USA, California – Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station. Heather Matteson, nuclear power plant operator, co-founder with Kristin Zaitz, Mothers for Nuclear.

Subscribe now

Katherine Birdsong. Augusta, Georgia, USA

The use of commercial nuclear energy in the United States and in many countries around the world is currently at a crossroads. What industrial leaders and politicians act upon in the next four to ten years will lay the groundwork either for a nuclear energy revival, or usher us towards future harms with continued indifferent to negative attitudes toward nuclear energy combined with a utopian hopes for lower-output, expensive, or partially-viable forms of renewable energy.

The political climate of the United States remains closely divided, although the pro and anti- nuclear power shift shows a slight edge towards boldness in pursuit of nuclear. The recent pro-America groundswell provides a drafting effect for pro-nuclear energy momentum. This, ironically, will serve a globalist interest as well. Carbon emissions are zero for nuclear energy, a rate left-leaning, global-minded citizens can embrace. While far from ideal or smoothly calibrated, pro-nuclear and pro-environment change agents have risen to positions of prominence. Nuclear energy needs leaders who will not back away from controversial energy positions and who can clearly communicate the role of nuclear in the near and long-term U.S. energy policy. Today, nuclear energy as an inexpensive, clean, and viable source remains a vital component of the U.S. energy infrastructure. However, both new nuclear concepts and visions, as well as old nuclear stalwart producers appear to be hidden in plain sight, their endeavors and plans rarely discussed in the mainstream public square of debates. The focus of the public is elsewhere, so nuclear would need to fight for a turn to speak and be heard.

Today (mid-March, 2020) U.S. energy production as a whole, as a public debate concern, rests quietly on the back burner. Thankfully, the current nuclear production for the nation is averaging about 20% of the total energy generated. This is, on the world’s grading system, a “C” or “C-.” It should be a “B” or “B+” but the U.S. has failed to move the ball enough. Nuclear energy, as a practical issue, is a moderate success. However, nuclear is not succeeding in its enormous potential to grow and alleviate critical needs - energy - environment - medical - for today and, more importantly, the future of this country. The once-vogue conversations, public commentary, and passions and vision for clean energy, and especially the nuclear varieties, has waned. I do not have hard data to back up this statement - it is an unscientific observation.

In recent years, I noticed Liquid Natural Gas and fracking stories soaked up most of the publishers’ ink, along with stories about solar energy and electric cars. “Alternative energy” is a vogue topic on university campuses, and nuclear remains the ugly stepchild, at least conversationally. China and other countries’ quiet pursuit of new nuclear builds creep up, increasing steadily, not in hiding, but with little fanfare or eyebrows raised abroad. The U.S. new builds, in stark comparison, are either non-existent, or limping to the finish, with the Plant Vogtle, Georgia build moaning a doom and gloom funeral dirge toward any would-be investors in new nuclear plants. Bankruptcy and price overruns have a way of discouraging new investors. Awash in inexpensive oil, the U.S., in about a New York minute, grows sadly complacent about energy. Our wallets are energy fat; the supplies of oil under a Republican administration, beginning in 2016, grew robustly. As long as the average consumer is content to burn oil as a major source of energy, even to fuel their “green” electric cars, there will be little ground support to overcome the challenges of new nuclear energy projects.

The United States’ rise to prominence as a net positive energy producer and exporter has, quite simply, taken some of the urgency required to push corporate boards and companies towards the risks of new nuclear. This does not have to be this way, but until courageous leaders are willing to invest political capital on nuclear energy, the passions will run along lines of least resistance, driven by other issues and obstacles. In a fact-driven world, nuclear energy will prevail in any legitimate debate, discussion, or comparison of energy alternatives. But facts, in a political age where science is politicized, are dodgy creatures of the underworld. They cannot be summoned without practical weapons of bright light, logic and an adult to aim the light. These tools are rarely welcome in mainstream media and common dialogue.

