In March of 2024, the Biden Administration announced a loan of $1.5 billion towards the restart of the Holtech-owned Palisades nuclear power plant in Michigan. If the plan goes through and the Palisades plant is able to be restarted, this will mark the first time that the US has recommissioned a previously shut-down nuclear plant. The loan and restart of the reactor is projected to create economic gain in the region and promote the US’ goal of decarbonization. However, like many projects in the nuclear energy industry, the plan is not without its opponents.  

A History of Palisades 

Initially licensed for operation at full power in 1973, the Palisades nuclear plant in Detroit features a singular 800 MW reactor. The plant was originally scheduled for decommissioning in 2011, however an extension of this deadline was successfully filed with the NRC, pushing the decommissioning date back to 2031. The plant was shut down before this date though, mainly due to financial reasons under its previous ownership by Entergy. In 2022, the plant was sold to Holtech, who sought to restore the plant to operation, seeking – and now receiving – government aid for this process.  

The Benefits 

The main benefit that it sought to be realized by this endeavor is a stronger supply of carbon-neutral energy. Nuclear energy emits zero carbon emissions during operation, and this plays well into the Biden administration’s goal of a net-zero grid by 2050. The reoperation of the Palisades plant is expected to prevent the emission of 4.47 million tons of carbon dioxide per year by replacing fossil fuel energy sources (“LPO”). Investment in this project helps to renew this powerful source of energy without all the frustrations of building and licensing a new nuclear plant; as shown with Georgia’s Vogtle plant earlier this year, investments into new large power reactors typically take decades to see fruition.  

The project also boasts economic benefits for the region. Michigan governor Gretchen Witmer projects a regional economic impact of approximately $363 million by boosting jobs and infrastructure (Penn). Additionally, the project is aligned with the Biden administration’s Justice40 initiative to provide federal investment benefits to over-polluted, marginalized, and underinvested communities. Located in a community in which residents pay higher electricity costs than 97% of the rest of the American population, a reopening of Palisades will help to not only lower these costs but also provide additional jobs for residents (“LPO”).  

The Costs 

On the other hand, the proposed plan to restart Palisades does run into some issues, mainly economic ones. As mentioned with the Vogtle plant, large-scale nuclear projects have a tendency to run over- budget and past deadlines, meaning that the government and other stakeholders could be spending billions on a project that won’t provide a return on investment for the next few years. Additionally, concern is raised over the fact that the original reason for shutdown was the low profit of operation. Of course, technology and management has improved, but what’s to say definitively that this plant will become profitable in the long run?  

Along these lines, critics also point out the high cost of nuclear compared to renewables like wind and solar. Estimates put nuclear energy between 2.3 and 7.4 times as expensive as a wind and solar grid (Rapoport). If this is the case, then the proposed benefits to electricity costs in the region might not be realized, creating further strain on nearby communities.  

What Does it Mean?  

For now, the investments and plan to restart the Palisades plant are proceeding. Since both proponents and opponents of the restart cite the projected economics of operation, only time will tell who is right. Whatever the outcome of the Palisades restart, it will set a precedent for many of the shut-down reactors around the country. If successful, thousands of megawatts of clean energy could be used once again for the American people. But if budgets and timeline overruns once again become a problem, this process could be a large nail in the coffin for mega-scale nuclear energy, shifting the industry towards less capital-intensive projects like micro- and small modular reactors.  

Sources:  

Penn, Ivan. “Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan Plans to Reopen With $1.5 Billion Loan.” The New York Times, 27 Mar. 2024, https://www.nytimes.com. 

“LPO Announces Conditional Commitment to Holtec Palisades to Finance the Restoration and Resumption of Service of 800-MW Nuclear Generating Station.” Department of Energy, 27 Mar. 2024, https://www.energy.gov. 

Rapoport, Rodger. “The Government is Spending Billions to Restart Michigan’s Palisades Reactor. Why?” Detroit Free Press, 16 Apr. 2024, https://www.freep.com. 

“When the world learns the terrible secret of Los Alamos, our work here will ensure a peace mankind has never seen – a peace based on the kind of international cooperation Roosevelt always envisioned.” (Oppenheimer) With the recent pop culture success of Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, it’s easy to venerate the work and vision of the American scientists who developed one of the most destructive devices in human history. The cold war and nuclear threats are now at most a faint memory, and to the much of the younger generation an inconsequential era in a history textbook.

