This is a REALLY well organized and articulated version of the "nuclear reactor apocalypse" scenario.
If you are unfamiliar with it, it basically imagines the planetary effect of having hundreds of nuclear reactors meltdown in the event of societal collapse. I first came across it in Douglas Coupland's 1998 book "Girlfriend in a Coma" but it has been around almost as long as nuclear power has.
I would consider this to be an "Extreme Alarmist" position because it assumes that reactors won't be decommissioned as collapse plays out. So, the 440 reactors globally continue to be "in use" until suddenly conditions cause support and maintenance to abruptly halt. That's a KEY point in this scenario, that these reactors are essentially abandoned or suffer catastrophic operational failures.
How likely you think that is, determines how likely you find this scenario to be.
There are DEFINITELY serious points in this scenario worth considering. For me, the waste storage pools are more of a risk than the reactors themselves. That's a HUGE risk that very few people adequately understand.
My first wife worked at Los Alamos and Sandia. One of the projects she worked on for awhile was WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) a long term storage site for nuclear waste. What shocks most people is that "to this day" there is NO long term storage facility for reactor waste products. It is stored "on site" at each reactor.
Waiting for the day that a "final" disposal site is approved and starts taking radioactive waste for "long term" (+10,000 years).
With COLLAPSE starting to unfold around us, in a sane world, there would be an international push to "clean up" and "entomb" all reactor waste globally. To take that hazard "off the table" once and for all. That would be a GOOD THING.
Unfortunately, we seem to be treating the issue like we treat the Climate Crisis.
I.E., ignoring it as long as we possibly can and hoping that in "the future" they have "miracle" technology which makes the problem go away.
Alternate scenario: following the successful tests of the first experimental Thorium reactor in the Gobi desert in China, the world quickly realizes that it is possible to create safe, clean nuclear power. The People's Revolution of 2026 brings the Fifth International Soviet of States into power globally and they expropriate the wealth of the former power elite and spend it on rapidly decommissioning old nuclear power plants while building thousands of next-generation thorium plants that are hardened against climate-change harms. The Petroleum Bureau of the state makes oil the first post-commodity, taking it off the private market, so that it is only used to build new, carbon-free power supply, as well as used in emergency situations. Slowly, atmospheric carbon begins to plateau, then decline. The world remembers capitalism as a horrifying experiment that almost killed everyone, like the freon caused ozone hole of the eighties.
I like your scenarios Jed, except I now believe the vilifying of Carbon is another scam…thats what plants and trees feed off. Otherwise bring on the Peoples Revolution of 2026.
Sounds pretty realistic, except that I think this is overly optimistic. With the kinds of disasters this article describes, nations will no longer exist, and warlords will take over. I don't think any of them will have the best interests of anyone in mind.
Fantastic research and scenario building, Sarah. Many thanks, again.
My best guess is the northern hemisphere will be pretty much uninhabitable by the third quarter of the 21st century, maybe sooner. The southern hemisphere will be super sketchy.
Consider the following:
- We have *already* spread nuclear poison all over the planet. No takesies backsies.
- Climate chaos is unfolding before our eyes.
- There are no geological repositories for the radioactive waste (save for one in Finland. ONE). Appropriate sites are incredibly hard to find and expensive to build.
- Humans are arrogant, short-term thinkers.
- We don't tend to act until disaster strikes. By that time, it will be too late.
The nuclear experiment is a done deal. It's a Pandora's Box. If you believe in God, may she help us and all our fellow creatures in the dark days ahead.
Predicting the future is always a challenge, but I appreciate that your projection is based on some sound analysis. Well done.
It's also worth noting that it's not just nuclear that will be subject to increasing surface water temperatures used for cooling. I dug into this subject just a little in my final semester of grad school and discovered (perhaps unsurprisingly?) that 90% of the power generation in the United States utilizes cooling water, and every 1 deg C of temp increase can decrease efficiency by 0.15 to 0.5%. This only makes the problem you've discussed here worse.
This is a REALLY well organized and articulated version of the "nuclear reactor apocalypse" scenario.
If you are unfamiliar with it, it basically imagines the planetary effect of having hundreds of nuclear reactors meltdown in the event of societal collapse. I first came across it in Douglas Coupland's 1998 book "Girlfriend in a Coma" but it has been around almost as long as nuclear power has.