While not a main voting issue, nuclear energy still inserts itself into political campaigns. Bernie Sanders, Vermont Senator (D) claimed, if elected, he would eradicate all nuclear energy plants in the US. This type of balderdash rhetoric appeals in a knee-jerk way to anti-progress, anti-math, Death to Capitalists!- type followers. I think nuclear energy is safe from Feeling the Bern, however. More important than worrying about a Sanders impact on nuclear energy, nuclear advocates should target this same constituency and attempt to convert those who have been lied to about the environmental impacts of nuclear energy. Bernie Sanders star will set, soon, and unless advocates go on the offensive with an accurate, succinct, and well-packaged message, a new start will emerge to build and solidify the damaging and unscientifically based scare tactics begun.

Because nuclear is no longer in the public spotlight, its future success is diminishing. Success begets success, and nuclear is in a slight retreat in the U.S. This situation must be reversed in order to shift the momentum. Current power plants in operation need or will soon need updates, which cost millions of dollars. In order to move forward with building the most cost effective and “green” power plant, energy policies must change. The political squabble over how to dispose of “nuclear waste” has made it practically impossible to make any progress in promoting nuclear energy. Now is not the time to surrender, to slow down efforts, or to question “will this ever succeed.” The question is not “will it” but “how will it” and more importantly, perhaps, “who?” Nuclear energy advocacy will require strong leadership and a more booming, unified voice that demands to be heard both in the public square and in the necessary government offices.

Nuclear can recover and progress in the future, after recent setbacks, only if it undergoes an image makeover. Sadly, the word nuclear still draws negative images of explosions and radioactive deer. People remember events such as Fukushima and Chernobyl yet recall little or nothing of the causes or casualties of these disasters. The consumption of Bullet Point News, “fake news,” and Instagram attention spans must be met head on by those who can capture the attention of both young adults and old.

Nuclear advocates need to rebrand nuclear, soon, and regardless of political winds of change. Pro-nuclear environmentalists should not let the trendy aesthetic of ‘green’ energy paint the narrative, practically unchecked, as it currently does.

There are many good examples of commercial nuclear power. Here are some:

French nuclear power stations showing number of units. France has many outstanding features for their nuclear power program. This includes: - standardization of plants at the same site – optimization of spare parts and staff – planning for long term continued operation of nuclear power at each site – planning for recycling of use fuel. Many of these details are missing in most countries.

France, Penly Nuclear Power Station showing two existing operating plants and site for two replacement plants at end of life of existing plants. Brilliant, simple planning lacking in many other countries.

Canada -Bruce Power Station. The Canadians, like the French do an outstanding job of managing, operating and maintaining their nuclear power plants.

China – Hongyanhe Nuclear Power Station

Jordan – Research and Test Reactor

Russia – Kursk Nuclear Power Station

South Africa – Koeberg Nuclear Power Station with free-roaming wildlife right up to the perimeter fence.

USA, California – Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station

Don’t let false prophet alarmists destroy everything.

Theodore (Ted) Rockwell, Chief Civilian Engineer for Admiral Rickover’s Nuclear Navy

Mary Claire Birdsong (left), high school student, Augusta, Georgia with Wanda Munn, (right) nuclear engineer at the Fast Flux Test Facility at Hanford, Washington, USA - 2013

Subscribe now

Background on Dr. Theodore (Ted) Rockwell, nuclear engineer.

Ted Rockwell was the chief civilian engineer for Admiral Hyman Rickover’s Nuclear Navy.

He wrote the definitive textbook on radiation shielding that was used by nuclear engineering students around the world.

He was a leading spokesman for commercial nuclear power and gave many testimonies to Congress.

In his last years, he worked with high school student, Mary Claire Birdsong advising her on nuclear power. She used this information in three years of debate team advocacy for nuclear power. In her Junior, she was ranked in the top 10% of high school debaters in America

Dr. Rockwell is a nuclear engineer respected and admired around the world.

Poem by Mary Claire Birdsong dedicated to nuclear power pioneers on the occasion of Dr. Rockwell’s 90th birthday - The poem is followed by signatures of professional colleagues and nuclear power students around the world.

