OPINION

The Amherst Student • March 23, 2022

Nuclear Power Really Is the Future

Photo courtesy of Pixabay

Diego Rao ’23, in response to last issue's “Seeing Double,” makes the case for the proliferation of nuclear power. He argues that new types of safer reactors are absolutely necessary in the face of the looming climate crisis.

Diego Rao ’23

Contributing Writer

In its previous issue, The Student published an article titled “Nuclear Power Isn’t the Future.” The piece’s author, Cole Graber-Mitchell ’22, voiced fears about poisoned air and water, dirty bombs, and persistent environmental racism, arguing that these risks outweigh the benefits of nuclear power in pursuit of a sustainable future. Yet nuclear power in fact offers greater relief from these threats than any alternative available.

The climate crisis is forcing a global reckoning with how we source the energy that drives our lives and economies. Fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas must be phased out as quickly as possible if we are to avert disasters worse than those that have already struck.

Renewable sources like solar, wind, and hydroelectric power are zero-emission, but they meet only a small fraction of our energy needs; collectively, these sources provided just 7 percent of total U.S. energy consumed in 2020. Nuclear power, despite being vastly more burdened by regulation and stigma, already tops that figure at 9 percent. Simply building more solar plants and wind farms won’t cut it, in part because these energy harvesting methods are so land-intensive that they have harmful environmental impacts of their own. In addition, solar power, even with government subsidies, is still more expensive per unit of energy than nuclear power.

Graber-Mitchell suggests that we close the gap between our energy demands and renewables’ capacity by reducing how much energy we use, but cutting our consumption by any significant measure is not a realistic option. Indeed, some of the crises sparked by climate change will require still more energy to address. Droughts resulting from disturbed weather patterns will need to be answered with desalination, an energy-intensive process that turns salty seawater into fresh water that people can farm with, clean with, or simply drink. Direct carbon capture can neutralize some of the greenhouse gasses that drive the process of global warming, but this technology, too, requires vast amounts of electricity. Nuclear power offers abundant, cheap, and clean energy to meet these demands.

One of the most appealing aspects of fossil fuel-based energy is the capacity to scale production up or down depending on demand, which varies constantly according to shifting circumstances. More lightbulbs are on at night than in daytime, for example, and it takes more energy to heat a building in the middle of winter than in more temperate months. This capability, known as load following, is simply impossible for solar and wind power generation; no amount of engineering will ever allow us to control whether the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Energy storage systems can buffer some of this gap, but most storage technology uses lithium-ion batteries, which require minerals whose extraction is so brutal on the laborers and environments involved that these substances have been compared to blood diamonds. Nuclear power plants built according to modern designs, on the other hand, have load-following capabilities that are competitive with the dirty generation systems that dominate the market today.

The safety of nuclear power plants is validly one of Graber-Mitchell’s core concerns. But modern designs disprove his claim that “it is pure hubris to think that technology can save us from the danger posed by nuclear fission.” Older reactors relied on human and mechanical responses to operating conditions — both potential points of failure. Newer configurations, however, like the class of power plants known as pebble-bed reactors, leverage fundamental principles of physics to guarantee their safety. The laws of nature make it literally impossible for these sorts of plants to melt down; nothing — not human error, not natural disasters, not terrorists or foreign militaries — can turn a plant like this into Chernobyl or Fukushima.

Nuclear power is based on the fissile decay of radioactive isotopes like uranium; the core, or nucleus, of an atom splits apart, releasing energy (in the form of heat, which gets converted into electricity) and free neutrons, many of which strike

The Amherst Student • March 23, 2022

Opinion 10 Pebble-bed Reactors Offer Sustainable Alternative

Continued from page 9

other nuclei, splitting them apart and propagating a chain reaction. Keep this reaction under control, and you have a stable nuclear power source; allow the chain reaction to grow exponentially, however, and you end up with a meltdown.

The reactors of previous generations depend on complex water-based cooling elements to keep this chain reaction in check; if the cooling system fails, heat and pressure build up until a dangerous explosion occurs. In pebble-bed designs, however, increased temperature actually slows the rate of fissile reactions. Rather than exponential growth, fission in pebble-bed reactors creates a self-regulating negative feedback loop, with the result that the reactor defaults to a safe, stable equilibrium. It does not depend on humans, machines, legal regulations, luck, or any other outside intervention; it is as fundamental, as inescapable, and as reliable as gravity.

The water cooling system of old reactor designs, which Graber-Mitchell cites as a security vulnerability, is entirely absent from pebble-bed reactors, which are cooled by nonreactive gasses like helium; unlike water, these inert coolants do not absorb contaminants that would be harmful if leaked into groundwater or the atmosphere. You could fill a birthday balloon with the helium used in a pebble-bed reactor.