It would seem as though in the modern day the political dogma of mutually assured destruction has ensured peace, or at least the prevention of conflict escalation. However, the nuclear-weapon states of the world still possess enough atomic firepower to end all human life multiple times over. Furthermore, tensions have risen recently with Russia’s suspension of the New START treaty and Putin’s threats to use tactical nuclear weapons should the tides turn in the Russo-Ukrainian war. As a nation, we must evaluate if stockpiling a nuclear arsenal is still a viable deterrent to conflict, or if it would be in the best interests of the country and the world to push for disarmament, cutting the high costs of the program and reducing the threat of a world-ending war. 

The above paragraphs will be (roughly) the introduction to my issue brief, and should describe the exigence of this issue. To that effect, this issue brief will be aimed mostly at policymakers at the federal level, as well as normal American citizens who might not be aware of the current crisis, yet who still can sway national politics when banded together. 

The cause of the current issue of an overwhelming stockpile of nuclear weapons is largely a mechanical one. Fueled by fear of the Soviet Union during the cold war, American officials implemented the policies and organizations to maintain a technological lead over their adversaries, whose exact arsenal size was unknown. To be sure of a lead, the US produced around 5,100 nuclear warheads by 1961. 

Additional logistics of America’s nuclear weapon program also exacerbated a desire for nuclear weapon development.  Although both ultimately funded by the US Government, the “buyers” of nuclear weapons, the branches of the US military, and the providers/developers of nuclear weapons, the Atomic Energy Commission (now the Department of Energy), were provided with separate budgets and funding. The cost of nuclear weapons manufacturing came entirely at the expense of the Atomic Energy Commission, meaning that the military essentially viewed nuclear weapons as free, ordering nuclear weaponry to be manufactured when conventional weapons systems would work just as well. 

Similarly, the funding and prestige that came with the nuclear program sparked its own sort of arms race within America, with separate branches of the military and different national labs all competing against one another. Each of these factions sought to develop better methods of nuclear weapon deployment and designs in order to gain said funding and prestige. 

However, the end of the cold war and the enactment of the New START treaty in 2011 put an end to the rapid development of nuclear arms and the nation saw significant progress towards arms reduction. The US has reduced its arsenal to 3,708 warheads, and Russia 4,489 as of 2023. But Russia has now suspended the New START treaty, meaning that neither country has assurance of the capacity of the other’s arsenal, nor a restriction on rebuilding their nuclear stockpiles. 

Much of this issue lies outside our hands; much of it requires acknowledgement from Russia. I think to some extent capacity builders need to be enforced, informing the public of the true horrors of nuclear war but also the past successes with nuclear disarmament. This could be as simple as making these topics a requirement in high school education. A larger reform needs to be a system change: we need to bring international negotiations to the forefront of the stage, since worldwide collaboration is the only way to solve this issue. In a perfect world, a strategic arms reduction treaty would be extended to all of the nuclear-weapon states of the world, where each could verify the others’ development and deployment of nuclear arms.

“The possibility of a nuclear strike, once inconceivable in modern conflict, is more likely now than at any other time since the Cold War.” (Hennigan) With the Russo-Ukrainian conflict appearing less and less in media since its onset, America’s perception of the risk posed by the conflict is slowly fading. But this risk is greater than ever. Although Russian doctrine previously posed the possibility of use of nuclear weapons in the war, in late February of this year Vladimir Putin openly threatened nuclear conflict should NATO increase its involvement in Ukraine.  

Preparations 

The Russian nuclear threat, though unnoticed by the majority of the public, has been a topic of concern for US officials since the beginning of the war in Ukraine. The Biden administration has established a team of nuclear experts and strategists to revisit Cold-War era plans for contingency plan and responses to a nuclear strike.  

As some of this preemptive planning, in fall of 2022 the US supplied over 1,000 radiation detectors to Ukraine which have been set up around cities and power plants throughout the country. Ukraine has also now designated 200 hospitals as “go-to facilities” for treatment following a nuclear attack, with thousands of doctors and nurses being trained to treat radiation exposure (Hennigan). 

Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons 

When one thinks of nuclear weapons, the typical thought is a large mushroom cloud consuming an entire civilian target, like a city. These weapons are referred to as strategic nuclear weapons and represent the most drastic and destructive stage of nuclear warfare. Likely, Putin’s nuclear strike would not be of this variety, but would rather come with the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons – small explosives around half the strength of the Hiroshima bomb, used on a battlefield against military targets.  

While non-strategic nuclear weapons can possibly be seen as less barbaric than the bombing of a civilian target, it is important to note that even uses of these smaller weapons would cause thousands of casualties to both military forces in a bombed region, making the use of this weapon unique to a military like Russia’s which can “absorb personnel and material losses to a degree unimaginable to the West” (Alberque).  