Anonymous because of concerns about recriminations from faculty,

Subscribe now

Table of contents:

1. Introduction

2. Environmental studies

3. Personal challenge

4. Where I am now

5. My interest in nuclear energy

6. A conference of interest

7. My history with South Korea

8. Mexico City example intersects with Seoul

9. Is nuclear as an energy concept progressing? Are people informed enough?

10. My request

11. Why this conference

12. Closing point

1. Introduction

I was 13, in eighth grade, when my sister entered her senior year and was a co-founder of a now closed website, go-nuclear.org about nuclear energy. The rich environment of discussion of nuclear energy, radiation, and nuclear medicine impacted me indirectly. “Nuclear” became an interest. I perused the research from the website, making presentations at college.

I just turned twenty-one, and soon will take the culminating college course. I major in Biology and minor in Environmental Science.

Originally, I intended to pursue a medical occupation after graduation. I completed 300 shadowing (medical) hours early in my college education so I would be prepared to apply to Physician’s Assistant program in my senior year. I was fairly certain I wanted to be a PA. The health career “shadowing” experiences proved valuable. I showed affinity and comfort in that environment. Professionals were encouraging. I traveled to Alaska to shadow medical personnel at the Alaska Native and American Indian hospital in Anchorage. While there, I got to hike and experience the beautiful landscape, bears, eagles, and other wildlife.

In my second semester of school I realized my love for nature and pristine outdoors fueled my interest in biology. While I definitely wanted to help people, I felt led in a different direction, not towards a hospital or clinic setting. I became intrigued with new ideas, research, and technology that can solve problems and improve human lives. I heard many guest speakers, including a scientist who researched mushrooms to create new medicines and vaccines. I gravitated towards different ideas: health and preventive medicine, research (although not the boring kind!), and experimenting to find new ways to address environmental problems. My interests are not set in a certain order, they may or may not be related, and I will be formulating and developing more ideas regarding those interests in the future.

2. Environmental studies

This past May I traveled to Costa Rica to study sustainability and biodiversity. Through my previous experience in school I already knew our renewable energy discussions on sustainable energy would not include nuclear. In my Introduction to Environmental Science class my professor asked on the first day “What do you think is the best form of energy is?” while pointing to the picture projected on the screen that showed the symbols for renewable energy including wind, solar, geothermal, anaerobic, and hydroelectric. It was a loaded question. Best for who? Best in what regard? Best for what environment? Knowing that he just wanted my opinion I responded “the form that is not represented. Nuclear.” The professor moved on quickly in the hopes that the other students would not engage. Open discussion of environmentally friendly energy is not, usually, permitted at a liberal institution. I realize this is the case for many students.

While studying renewable energy in Costa Rica (a country that gets more than 95% of its energy from renewable source) we spent a day hiking at Arenal volcano and lake. Arenal is used to generate energy using geothermal sources, and the man-made lake surrounding the volcano provides hydroelectric power. There are wind turbines around the lake, located to pick up wind from the valley. What was swept under the rug while learning all this was the fact that three towns that had to be relocated to build these energy systems. Perhaps the people living in the towns were okay with relocating and maybe even compensated. Perhaps. But, I think the students should have been presented with the whole story rather than only rosy snippets.

When I talk to my friends about energy they quickly show enthusiasm for wind and solar, the two most well-known choices. My friends’ photos of wind turbines pop up on my Instagram feed. People get excited when they see the huge, futuristic looking turbines. Sleek and white, they have been artfully designed to better sell the attractiveness notion of “clean energy.” (Attractiveness is fine, the monoliths will remain visible, architectural features for decades or more past their useful lives).

When my friends asked my thoughts on energy, they became alarmed at my response. They had been indoctrinated that nuclear is bad.

3. Personal challenge

I was interested to do more studying, advocacy, and become involved in the nuclear energy community in the past few years. Women in Nuclear, WiN, the American Nuclear Society, ANS, all offer opportunity. Taking on advocacy projects is a challenge when you are pursuing a full load of courses, playing in orchestras, and participating in campus activities. But, I could tell immediately that my college was a place that needed diversity in speakers.

