Applied Science in Action: Nuclear Reactors and Radiation Realities in Southwest Virginia

Introduction

I’m passionate about applied science and technology—using practical knowledge to solve real-world problems. I’ve worked in electronics since 1970, even building my own Geiger counter to measure radiation, which sparked my interest in nuclear technology. In Southwest Virginia, there’s a proposal to install small modular nuclear reactors, a promising solution for clean energy. I believe science should be grounded in evidence, not speculation, and that nature is resilient, with human influence that isn’t always bad. This page explores nuclear reactors, radiation realities, and the pitfalls of alternative green technologies, all through an applied science lens, in terms laypeople can understand.

Nuclear capacity factor: actual output versus maximum, typically 85–95%.

The capacity factor in nuclear power measures how much electricity a plant produces compared to its maximum possible output if it ran at full power all the time. Expressed as a percentage, it shows the plant’s efficiency and reliability. For example, a 1,000 MW plant producing 8,000,000 MWh in a year out of a possible 8,760,000 MWh has a ~91% capacity factor. Nuclear plants typically achieve 85–95% due to steady operation, with downtime mainly for maintenance or refueling. This high reliability makes nuclear power a dependable energy source compared to renewables like wind or solar.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors in Southwest Virginia

Small modular nuclear reactors, or SMRs, are compact versions of traditional nuclear reactors, producing under 300 megawatts—enough to power about 200,000 homes. They’re safer, with passive cooling systems that don’t rely on external power, and more flexible, making them ideal for regions like Southwest Virginia, where coal plants are being retired. Virginia Tech and Dominion Energy are exploring SMRs for the area, aiming to provide reliable, low-carbon energy. From an applied science perspective, SMRs use nuclear fission—the splitting of uranium atoms—to generate heat, which turns water into steam to drive turbines, producing electricity efficiently.

I’ve studied radiation with my homemade Geiger counter, a device that detects radioactive particles, which helped me understand nuclear technology’s safety. SMRs can replace fossil fuels like coal and natural gas for electricity, reducing emissions without the land use or waste issues of other renewables. This practical approach aligns with my focus on solutions that work, not speculative ideals, and could bring stable energy to Southwest Virginia.

Uranium Reserves and Pollution Concerns

Virginia has one of the largest untapped uranium reserves in the U.S., with the Coles Hill deposit holding about 119 million pounds of uranium—enough to power the state’s energy needs for decades. But mining was banned in 1982 due to fears of water contamination from runoff, a valid concern given past mining practices. I understand the hesitation; I’ve seen similar issues in gardening, where improper methods can harm the environment. However, we often offshore pollution instead—mining rare earths for wind turbines and solar panels in developing countries, creating toxic waste while claiming to fight climate change.

The U.S. already has about 90,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in storage, enough to power the grid for years if reprocessed, without new mining. This contradiction—rejecting local resources while exporting pollution—shows how climate policies can prioritize ideology over practical solutions. Applied science demands we look at the full picture: nuclear fuel is abundant, and modern mining can be cleaner, balancing environmental care with human needs.

Nuclear Power as a Practical Solution

Nuclear power offers a practical way to replace fossil fuels for electricity, unlike wind and solar, which create significant environmental problems. Solar panel production generates about 100,000 tons of toxic waste yearly, including lead and cadmium, with less than 10% recycled. Wind turbine blades, often non-recyclable, could add 40 million tons of waste by 2050. I’ve experimented with “green” farming methods, like organic, non-GMO techniques, and found they reduced yields and weren’t practical—modern tools like gas tillers work better. Similarly, wind and solar are inefficient compared to nuclear power’s steady, high output.

In the 1970s, Paul Ehrlich predicted famine from overpopulation, missing how the Green Revolution’s technology fed billions. Today, some environmentalists overlook nuclear power’s potential, favoring renewables that harm the environment more than they help. Nuclear reactors produce minimal waste—about 2,000 metric tons annually in the U.S., all safely stored—compared to millions of tons from green tech. Applied science shows nuclear power is the viable solution to reduce CO2, if that’s the goal, without the destructive footprint of alternatives.

Debunking Radiation Fears

Fears about nuclear radiation are often overblown. Radiation is natural—our blood contains radioactive potassium-40, and background radiation in Virginia averages 3 millisieverts per year. In Ramsar, Iran, people live with levels up to 260 millisieverts per year, with no measurable health effects. Areas like Chernobyl, after the 1986 meltdown, are now nature preserves, with thriving wildlife—plants and animals adapt, showing nature’s resilience. Artificial radiation from reactors isn’t different from natural sources, and low-level exposure, whether natural or artificial, doesn’t harm us, as millions living in high-radiation areas prove.

My Geiger counter projects taught me how to measure radiation practically, confirming that the risks are exaggerated. Nuclear power plants operate safely, with modern SMRs designed to minimize even the smallest risks. The idea that any radiation exposure is deadly isn’t supported by data—applied science looks at evidence, not fear, to understand the real impact of nuclear technology.

Environmentalist Opposition and Ideology

Despite nuclear power’s benefits, many environmentalists oppose it, often for ideological reasons rather than scientific ones. Some push a “Green Eden” mythology, viewing untouched nature as the ultimate good and humanity as a threat, an idea rooted in eco-spirituality that I’ve critiqued before. Others align with degrowth movements, echoing Paul Ehrlich’s calls to lower Western living standards, prioritizing ideology over human welfare. These views often reject practical solutions like nuclear power, even though it’s the most effective way to reduce CO2 emissions, if that’s their stated goal.

This opposition isn’t based on data—nuclear power has a proven track record, while wind and solar create more environmental harm than they solve. Environmentalist positions can be contradictory, advocating for climate action but blocking the best tools to achieve it, sometimes hurting the environment they claim to protect. Applied science demands we focus on what works, not speculative narratives that place ideology above evidence and human needs.

Conclusion

Small modular nuclear reactors in Southwest Virginia offer a practical, evidence-based solution to our energy needs, leveraging existing uranium resources and stored nuclear fuel with minimal environmental impact. Radiation fears are exaggerated—nature and humans adapt to low levels, as my Geiger counter experiments and global data confirm. Green technologies like wind and solar, while well-intentioned, create more pollution than they prevent, a lesson I’ve learned from my own experiments with inefficient “green” farming. We need applied science, not ideology, to guide us—nuclear power is the viable path forward, supporting human welfare while respecting nature’s resilience.