Many of the fears surrounding nuclear power stem from the field’s lexicon of scary-sounding terms like “beta rays” and ignorance of what they really mean. Each of us absorbs small amounts of radiation — beta rays, gamma rays, up and down the Greek alphabet — every single day living on this planet. Radioactive minerals are just rocks; they’re in the ground all around us, so ambient radiation is simply a fact of life. Concern over exposure to radiation as a result of either accidents or intentional misuse of reactor products is unfounded when considered in this context, because we have the biological capacity to absorb such small doses of radiation with complete safety.

Accidental radiation leakage from fuel sources, whether at the plant itself or in transport, storage, or disposal, is a trivial concern. Pebble-bed reactors consume fuel pellets roughly the size of tennis balls (the “pebbles” in question). Because each pellet contains such a small amount of uranium — in contrast with the large fuel rods of old designs, which are so radioactive that they need to be individually encased in concrete and lead — the danger is literally compartmentalized into miniscule quantities; even if a proportionally large number of pellets were damaged in, say, a shipping accident, the total amount of radiation released would pale in comparison to the natural level of ambient radiation.

So-called “dirty bombs,” to which Graber-Mitchell alludes, are another paper tiger. The concern is that by combining conventional explosives like dynamite with radioactive material like spent reactor fuel, a malicious actor could disperse radiation over a wide area, subjecting a large population to health risks. But the comparatively small amount of fuel such an actor could realistically get their hands on and the relatively low radioactivity of spent fuel means that this type of weapon is self-defeating. If it disperses radioactive material over a very large area, the radiation in any one place is low enough to fade into the background; if it keeps the material more concentrated, fewer people are exposed and the affected area is much more easily decontaminated. In fact, the radiation is most harmful when still fully concentrated before detonation, meaning the people most at risk are actually the attackers assembling and transporting the bomb.

Graber-Mitchell also raises issues of environmental justice. For instance, he points out that power plants of any variety are likely to be in or near city centers, placing low-income individuals and people of color at disproportionate risk for potential health complications caused by this proximity. To be sure, energy policy and practice are plagued by the same intractable racial and class biases that permeate the rest of American society, with the result that fossil fuels’ harmful effects impose the greatest burdens on those among us already suffering the most. This must change.

But the sprawling real estate requirements of solar and wind energy make them impossible to utilize at the necessary scales in urban environments. The remaining options, then, are two: either we maintain the status quo wherein fossil fuel plants continue to spew poison into the air around our most vulnerable communities; or we can adopt zero-emission, reliably safe nuclear power that will meet these communities’ energy needs without exposing them to carcinogens and other toxins. Rather than perpetuating environmental racism, a widespread transition to nuclear power would be a huge leap forward in pursuit of the fundamental human right of clean air for all.

China brought the first advanced pebble-bed reactor online late last year, and some 20 others like it are in development around the world, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. But the US is lagging, in large part because existing regulations are still tailored to old, water-cooled reactors, creating unnecessary legal obstacles that deter investment and stifle innovation in pebble-bed reactors and other advanced nuclear systems.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it’s currently on track to establish a modern, “technology-inclusive regulatory framework” only by the end of 2027, far too late to enable us to meet the Paris Climate Agreement’s goal of a 50 percent emission reduction by 2030. The federal government must accelerate this regulatory overhaul to facilitate private investment, and can make its own proactive contribution by passing the Build Back Better bill, which contains hundreds of millions of dollars for advanced fuel production and assistance for communities transitioning away from fossil fuel energy; it’s no coincidence that the main obstruction to this bill’s passage is Senator Joe Manchin, who is neck-deep in fossil fuel money.

Finding solutions to the climate crisis will require vigorous debate grounded in both meticulous scientific research and a commitment to social justice. Graber-Mitchell’s piece is a valuable contribution to this discussion, and I submit the ideas above as a response to his arguments, not as a dismissal of them. Rather than fearmongering and hyperbole, we need a commitment from activists, energy companies, and politicians to bring clean nuclear power to the forefront of our energy strategy. We need to update regulations to address the new elements of safe reactor designs, accelerate development with both private and public investment, and clear the stigma and fear away from one of our greatest assets in the fight against climate change. Nuclear power can and should become the cornerstone for a revolutionary leap forward in our efforts for a sustainable, equitable future.

Photo courtesy of Hong Kong Nuclear Investment Co

The only currently operational pebble-bed reactor is installed in the Shidao Bay Nuclear Power Plant in Shandong province, China.

The Amherst Student • March 23, 2022 Seeing Double: For More Than Zero Gazebos

Photo courtesy of American Landscape Structures

Cole Graber-Mitchell ’22 advocates for the strategic placement of a few really big gazebos across campus to replace the currently ubiquitous tents.

Cole Graber-Mitchell ’22

Columnist

Amherst College should build a gazebo. Maybe even two or three. If you have a busy day, feel free to stop reading now.