4. Where I am now

The last step before I graduate with a B.S. in Biology is to complete and present a research project at a conference in the spring of 2020. The research begins in January. This means I have a window of time to put to good use.

I will: 1) work locally to earn final semester expenses, 2) develop and write a business plan for my version of eco-friendly, natural burial/cemetery, 3) research / write updates on the renewable energy efforts happening around the world, especially regarding the status of nuclear energy reactors - new builds - or changes in energy policies.

5. My interest in nuclear energy

I have “grown up” in interesting times - information can be live tweeted and access to trends and certain information is at an all time high. Fancy equipment is not needed to inform or be informed. Platforms such as Youtube, Instagram, and Twitter allow anyone to have a voice about anything (although social platforms censor some viewpoints, and this must be addressed.) Info-traffic can be stressful from a consumer perspective, due to the cacophony of empty “noise” (info junk) we have to sort through.

Wind, solar, hydroelectric, and more have all figured out how to use social platforms to their advantage. It helps tremendously that they have political allies. Additionally, elitist supporters of these energy forms have successfully made nuclear the eye-roll or joke and portray people who support as idiots. My college classes include creative videos highlighting these energy sources as well as talk shows such as Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. See a twenty minute video *actually* shown in my 50 minute environmental studies class here, scaring people away from nuclear because it turns people into radioactive monsters.

I might, in the spirit of my older sister, and my younger sister (the youngest nuclear advocate in my family) seek opportunities as a student and a self-proclaimed environmentalist to advocate for nuclear energy in terms and in ways people in my generation will respond to (both positively and negatively). Rather than try to win a debate, I would simply want nuclear to have a seat at the table when renewable energy is discussed. By bringing attention to nuclear energy, more smart people will do their research and learn the truth.

6. A conference of interest

There is a major renewable energy conference happening in October 2019 hosted by REN21 in Seoul, South Korea. The theme of this conference is “One Less Nuclear Power Plant.” The name of this conference makes it an “ignore at your own risk” type challenge that must be accepted.

REN21 is a thinktank organization that hosts the International Renewable Energy Conference every two years. The location is chosen based on how the conference can best help the host country meet their goals. South Korea has a new initiative to become less reliable on outsourced energy, coal, and nuclear power.

The conference brings together governments, academics, civil society, the private sector, innovators, etc. The purpose is to allow for brainstorming and open thought and discussion to solve problems with a common goal in mind. From the research I’ve done, most of the technology and experts attending this conference are focused on wind and solar.

7. My history with South Korea

I had the opportunity to visit South Korea in March of 2019 with my closest friend and recent college graduate. It was a personally important trip that we planned for a year. We experienced the city, local food, hiked at Seoraksan National Park, visited a dear friend, and went to our first K-Pop concert. Since we were only there for ten days, we decided to split the country in half and only travel around the northern half of the country. South Korea is about the size of Indiana, and the excellent public transportation allowed ease of travel from one end of the country to the other. While traveling, we took note of the terrain. South Korea is an extremely mountainous country and highly populated. There is not much free space, and the free space they have needs to be used for farming. Most people have to live in high rise apartments because there is not enough surface area in the country to allow for a suburban lifestyle.

8. Mexico City example intersects with Seoul

Two years ago, I say a presentation about Mexico City implementing solar panels on every rooftop in the city. Even if they did, it would not be enough power to meet their needs (that calculation based upon solar panels on houses of the average family of four). Unless solar has changed dramatically since 2017, solar panels on a high rise apartment with hundreds of people living in it certainly would not supply adequate power for the residents of South Korea, just using basic math.

Korea has a strong commercial fishing industry. If they implemented offshore wind farms (the main goal for this conference), this could potentially negatively impact their fishing. There are a few offshore wind turbines off the eastern coast of the US. The data is so bare bones, we have no idea what kind of impact it has on fishers. It is, however, a new obstacle commercial fishers are learning to deal with.

Korea ranks 9^th in the world in energy consumption. They are a rapidly progressing country and experienced a huge economic boom since the Korean War ended over 60 years ago (1953). They are currently experiencing the downswing of that boom. The young generation is struggling to find jobs, the economy is flat. Solving their energy needs should include creating new jobs and not eliminating the jobs currently held by people working in the nuclear sector.

When evaluating what the “best” energy choice is, things like the environment, safety, cost, efficiency, and terrain need to be considered. Because South Korea is so small and has lots of impervious surface area, wind farms in my opinion are not a reasonable option.

While in the country, I got to experience fine dust and smog firsthand. My friend and I traveled around the country in face masks, blending in with the crowd of masked faces. One day we walked to the top of Namsan Tower, a picturesque popular tourist spot. At the top on a clear day, you can get a 360-degree view of Seoul. Instead, the dust blocked out the entire view. What would’ve been a sunny day was overcast with dust. With days like this so common, how would solar make sense?

9. Is nuclear as an energy concept progressing? Are people informed enough?

The more I learn, the more questions I have about the beliefs of those in positions of influence. I found a person - a post-doc Fellow from Harvard, who I am preparing a long list of questions for about Asia and nuclear trends, since that is his regional specialty. https://www.belfercenter.org/person/viet-phuong-nguyen. I hope he answers me.

I’m thankful for the resources Environmentalists for Nuclear, ANS, Women in Nuclear, Atomic Energy and Go Nuclear provide. The combined expertise of many provides excellent research material; the central source to borrow their knowledge is valuable. However, in my general studies and environmental science circles I have not met students (or professors) who acknowledge these organizations or nuclear energy data in general.

As a millenial, I naturally have some critiques of current sites. Some of the websites seem to have a “club” or fraternity feel. They are only for scientists and academics. Those types of organizations are important. There also needs to be websites for the novice student or an average person. In an age of convenience and quick knowledge, low attention spans, site design has to take this into account. Good visuals draw people in. Many nuclear energy focused websites look dated. They do not use marketing devices. Good visuals inspire and also give viewers the vibe that “this organization is active and thriving!” Grabbers (hooks) and holders are needed. A human personality can draw people in… even if it’s negative. That’s why people listen to and watch radio, pod, and news channels even when the host is obnoxious.

I would like the realities of pro-environmental, safe, inexpensive nuclear energy to be more widely recognized and understood by students in my peer group. Whether or not they agree in total, they need to be informed of the “other sides” of their arguments. Had I not learned about nuclear energy from a young age, I would have never deciphered the comments uttered in a classroom except in a negative context.

10. My request

I am a science student, but I have a tremendous learning curve ahead of me. I have many unanswered questions about why nuclear is not a part of the renewable energy conversation. Do energy companies (their nuclear / marketing experts) attend these types of conferences? Are academics and facilitators willing to engage with the nuclear scientists or other experts in these venues? Do nuclear energy lobbies or corporations advocate for energy reform the way the solar and wind experts do?

The (KIREC) conference in Korea is happening in late October 2019 and I encourage someone on the pro-nuclear side of things to attend. I encourage the influencers in the professional nuclear community to include this conference on their agenda.

Also, nuclear will lose ground, important ground, if it does not target a younger audience and adjust its marketing and communication approach. I could offer to assist any pro-nuclear / pro-environment organization for this conference, if such assistance is needed or requested. I am interested in understanding the strategy for nuclear in Asia.

I see the benefit to like-minded individuals gathering to share ideas and experiences. We likely already have this in certain corners. Even more, I see the benefits to opposing individuals meeting and sharing in discussion. There may be places where this already happens, but I simply do not know of them.

11. Why this conference

The South Korea location poses an opportunity to meet a wider array and younger cross-section of interested audience. Korea is one of the most prominent countries in its use of nuclear power, with twenty four reactors. However, President Moon Jae-in, elected in 2017, wants to eliminate nuclear power in South Korea over the next forty years. After Germany’s “Merkel reversal” with little opposition, this reversal should be fought. The anti-nuclear declaration is the main reason the conference is being hosted in Korea.