Deterrence 

One of the challenges to responding to the threat of non-strategic nuclear weapons is that it puts into question just how far the policy of mutually assured destruction and nuclear deterrence should extend. During the Cold War, US and Russian nuclear stockpiles grew not with the intent of winning a nuclear war but preventing one. Although both countries possess far less nuclear warheads than in the previous decades, each still maintains an arsenal capable of obliterating the other nation.  

Unfortunately, “The Russian perception of the lack of credible Western will to use nuclear weapons or to accept casualties in conflict further reinforces Russia’s aggressive NSNW thought and doctrine” (Alberque). Russia may be willing to use a small, non-strategic device with the thought that NATO would not have the will to escalate towards the use of strategic nuclear weapons. Still, the US has warned there would be “catastrophic consequences” to the use of smaller nuclear arms, although this retaliation could come as conventional aerial bombardment of Russian military bases (Hennigan).  

Aftermath 

In both cases, escalation towards strategic nuclear warfare or the single use of a non-strategic weapon, the consequences would stretch across the globe. Escalated nuclear warfare, even with the detonation of less than 1% of the world’s nuclear arsenal, is estimated to cause over 27 million initial deaths and 255 million deaths over the following 2 years (Hennigan). While a small, non-strategic nuclear weapon would not have as large of an impact, thousands would die in the initial blast and radiation would be scattered among the territory of Ukraine. Radioactive contamination scares would diminish Ukraine’s ability to export grain, leading to food shortages across the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia.  

Both scenarios would devastate the world as a whole. In order to prevent either from happening, the US and NATO must find the narrow edge of having enough conviction to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent to prevent any nuclear conflict while still keeping any nuclear conflicts that may arise as limited as possible. By becoming more informed on the issues of nuclear weapon policy domestically and foreign, we as citizens can put politicians in power who will help to maintain this delicate balance.  

Image Source: The Warzone

Works Cited: 

Alberque, William. “Russian Military Thought and Doctrine Related to Non-strategive Nuclear Weapons: Change and Continuity.” The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 22 Jan. 2024, https://www.iiss.org. 

Hennigan, W.J. “Nuclear War: The Rising Risk, and How We Stop It.” The New York Times, 04 Mar. 2024, https://www.nytimes.com. 

Although nuclear energy promises one of the safest and cleanest forms of electricity generation, it’s impossible to ignore its ugly drawback – nuclear waste. While nuclear waste does not pose as drastic a danger as popular media would suggest (there have been zero recorded deaths from nuclear waste), nuclear waste creates challenges in the fact that it remains radioactive for a long period of time and could, if not properly contained, harm humans or the environment during that timeframe.  

Some radioactive waste, low-level waste loses its radioactivity after a few years, so it is just stored in facilities for that duration, after which it can be disposed of in a conventional manner. Still, a considerable amount (around 20 tons per year for a 1000 MW reactor) of high-level waste is generated in the US, and this waste remains radioactive for millions of years. Currently, no solution has been devised to safely contain waste for this long, however there are three main types of short-term solutions that each have their pros and cons. 

Store on Site 

With a lack of federal action to control nuclear waste, nuclear energy vendors are currently obligated to store each plant’s waste on site. High level radioactive waste is first stored in pools for a few years, then it can be vitrified — the radioactive material is broken down and then melted with other radiation-absorbing elements to form a glass. This vitrified substance helps to contain radiation emission and is durable enough to prevent pieces of waste from fragmenting and spreading into the environment. Furthermore, this glass is then encased in a metal and concrete shell to further contain radiation and make the waste resistant to “earthquakes, projectiles, tornadoes, floods, temperature extremes and other scenarios” (NRC). These casks of concrete remain on site at the nuclear plant under continuous surveillance.  

Dry cask storage remains the most implementable solution to nuclear waste, but it is not without its problems. First is that communities living near nuclear plants are concerned with the minimal radiation released by these casks and would rather have nuclear waste shipped off-site. However, a greater problem is that dry casks are not a permanent solution. Although it is generally agreed that casks will last for at least 1,000 years, a lack of time for testing leaves uncertainty as to how casks will fare 100,000 – millions of years from now. Leaving this waste on the sites of nuclear reactors means that far into the future, radioactive contamination could potentially spread across many different areas in the US.  

Yucca Mountain: A Dumped Plan 

It would therefore be more convenient for future humans if all radioactive waste were stored in one national repository. Plans were originally made in 1987 by the federal government to establish a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, where nuclear waste would theoretically be able to be buried for millions or billions of years without contaminating the environment. However, after issues with planning and with public sentiment, the project was abandoned in 2010 amid speculation of seismic and volcanic activity in the region, and a recognition of the Yucca Mountain site as belonging to the native peoples of the region. However, the Trump administration revisited the Yucca Mountain repository as a potential project in 2017, meaning that could be the possibility of a national repository being built in the future.  

Reprocess, Recycle 

But what if there were a way to reuse nuclear waste to power more reactors? After a fuel assembly’s 3-5 years in a nuclear reactor, only 50% of the fissionable isotopes have been burned up, and 95.6% of the fuel is still composed of uranium. It would therefore seem safe and economical to chemically process spent fuel, removing the highly radioactive substances (2.9% of spent fuel) and re-manufacturing the rest of the metal into more fuel rods.  

However, although this concept is currently a part of the fuel cycle in countries like France and Japan, American agencies see used fuel reprocessing as too risky to implement. This is a valid argument, since reprocessing purifies the plutonium in fuel. Plutonium is the element most easily made into atomic weapons, causing concerns that terrorist organizations might target reprocessing plants to catastrophic effect. Although all fuel contains some plutonium, for other storage methods of fuel this plutonium is naturally combined with highly radioactive elements, making theft deadly and nearly impossible.  

Additionally, the cost of reprocessing also poses an issue, since the cost to reprocess fuels exceeds the current cost of mining and refining natural uranium and storing spent fuel in dry casks. Perhaps there will one day be a more efficient reprocessing method, but for now the consensus of scientists and civilians seems to be against it.  

The Current State 

As of now, the US has a safe and efficient method of storing nuclear waste with dry cask storage. Even though it is not a permanent solution, it should buy the country enough time to implement the policies and technologies to solve the problem of nuclear waste for good. 

Sources:

 Hagan, Eva. “Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository: What You Need to Know.” greenmatters, 21 Feb. 2023, https://www.greenmatters.com. 

Jacoby, Mitch. “As Nuclear Waste Piles up, Scientists Seek the Best Long-Term Storage Solutions.” Chemical and Engineering News, 30 Mar. 2020, https://cen.acs.org. 

“Backgrounder On Dry Cask Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel.” United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 12 Jun. 2023, https://www.nrc.gov. 

Von Hippel, Frank N. “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It’s Worth.” Scientific American, 1 May 2008, https://www.scientificamerican.com. 

Included in the 2023 recap edition of the publication Nuclear News was the 2024 Energy Quiz – a general knowledge test to check readers’ energy issues literacy. The 20-question quiz included themes of 2050 decarbonization goals, health effects of different forms of energy generation, and energy requirements for different demographics, among other topics. Readers with zero to five correct answers were encouraged by the article to read up to improve their understanding of energy issues, while a score of 16-20 meant, “you should be advising Congress.” 

The goal of the rhetoric, as stated by the article, is to get readers to pay attention to energy issues. However, seeing as the article was published by a strongly pro-nuclear magazine, a subtler purpose of the rhetoric is to get readers to pay attention to the safety of and need for nuclear energy. This can be seen with specific questions such as, “According to the recent UN Economic Commission for Europe report, which energy source has the lowest life cycle impact on human health and the environment?” the answer to which was “nuclear,” and “When did the earliest known fission reactor (not just fission reactions) begin operation?” the answer to which was, “2,000,000,000 BC, the natural reactors at Oklo in Africa.” Such questions highlight the safety of nuclear energy in a way that one might not expect in an energy quiz published in say, an environmental advocacy magazine. While the statistics used to support the safety nuclear energy are true, in my opinion it does skew the quiz away from focusing on “energy issues” and more towards focusing on “nuclear energy issues.” 

However, if the goal of the rhetoric is to improve knowledge of nuclear energy, I do not think that it was all too effective. While it did get me to think about different facets of energy issues and nuclear technology, I think a shortcoming of this quiz was its delivery. The quiz was published in Nuclear News, which is a magazine with a rather niche demographic of nuclear energy enthusiasts. A large majority of readers are already familiar with the benefits of nuclear energy, and thus don’t gain much by completing the quiz. The rhetoric would be a lot more effective were it published for a more diverse demographic, one that would include a larger proportion of readers against or neutral towards nuclear energy. Unfortunately, while the quiz was made available online, it was only available for magazine subscribers, not the public. While this rhetoric does have the good intentions to educate the public on the benefit of nuclear energy, it falls a bit short in its purpose since it does not reach an optimal audience.  

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant (Image: NS Energy)

California’s Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant has caused controversy among the public since the beginning of its operation in 1985. Amidst particularly strong opposition to its operation, in 2016 Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) reached an agreement to shut down both of the plant’s reactor units by 2025. However, PG&E is now seeking to extend Diablo Canyon’s operating license for up to 20 more years, for operation until 2045.  

Proponents of the plant and nuclear energy in general argue that the Diablo Canyon Plant is essential for California’s green energy goals, that it will remain more efficient and reliable than renewable energy sources. However, other groups argue that continued operation of the reactor will end up in a net cost for taxpayers, while causing environmental and health risks. 

Cheap, Clean Energy 

Currently, Diablo Canyon is responsible for producing 9% of California’s electricity and 17% of California’s zero-emission electricity (Briscoe). Since nuclear energy is primarily used for baseload generation, generation of power that is constantly produced and constantly used, renewable energy like solar and wind would not be consistent enough to perfectly replace the power lost should Diablo Canyon shut down. Much of this baseload generation would have to be replaced by fossil fuels.  

Similarly, even if battery storage or similar technologies could be developed to an extent to extract baseload generation from wind and solar energy, the footprint of these renewables would be much greater than that of Diablo Canyon. The nuclear plant requires a mere 750 acres, whereas an equivalent power output from solar energy would require 108,918 acres, and wind 397,688 acres (Boisvert).  

The stable baseload Generation of Diablo has also been credited as a factor in the prevention and management of California’s summer blackouts, particularly by Governor Gavin Newsom (Nikolewski), however the Environmental Working Group points out that these blackouts could also force Diablo Canyon to temporarily shut down, decreasing the cost-effectiveness of the plant (Lacey and Smith).  

A Risky Cost 

Nuclear power, while providing low-cost power once operational, requires some of the largest up-front and maintenance costs of any power generation method. In order for Diablo Canyon to be recertified to operate past 2025, it will have to pass a federal inspection and perform maintenance to address safety concerns, maintenance which will presumably only increase in proportion as the plant ages. The state utilities commission estimates this cost to be around $6 billion (Briscoe), while more anti-nuclear groups estimate the cost will amount to between $20 and $45 billion (Lacey and Smith).  

Additionally, public fear of nuclear disasters plays a role in opposition to the plant’s operation. Of particular concern is Diablo Canyon’s proximity to both the Shoreline and Hosgri fault lines, prompting worry of a Fukushima-reminiscent seismic event. Although surveys by PG&E, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other seismologists have concluded that an earthquake capable of damaging the plant is unlikely for the plant’s remaining lifespan, there remains the slight possibility of an earthquake-induced accident at the plant, causing health concerns for nearby residents (Boisvert).  

Furthermore, although modern safety systems in nuclear reactors would mitigate the severity of radiation release in the event of a catastrophic seismic event, cost remains an ever-present factor. Plant damages could increase expenditures by millions, further increasing the burden on taxpayers and PG&E customers to keep Diablo Canyon operational.  

The Current State 

As of December 2023, California energy officials have voted to allow Diablo Canyon to operate until 2030. However, since the plant’s operating license will expire in 2025, PG&E still must obtain the necessary permits from the NRC to continue operation past that point. This will likely be a time and money intensive process, and to further complicate matters anti-groups such as the Environmental Working Group and Friends of the Earth have filed a lawsuit to prevent the NRC from approving the license extension. On the other hand, the Biden administration provided a $1.4 billion forgivable loan to PG&E to help facilitate the plant’s continued operation. Whether the risk of operating this plant will outweigh the benefits of its clean energy is yet to be determined, but the fate of Diablo Canyon will surely set a significant president for the continued operation of nuclear plants throughout the United States.   

Sources: 

Boisvert, Will. “The Diablo We Know.” The Breakthrough Institute, 04 Aug. 2015. https://thebreakthrough.org. 

Briscoe, Tony. “California Officials Vote to Extend Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant Operations.” Los Angeles Times, 14 Dec, 2023. https://www.latimes.com. 

Lacey, Anthony and Grant Smith. “Outrageous Costs, Deadly Dangers: The Real Costs of Keeping Diablo Canyon Open.” Environmental Working Group, 25 July, 2023. https://www.ewg.org. 

Nikolewski, Rob. “Diablo Canyon, the Last Remaining Nuclear Power Plant in California, Gets a Lifeline.” The San Diego Union-Tribune, 14 Dec 2023. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com.