But if you do have a few minutes, let me convince you why. A gazebo, for those unfamiliar, is a permanent structure consisting of only a roof and a floor. They’re common in parks and gardens because they’re nice spots to enjoy the outdoors without exposure to the sun or rain. Some are small, and some are big. Basically, gazebos are permanent versions of the tents dotted around campus.

Like the tents, gazebos would provide space to host meetings, classes, and extracurriculars outside in any suitably warm weather. But unlike the tents, gazebos would integrate well with the surrounding campus and could better meet the needs of our community.

I’ll admit, I was a little skeptical of the tents when they first went up. After imagining my poor North Carolinian co-columnist shivering in the New England chill while trying to learn about just war theory, I wrote them off as unrealistic. But over the past two years, I’ve come to love the ugly little things. Though they make it look like we’re constantly hosting a traveling carnival, the tents are wonderfully versatile and expand the space available on campus without a huge investment. Plus, there’s nothing quite as pleasant as going to office hours outdoors on a beautiful fall afternoon, something that was never possible before we had covered outdoor chairs and tables.

Not to mention that spending time outdoors is connected with better mental well-being. Even just looking at trees improves our mood and cognitive functioning. The more we can do outside, the better for us. Thankfully, there is a lot of diverse green space around campus. You can work at the Book and Plow Farm, hike through the college trail network, lounge around in an Adirondack chair, or throw a frisbee on the quad. But until we had the tents, there was no good place to do our homework or take classes outside.

However, while the tents have been great, they aren’t the best solution. For starters, they are unsightly. And while poor aesthetics never strikes me as a particularly good argument, it’s the only argument that I have ever heard against keeping the tents. We could defuse that complaint with a better option: gazebos. Gazebos could beautifully integrate with the rest of campus to the point where they don’t seem out of place. Maybe the college could get Herzog and de Meuron or some other high-falutin architectural firm to design them.

Secondly, we have too many tents right now. They’re too hard to differentiate from one another, they’re almost never at capacity, and they take up space that could be better used. Carefully planning out three gazebos — one on the first-year quad, one on Val quad, and one on the KingWieland quad — would give us permanent capacity that we could augment with tents when needed. And since the gazebos would be permanent, the college could name them after the donors who promise to build them, replacing the horribly confusing numbers that currently refer to the tents.

Finally, permanent gazebos could be better tailored to our community’s needs than the tents. Instead of bolting rickety whiteboards to the ground where they get in the way even when not used, whiteboards could pull down from the ceiling. And the structures could be connected to electricity, eliminating the need for the extension cords currently running all around campus. Perhaps the gazebos could even have small lockboxes for portable projectors, allowing professors to host slide-based lectures outdoors. The possibilities are endless.

At this moment in history, we have to reevaluate our relationship with nature. We can continue to view nature one-dimensionally as a source of raw materials or, marginally better, as something only to conserve and enjoy recreationally. Or we can begin to actually live more outdoors, integrating our own lives with the cycles of the natural world. Gazebos, as simple as they may seem, are an investment in this new type of living.

The pandemic has given us an opportunity to experiment with our assumptions, and it turns out that not all learning has to be indoors. Let’s build some gazebos.

The Key to a Constructive Contra

Scott Brasesco ’22

Editor-at-Large

The Amherst Contra appeared, without much warning, alongside The Amherst Student in bins at the entrance of Valentine Dining Hall about a month ago. Printed on a single sheet, the new publication explained its goals and introduced its editor on one side, and shared an article calling for a technocratic abandonment of democracy on the other. Since its arrival, the Contra has provided the Amherst community with three more pieces; the first argued that Palestinians should give up on Palestine, the second made the not-so-new argument that Amherst should end athletic recruitment, and the third lambasted the idea of the college itself.

At its core, the Contra aims to “start interesting discussions” by publishing things the editor doesn’t believe most students would agree with. While this isn’t a poor goal in and of itself, execution is essential in making the publication meet its targets — and right now, it is failing.

All of its articles have been anonymous and, due to the publication’s limited size, response has been limited to brief letters to the editor rather than fully fledged rebuttals. The best response to any of the articles thus far was an article Tylar Matsuo ’24 published in response to the Contra’s first article on democracy. Matsuo deftly responded to each argument within the article, case by case, point by point, and made a compelling case against the technocratic vision the author had laid out. Matsuo’s response, while average in length for an opinion article, was over four times the maximum length the Contra allows responses to be.

