No Magic Bullet

Originally published in the Informanté newspaper on Thursday, August 13, 2015.

70 years ago, on 6 August 1945, the nuclear age was ushered in. Japan, already militarily defeated by June 1945, with its once mighty Imperial Navy in tatters, and its air force now non-existent, was near collapse. With no oil available since April 1945, the Japanese were willing to surrender on any terms, as long as their emperor was not touched. The American response was a 15 kiloton nuclear bomb, detonated above Hiroshima. 90 000 people were killed immediately, with 40 000 injured. Only 20 000 were soldiers. Three days later, a 21 kiloton nuclear bomb killed 37 000 people in Nagasaki, and injured 43 000. Nagasaki had no military contingent, and most of those injured in these two bombings succumbed to radiation sickness, dying in agony. The nuclear age was ushered in by eventually killing 200 000 Japanese civilians.

Luckily, these were the only two nuclear weapons used thus far. But the world had come close on several occasions. On 27 October 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviet Foxtrot-class submarine B-59 was being pursued by a US carrier group. Cut off from communication from Moscow, the captain and political officer believed war had started when the carrier group started to deploy depth charges, not knowing these were practise charges. But flotilla commander Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov was on board, and he alone voted against deploying nuclear weapons, and saved the world.

The world again brushed with death on 26 September 1983. At the command centre for the Oko nuclear early-warning system, 100 miles out from Moscow, the system reported 5 launches of nuclear weapons from the United States.  Reasoning that the Americans would not launch only five weapons in an attack, he declared the detection system malfunctioning, and did not report it to his superiors. Given the deteriorating relationship between the Soviets and the USA, such a report would have resulted in an erroneous nuclear retaliation – Stanislav Petrov saved the world. 

But for all the close calls the nuclear age has wrought upon us, perhaps now is its time to shine. While the world has not succumbed to a nuclear winter, it is teetering on the edge of a carbon summer. The spectre of climate change is hanging over the world like the sword of Damocles. Here in Namibia, we are already feeling the effects of global warming. In the last three years the country has experienced the worst drought in decades. And if this coming rainy season does not deliver, the capital will be without water by June 2016.

In the United States, California is struggling in the grips of a drought as well. Two weeks ago, US President Barack Obama unveiled his ‘Clean Energy Plan’ that aims to reduce carbon emissions from power generation by 2030. In Namibia, carbon fuels are still extensively used. Wood mostly, if one takes a look at the smoke cloud hanging over the western side of the capital in the mornings, and especially in rural areas as well. But with the Ruacana Power Station on reduced output due to low water levels, the Van Eck coal-fired station has to carry most of the load – which is certainly not helping keep carbon emissions low. 

By contrast, nuclear energy has no greenhouse gas emissions during generation, and it remains vastly more efficient than alternative energy sources. In fact, only 28g of uranium produces as much energy as is produced from 100 tons of coal. And while the cost per kWh is a bit more expensive than utilizing low-cost fossil fuels, these costs do not take into account the negative externalities of carbon fuel usage – like the aforementioned costs of climate change, or the environmental damage by pollution. 

Nuclear power is also more reliable than current alternative power sources and the development of a nuclear industry also necessitates the development of a skilled, high-tech, well-educated workforce – the development of which has been a proven boon to many a society. 

This is not to say nuclear power is without its own issues. The costs of disposing the waste of nuclear fuel remains contentious, as well as determining where this highly dangerous and radioactive waste should be stored. And as the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukishima disasters have shown, nuclear power is not a responsibility to be taken lightly. Nuclear power is certainly no magic bullet.

National Geographic has had to make its biggest change to its maps since the break-up of the Soviet Union – in the drastically reduced Arctic Ocean ice shelf. Namibia is poised to feel the worst effects of climate change in the near future, and it is already too late to change that. Yet it is clear we need to start making some changes now – otherwise, our children might not have a Namibia left to inherit.