An expiriment in time travel
Like many other topics, nuclear energy is a polarizing issue. Recently, I have been following the seemingly rapid pace of news regarding the extension (Diablo Canyon) and restart of existing nuclear plants (Three Mile Island), as well as plans to site and build new ones. This is a growing mix of fission and fusion reactors. It is happening quickly now, but it hasn't always been that way. The historical context is valuable not only for measuring how far we have come but also for examining the changing perception of nuclear energy as a solution. It's vexing and frustrating to me that so many conversations about using atomic energy result in dated views on safety, weaponization, and the environment.
Imagine a 1970s anti-nuclear protester traveling to Diablo Canyon and Three Mile Island in June 2025. What kind of conversation might this protester have with a world-renowned nuclear researcher from the current era?
Protester:
I can't believe I'm standing at Diablo Canyon this week, having been a protester at Three Mile Island in 1979. In the 1970s and early 1980s, we fought fiercely to halt the construction of these plants. We feared meltdowns, radiation leaks, and the secrecy of the nuclear industry. Three Mile Island proved our fears weren't unfounded. Why are these plants still running?
Researcher:
Your concerns were valid; Three Mile Island's partial meltdown in 1979 was a wake-up call for the industry and regulators. But since then, nuclear safety standards have become far more rigorous. Modern plants, including Diablo Canyon, are subject to continuous oversight, advanced safety systems, and transparent reporting. Nuclear energy now plays a key role in reducing carbon emissions and combating climate change.
Protester:
We were always worried about the environmental impact and the potential for catastrophic accidents. Plus, we distrusted the industry's motives; profit seemed to take precedence over people's health and well-being. Has that changed?
Researcher:
Public trust is crucial. Today, community engagement and independent oversight are standard. Nuclear plants are among the most heavily regulated industrial facilities. The industry has learned from past mistakes, and transparency is much higher. Importantly, nuclear power provides reliable, low-carbon electricity, helping to phase out fossil fuels.
Protester:
But what about waste? In the 1970s, we saw no solution for radioactive waste, and we feared it would poison future generations.
Researcher:
Waste management remains a challenge, but technological advancements have improved the situation. Waste is securely stored, and research into long-term solutions, such as deep geological repositories and recycling, has progressed. Compared to the climate crisis, many now see nuclear waste as a manageable risk.
Protester:
I never thought I'd see the day when nuclear power was considered part of the solution to environmental problems. Back then, we saw ourselves as defenders of nature, fighting for survival against a dangerous technology.
Protester:
Another concern we had in the 1970s was the dual-use nature of nuclear technology. The same processes that make electricity can also be used to make bombs. How do you deal with the risk of weaponization and proliferation today?
Researcher:
That's still a critical concern. The term "dual-use" originally referred to nuclear materials and technologies that can serve both civilian and military purposes. Civilian nuclear fuel cycles—like uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing, can, if diverted or misused, provide material for atomic weapons. This is why international safeguards, particularly those implemented by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), are so stringent. There are also robust domestic and international controls to monitor and account for nuclear materials, aiming to prevent diversion to weapons programs. However, proliferation risks remain, especially in politically unstable regions or where governance and regulatory oversight are weak. Recent history, like North Korea's and Iran's nuclear programs, shows that vigilance is always needed.
Protester:
But we've seen smuggling and trafficking in nuclear materials, and it's hard to ignore the potential for catastrophic consequences if even small amounts fall into the wrong hands.
Researcher:
You're right—trafficking in weapons-grade material is a serious risk, though most reported cases involve materials that pose little real proliferation threat. The biggest concern is with highly enriched uranium or plutonium, which are tightly controlled. The existence of reprocessing plants, for example, is closely monitored, as they can separate plutonium from spent fuel. The international community continues to improve detection, regulation, and response to these threats; however, the risk can never be entirely eliminated.
Protester:
Let's talk about costs. Back in my day, we argued that nuclear power was too expensive and complicated to build. Has that changed?
Researcher:
Cost remains one of the biggest challenges for the nuclear energy industry. Building a conventional nuclear power plant is a multi-billion-dollar, multi-year project with high upfront capital costs, complex engineering, and lengthy regulatory approvals. These factors have led to delays and cost overruns, especially in countries without continuous nuclear construction programs. In the U.S., for example, the construction period for new plants can be 6–10 years or longer, making it challenging to meet urgent energy needs and climate goals.
Protester:
So why invest in nuclear at all?
Researcher:
Once built, nuclear plants produce low-cost, stable electricity for decades. They also provide reliable, carbon-free power, which is increasingly valuable as we transition away from fossil fuels. To address cost and construction challenges, the industry is developing smaller, modular reactor designs that can be built in factories, reducing timelines and costs. These innovations aim to make nuclear more affordable, scalable, and accessible, but the transition is still underway.
Researcher:
Your activism shaped today's nuclear industry. Without the pressure from protesters like you, safety wouldn't be where it is today. Now, as we face the urgent threat of climate change, nuclear power is seen by many as a necessary tool for a sustainable future.
This conversation reflects the shift from 1970s anti-nuclear activism—rooted in safety, environmental, and anti-authoritarian concerns—to the modern perspective, which emphasizes improved safety, transparency, and the role of nuclear energy in addressing climate change.
AI (Perplexity) was used to edit and write parts of this experiment. However, the imagination and concept for this experiment were entirely my own. Picture courtesy of Wikipedia.org. (Photographer unknown: Anti-nuclear protest at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in 1979, following the Three Mile Island Accident.)
#nuclearenergy #atomicenergy #Activism