Again, due in part to its format, the Contra’s articles have often been short on evidence or seemed ignorant of possible rebuttals, reading more like armchair treatises than op-eds. The single sheet provides no way for authors to cite sources, so readers are left to take them at their word — something that seems especially unlikely for readers of a publication that aims at disrupting mainstream ideas. And things that should be important for consideration of the serious topics they discuss — like the well-documented poor treatment of Palestinians in neighboring Arab countries and Arab immigrants more generally in the U.S. or NESCAC rules on athletes’ academic performance — have gone unaddressed. Without more earnestly engaging with counterpoints and counterevidence to their claims, these articles stand little chance of making the groundbreaking impact they seek to make on mainstream opinion.

These flaws do not mean the Contra is doomed to fail, but they do point to serious needs for a revision of the Contra’s execution.

One major change would simply be bringing on more editors. One student alone cannot correct all or even the majority of the flaws in another’s writing or argument. Even professional academics go through several stages of editorial and peer review before publishing research that they have often spent years working on. It takes a concerted group effort to produce and polish content that, when published, will capture the public imagination in the way the Contra hopes to.

But to make the Contra viable long-term, it needs to enable a greater system of accountability for the articles that are written — even if that falls short of requiring authors to publicly back their own work. Authors should cite each and every source they use in crafting their articles, giving readers the ability to check how accurately they’re representing source material and whether their evidence is credible at all. The current word limit on responses is also far too short to provide cogent rebuttals to the articles that the Contra publishes, and authors seem to know this, hand-waving and downplaying some issues in their arguments in order to focus on areas they have a stronger foundation on. Finally, the Contra’s single-page format creates a tacit limit on the number of responses an article can receive. If the goal is to inspire new conversations, it's highly likely that there are more than two or three 250-word alternative ideas that are worth considering and sharing with readers.

Some of the Contra’s flaws can be solved by changes in pre-publication planning — more editors or sterner edits would go a long way to improving the quality of argument that the Contra provides — but most require a real change in its form. A single-page publication is simply not a viable form for the type of discussions and topics that the Contra aims to address. Extending the Contra by several pages, to allow for a multitude of long-form responses and perhaps the inclusion of endnotes containing source materials used in the arguments, would improve the publication immeasurably. In the end, however, it may prove that the Contra simply needs a web presence in order to deliver on its goals.

I believe that the Contra can become a valuable part of the intellectual discussions and debates we have here at the college, but until it makes the changes I’ve laid out above, those conversations will never have a chance to begin.

Satire: The Bowdoin Orient Staff Bathroom

by the Opinion Editors

w Amusements

The Amherst Student Crossword | March 23, 2022

ACROSS

1 Scammer's targets 5 First name in whodunits 11 See 50-Down 14 Rickman who portrays the Half-Blood Prince 15 Fearfully anticipates 16 Actress Seydoux 17 Like Grab-n-Go 18 Baby mammoths? 20 Be of one mind 22 Against 23 FedEx rival 25 Percentage of Dec. 10 and March 18 letters beginning, "Congratulations!" 28 ___ many words 29 Home of many Goyas 31 2007 Best Director Oscar sharer 34 Pepsi rival 35 Sleeve fillers 36 Amherst package deliverer, for short 40 Ticket out of MATH-111, maybe 44 LJST major's exam? 46 Where to find a hero 48 Got out of hand 53 Summoned via loudspeaker 54 Undesirable roommate? 55 Pseudonym 57 Just fine 58 "Hakuna matata" advocate 61 Some pandemic-era courses, briefly 63 Amherst gatekeeper, or a hint to this crossword's theme 66 Fixes a squeak 69 Amnesty Int'l, e.g. 70 Dean of 63-Across and 36-Across 71 Big name in little blocks 72 Author Rand 73 Clears of suds 74 Pronto

DOWN

1 Test that some Amherst applicants can't stand? 2 ___-mo replay 3 Japanese port city 4 Make out, in Manchester 5 Commercial cost 6 Lament 7 ___ Lingus 8 Classroom helpers 9 LG product 10 "___ sow..." 11 "Tragically, I decline" 12 Read carefully 13 Relay, as information 19 Guitarist Clapton 21 Amherst club: Abbr. 23 Merchandise ID 24 Stavans or Gewertz, for short 26 Airport abbr. 27 Drag racing org. 30 TV room 32 Band booster 33 Presidential advisory grp. 37 The works 38 "This ___ test" 39 Facts and figures 41 Nabokov novel 42 Nth-gen mammoths 43 Nile queen, for short 45 ___ Aviv 47 Texting shrug 48 Spain, in Spain 49 Swamp-like 50 With 11-Across, a typical college-application form? 51 Jacobson of "Broad City" 52 Senator Feinstein 53 "Gangnam Style" rapper 56 Orgs. 59 YouTube category that might give you tingles 60 Spore-bearing cells 62 The Big Easy 64 Popular video-game review and walkthrougt website 65 NATO cousin 67 JFK alternative 68 Soak (up)

Liam Archacki ’24

Managing Editor

Solutions: March 9