I would consider this to be an "Extreme Alarmist" position because it assumes that reactors won't be decommissioned as collapse plays out. So, the 440 reactors globally continue to be "in use" until suddenly conditions cause support and maintenance to abruptly halt. That's a KEY point in this scenario, that these reactors are essentially abandoned or suffer catastrophic operational failures.
How likely you think that is, determines how likely you find this scenario to be.
There are DEFINITELY serious points in this scenario worth considering. For me, the waste storage pools are more of a risk than the reactors themselves. That's a HUGE risk that very few people adequately understand.
My first wife worked at Los Alamos and Sandia. One of the projects she worked on for awhile was WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Plant) a long term storage site for nuclear waste. What shocks most people is that "to this day" there is NO long term storage facility for reactor waste products. It is stored "on site" at each reactor.
Waiting for the day that a "final" disposal site is approved and starts taking radioactive waste for "long term" (+10,000 years).
Some of the "temporary" waste at these reactors is decades old at this point. AND we still do not have a permanent facility for this waste. Although a site just opened in Finland that is going to accept waste (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/29/onkalo-finland-to-bury-nuclear-waste-in-worlds-first-geological-tomb.html) from reactors globally.
With COLLAPSE starting to unfold around us, in a sane world, there would be an international push to "clean up" and "entomb" all reactor waste globally. To take that hazard "off the table" once and for all. That would be a GOOD THING.
Unfortunately, we seem to be treating the issue like we treat the Climate Crisis.
I.E., ignoring it as long as we possibly can and hoping that in "the future" they have "miracle" technology which makes the problem go away.
Alternate scenario: following the successful tests of the first experimental Thorium reactor in the Gobi desert in China, the world quickly realizes that it is possible to create safe, clean nuclear power. The People's Revolution of 2026 brings the Fifth International Soviet of States into power globally and they expropriate the wealth of the former power elite and spend it on rapidly decommissioning old nuclear power plants while building thousands of next-generation thorium plants that are hardened against climate-change harms. The Petroleum Bureau of the state makes oil the first post-commodity, taking it off the private market, so that it is only used to build new, carbon-free power supply, as well as used in emergency situations. Slowly, atmospheric carbon begins to plateau, then decline. The world remembers capitalism as a horrifying experiment that almost killed everyone, like the freon caused ozone hole of the eighties.
One of many alternate scenarios.
Unicorns, rainbows, and leprechauns for everyone!
leprechauns are jinn
No need to be racist. 😉
Lmao. Ignorant, simping for dictators hopium
https://open.substack.com/pub/thespouter/p/petromarxismpetrocommunism-overview
I like your scenarios Jed, except I now believe the vilifying of Carbon is another scam…thats what plants and trees feed off. Otherwise bring on the Peoples Revolution of 2026.
Sounds pretty realistic, except that I think this is overly optimistic. With the kinds of disasters this article describes, nations will no longer exist, and warlords will take over. I don't think any of them will have the best interests of anyone in mind.
Seems inevitable.
The scenario described just screams of a "Ripped From The Headlines" banner 😬
Fantastic research and scenario building, Sarah. Many thanks, again.
My best guess is the northern hemisphere will be pretty much uninhabitable by the third quarter of the 21st century, maybe sooner. The southern hemisphere will be super sketchy.
Consider the following:
- We have *already* spread nuclear poison all over the planet. No takesies backsies.
- Climate chaos is unfolding before our eyes.
- There are no geological repositories for the radioactive waste (save for one in Finland. ONE). Appropriate sites are incredibly hard to find and expensive to build.
- Humans are arrogant, short-term thinkers.
- We don't tend to act until disaster strikes. By that time, it will be too late.
The nuclear experiment is a done deal. It's a Pandora's Box. If you believe in God, may she help us and all our fellow creatures in the dark days ahead.
So heck... other than that, what's the problem?
Yep one of many possibilities.
For the sake of my grandchildren, I hope the scenario plays out a bit better.
I am pleased. the future is bright.
You gotta wear shades.
This is an absolutely plausible scenario! We need to decommission these reactors now.
Predicting the future is always a challenge, but I appreciate that your projection is based on some sound analysis. Well done.
It's also worth noting that it's not just nuclear that will be subject to increasing surface water temperatures used for cooling. I dug into this subject just a little in my final semester of grad school and discovered (perhaps unsurprisingly?) that 90% of the power generation in the United States utilizes cooling water, and every 1 deg C of temp increase can decrease efficiency by 0.15 to 0.5%. This only makes the problem you've discussed here worse.