35 reactors and expects to soon be back to a 20% nuclear power portfolio. Nuclear power plants continue to be constructed outside the USA so I think the question is whether we want America to be a leader in a world of safe nuclear power or to stand on the sidelines. In the USA, we have 800 GWH of nuclear energy generated annually (20% of total). We could increase this to 40% far faster than taking the miniscule amount of wind and solar to 20%.

  8. Nuclear power is deadly, dirty, expensive and short of uranium in a decade.

    The deaths from nuclear power are about the same per MWH when you include mining, emissions, wastes and use LNT and collective dose. Particulate alpha emitters are also 1000’s of times more carcinogenic.

    The mining, leaks, wastes and disasters have exposed people to enough radiation to cause millions of cancers over 80 some years. The waste will be deadly for a million years, civilizations will fall, and the location and hazards of the waste will be forgotten to history, but it will still kill people who mess with it. It will find its way into the environment. Nothing human made has lasted a million years, homo sapiens are only 200,000 years old. But we with arrogance and hubris claim we can safely store anything for a million years.

    This mining is some of the most toxic on earth. millions of gallons of water are contaminated, huge piles of powders toxic tails blow dust down wind cause cancers and deaths. Each nuclear power plants needs as much as 2 million tons of toxic mining per year to get it’s fuel. That’s 75% as much mining per MWH as coal.

    Lazard puts nuclear cost 6 times higher than new solar and wind, the utilities are shutting down nuclear for solar and wind. Nuclear needs the very same reserve generators for load following and peak that solar and wind needs for gap filling. It’s how Germany and Denmark manage the most reliable grids on earth.

    Grid batteries are cheap and profitable now and being installed at breakneck speed. They allow solar and wind to bid in the firm hour ahead market. In a decade we can expect a full day of storage enough to allow solar and wind to satisfy 99% of demand. Fuels from wastes will handle the small reserve fuels needs for the rare lulls.

    Nuclear power will be short of fuel in ten years(assuming 10% growth in capacity).
    The IAEA says that we will have uranium shortages starting in 2025, then getting worse fast.
    Pub1104_scr.pdf “As we look to the future, presently known resources
    fall short of demand.”
    Fig 16 show the shortfall in 2025 and it going 1/4 of that 2050
    fig 20 also show shortfall.

    After producing only 2% of the world’s energy demand for only about 40 years. Nuclear power never mattered.

    1. Hi, “Be”

      You mentioned the LNT model, which many have agreed overestimates risk and is not a perfect model. Also you seem to blow some things way out of proportion.

      Also, solar and wind are great sources of energy but they depend on the climate while nuclear reactors can run without a climate dependance. And they just are not as efficient as they can be at the moment (solar is only like 25% efficient commercially). And in order to satisfy the increasing energy demand, they would need to take large amounts of land to compare which can also be devastating to the environment in some cases.

      And you state that nuclear power will be short of fuel in ten years. We have about 80 years of fuel remaining and can tap into our reserves of decommissioned nuclear weapons as they are currently doing.

      And how can you say “nuclear power never mattered?” about 10% of the US uses nuclear power and 70% of France does two. If you ask me, it seems that it is a significant part of the 20 or so countries who use it and it would take a lot for solar and wind to replace it.

  9. The biggest problem with this article is its the same tired old false dichotomy.
    We face the time to solve the issues of warming. We know coal is awful in many ways yet the nuclear boosters keep using that as the comparison. We’re not going to convert to coal power to solve global warming.
    Coal power is now more expensive than renewables.
    You might as well compare a diesel semi trailer to a horse and cart, when the future is the Electric Semi.
    There are many issues. Hand waving away Fukushima with ‘but the improvements’ was being done from day 1 of the Fukushima incident without any real analysis of the situation. It’s the pre-prepared propaganda.
    Nuclear is too expensive, Solar & Wind & storage solves the problem and at lower cost.
    Nuclear is not safe, and the reasons why are generally not even in the debate.
    Yucca mountain is not safe for a long enough period.
    Al we know from this article is that coal has to go.

    1. Hey, Richard!

      Author here. Thanks for the comment. I feel like I already address most of these comments in the article itself. But do you make a point that I’d like to clarify.

      So first, glad to hear we at least agree that coal seems to be the biggest issue (from a climate and public health standpoint, at least). However, many of the issues I bring up with coal ring true for natural gas as well, just to a lesser extent. Natural gas is demonstrated to be both less safe than nuclear and more carbon intensive. These two fuel sources generated over half of US electricity in 2018 (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3).
      Natural gas use for electricity has been on the rise, largely thanks to the shale revolution. Right now, it is the biggest source of US electricity. So comparing today’s prevalence of coal/natural gas use to today’s prevalence of horse-and-cart use is pretty exaggerated.

      Wind/solar, meanwhile, accounted for around 8% in 2018. We’d need to scale those up immensely if we’re going to get rid of nuclear power, which composed around 20% of electricity in 2018, in addition to all fossil fuels. I’m not a nuclear booster. I’m just acknowledging that issues with nuclear may be overblown by many and its benefits underplayed. Surely, we don’t want to dismiss a clean, carbonless energy source based on safety fears that don’t mesh with public health data – especially as historical safety issues with nuclear power are being remedied with advancing technology. I know you may label that as a ‘but the improvements’ argument, but I don’t see why it’s ‘propaganda’ to acknowledge that technologies get safer as we better understand how to constrain their dangers.

  10. I enjoyed reading your article and found it informative on the intended topics. However, I think that the lifespan of nuclear waste was not amplified to the proper extent. Although it is a viable energy source… nuclear waste will last for 100,000 years which is likely much longer than human civilization. What are the ramifications of leaving these nuclear waste facilities unmanned years down the road? Does that even matter? Interesting dilemma we face as it is not a CO2 emitting form of energy nor immediately dangerous but the nuclear waste presents a clear dilemma both on an environmental and national security level.

  11. lol. for people who can’t read Serbian it says ” This info will be great for the motherland” the writer’s name is “Stalin”.

  12. This was a very enlightening article, and the main takeaway is that short-term safety issues no longer put nuclear energy at a disadvantage relative to other sources of energy.

    If you are anti-nuclear energy because you feel civilization as we know it could end, thus leaving the survivors exposed to radiation from unmanned sites, then realize two things: 1) We already have the problem of nuclear waste, so this issue is not going away. 2) If you believe climate change is the most serious threat to civilization, then consider the fact that embracing nuclear energy will help prevent the very “end of civilization” event you so fear.

    If on the other hand you don’t feel climate change is a major threat to civilization then just be upfront about it and admit that you have another agenda which causes you to oppose nuclear energy but push only for solar and wind.

Leave a Reply to Kyle Waterson Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *