It's 2019 and it is already midnight and I just wanted to get some sleep to be fit for work the next day but then I found this video on youtube which really got me thinking. So much, that I am writing this article in the middle of the night even though I should have been in bed long ago.
But, see the video for yourself because afterwards I am going to explain to you what exactly blew me away...
Wow, this guy is just awesome. I mean if I ever needed a lawyer, this guy would get me out of trouble even if I was 100% guilty. Well done Micheal, well done and he almost got me with these persuasive charts and the picture of an old lady showing even more charts.
But nuclear power is bad, fullstop. That is what I learned from my peers, my family and friends for decades. As he compared the human toll of catastrophic nuclear events to the long-term effects of air pollution, I suddenly noticed something - I realized he had a point.
With this video he tried to convince me that nuclear power is not that bad and compared to other energy sources it may even be superior but that is not what this video did to me. I suddenly realized that I had this deep inner belief that nuclear power is a bad thing which I never even questioned. I suddenly discovered my own unconscious bias. That's what shocked me the most because not questioning yourself leads to ignorance, intolerance and bad decisions. This is the reason why diverse teams make better decisions and communication is always better than not communicating because asking the right questions leads you to the best possible answer. Which is of course just my opinion but a lot of studies back this thesis. So why did I not wanted to listen to him?
The answer is simple, it is inconvenient. It's easy to blame others and to see things in black and white. But in most cases, this is just a convenient excuse to avoid the effort of thinking critically. It's a way to sidestep the complexity and nuance that true understanding requires.
What a dilemma, so where to go from here?
Am I right, is he right? Maybe it is neither of us because in this case it's not about being right or wrong, it is about forming an educated opinion. So I started to ask myself questions and started to get the answers (Thank you internet, it is now 2 AM btw.).
What are the facts? Yes, nuclear power is a massive source for energy generation with almost no air pollution. But for me, there are three points that speak against using nuclear power.
- Nuclear waste will be here for thousands of years, which is per se a bad thing, because we rely on humans who are not even born today to handle the waste we produced.
- If there is any chance of a super Gau. It seems questionable if we should take that risk. Large environments will be uninhabitable for hundreds or thousands of years because of the radioactive fall out.
- Uranium is only mined in a few countries which lead to unnecessary dependencies.
One point Micheal was completely missing is the economic perspective. The whole movement towards renewable energy in Germany was not an emotional act by the government but rather a clever planned move to innovate a country by focusing large efforts in science and economy towards promising new technologies. The results speak for themselves. The so-called German "Energiewende" generated over 5 million new jobs and is one cause for the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years.
What is the outcome, what is my opinion?
Nuclear energy can only be a viable option for the energy mix of the future if scientists manage to solve the waste problem, build more secure power plants with much lower costs and increase their agility to cope with the increasing fluctuations of demand and supply in our energy grid. There are some pretty exciting studies and companies liketerrapower orNuScale who rapidly advance in this field, trying to solve the above mentioned challenges and this shouldn't be deemed because they may be able to solve our current carbon emissions problems.
So, yes Micheal you have a point, inside the anti nuclear movement there are ignorant people and we should not let them define opinions for a whole society, but the next time you want to convince me, please shed some light on questions you did not ask yourself and please use unaltered charts.
In the end you did not manage to convince me to be pro nuclear energy (at least not in its current state) but you achieved something much more valuable, you made me rethink my beliefs and for that I want to thank you.