Nuclear energy is declining even from countries that were once leaders in its energy consumption (example: Germany and Belgium). South Korea exports much of its own nuclear reactor technology, benefiting financially from the technology, and still is getting rid of it (example: four nuclear reactors being built in the United Arab Emirates with help from South Korea).

In July 2017 an open letter to the president signed by 27 international scientists and conservationists – including climate scientist James Hansen – called for him to reconsider his policy. It said: “If South Korea withdraws from nuclear, the world risks losing a valuable supplier of cheap and abundant energy needed to lift humankind out of poverty and solve the climate crisis.” Publication of the letter came as a group of several hundred South Korean university professors and scholars also called on the president to drop his nuclear phase-out plans. Some 410 professors – including those from Seoul National University and the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology – called for the government to “immediately halt the push to extinguish the nuclear energy industry that provides cheap electricity to the general public,” and called for the phase-out plan to be carried out only after extensive deliberation, not only by government officials but also by industry experts. full article

The fact that only twenty seven international scientists and conservationists signed this letter is shocking to me. There seems to be a communication gap in the field and people are not working together. We live in an age where technology allows us to communicate rapidly. Why is there is a disconnect?

Hallyu, the Korean wave of culture, skincare, music, and more is spreading globally. South Korea (and to a lesser extent North Korea) have a constant presence in the media recently. Uniquely, a Korean conference is also an effective way to advertise and advocate for nuclear energy to a young to middle age demographic, and highly American audience that follows and contributes to the spread of Hallyu.

Collaborations can be super helpful in this. A Youtube channel called Asian Boss (AB) that believes in empowering the average person to be a reporter on real time events happening globally comes to my mind. AB typically conducts street interviews but also reports on specialized events, industries, businesses, and more. Reaching out to “home-made” media contributors could help. Another famous content creator, Will Witt, (a Colorado native, too! Read his bio here) is employed by Prager University (a non-profit that also employs Ben Shapiro and Michelle Malkin) and provides content on political news from street interviews he conducts. His story is a little similar to mine in that he was frustrated during his undergraduate years by the indoctrination the university system forced upon students.

12. Closing point

Go Nuclear mentor and co-founder, Dr. John Shanahan, through his work, inspired my interest in nuclear energy (as renewable energy) advocacy. I see profound benefits to humankind by this energy source, especially because it can be a renewable energy source. I will need to learn to measure macro-opinions, to develop marketing / PR strategies, and also find organizational support for marketing, advocacy, and PR. I suggest that coordinated and thoughtful advocacy would impact, but not stem, the momentum of the current anti-nuclear side. Not acting would likely mean the opposite. The momentum leans away from nuclear in South Korea. Unchallenged, South Korea will go the way of Germany.

I have complicated feelings towards social media platforms, but overall I see a positive use for them. I think attending an event like this conference, vlogging it, interviewing the presenters, taking notes on the presentations, and later writing blog posts responding to them would be useful. Even going further to interview professors and students from South Korean universities on their thoughts could be useful.

The nuclear technology might advance in time, but what I would promote is now technology. Not something down the pipe. Not futuristic tech that requires imagination. Since valuable nuclear energy technology already exists, the problem set is not best solved by nuclear engineers. What is needed is a fresh and smart marketing and content approach. Just today, when I looked up nuclear energy on YouTube, TedTalks from 6 years ago pop up. The age of videos is not critical, but the lack of up-to-date marketing strategy is.

Gaining a younger and more active audience base is, I believe, an important piece in the strategy to advance nuclear energy. Younger is not always better, but in terms of vocal and energized populations, younger audiences pack some weight. Nuclear has a bad reputation almost everywhere I’ve mentioned it. Students like myself fear their professors will dock points on homework, essays, and exams if nuclear is mentioned positively. They may drop the issue from their mind after they leave class, but the opportunity to balance their perspective on energy is, for most, gone.

My naivety got the better of me when I first came to college. I wrongly assumed my ideas would be welcomed with either questions or interest. If nuclear energy is de-stigmatized more broadly, future students might have the academic freedom to talk openly about nuclear or other controversial topics.

Sunset in South Korea