
The 32-year-old nuclear scientist busting the ‘Net Zero myth'
Needless to say, this vision of the future never materialised. While progress was being made, a pair of disasters – Three Mile Island in the West and Chernobyl in the East – dealt a blow to nuclear's reputation as a safe source of power from which it has yet to fully recover.
Humankind now finds itself struggling to end its dependence on fossil fuels. Governments are spending colossal sums to swap coal, oil and gas for wind and solar so they can achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, and progress has been slow. A renewed push for nuclear may be beginning, but many wonder whether net zero can be reached at all.
It was this question that got the scientist and author Dr Tim Gregory thinking and which inspired his new book, Going Nuclear: How the Atom Will Save the World. Gregory's argument is simple: what we need is a total rethink of the path to net zero. We should embrace nuclear power and turn decarbonisation into the Apollo programme of the 21st century.
'Certainly, for the foreseeable future, nuclear power represents our best shot of sensibly achieving net zero and producing all of the electricity that we're going to need by 2050 when we're all in electric cars and using heat pumps,' he says from the driver's seat of his car as we float through the vales and hills of the Lake District towards Sellafield, where Gregory works as a chemist.
His book is ordered with the care and precision you would expect from someone whose bread and butter are atoms and subatomic particles. Nuclear power's potential to change the world is enlivened by data and forward-looking policy ideas. Counter-arguments are pulled apart with rigour. But what comes through most strongly is Gregory's enthusiasm. The 32-year-old emits optimism like an exotic isotope emits gamma rays.
'That's one of my favourite things about being a scientist. It's a genuine, incredible source of optimism,' he says over a pea fritter and chips (Gregory is a vegetarian) in Seascale, a village just down the coast from Sellafield that became known as 'the brainiest town in Britain' when the scientists and engineers arrived to build Britain's first nuclear facilities.
The tide is turning
There are already signs the tide may be turning in favour of nuclear energy. Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, announced earlier this week that Britain would spend £14.2 billion on a new nuclear power station at Sizewell C, and Donald Trump, the US president, last month issued a flurry of executive orders aiming to quadruple nuclear energy capacity by 2050.
Until recently, though, Gregory wasn't sure if net zero was possible. 'I was thinking fossil fuels are so deeply embedded in everything we do in society – they just produce too much energy and they're too convenient, they're too easy – that we're going to extract every last drop of oil, every pocket of gas, and every gram of coal, and burn it.' But researching his book turned a hunch into a conviction that nuclear power is the best option for reaching net zero. So what does he think needs to happen?
More nuclear reactors must be built, of course. In Britain, just 10 nuclear reactors like the Olkiluoto-3 reactor recently inaugurated in Finland would eliminate fossil fuels from the grid. The whole of Europe, he states, would need only 170 similarly sized reactors to achieve the same result; the rest of the world, 1,500. An even grander scheme imagines a global fleet of thousands of reactors which together, Gregory calculates, could meet the world's energy demands for a thousand years.
If that seems like a lot, it's because it is. 'That's the scale of the net zero challenge,' he writes. But we have, to an extent, done this before. Take France – after the oil crisis of the 1970s, the country resolved to go nuclear to protect itself from future shocks. Under the slogan, 'In France, we don't have oil, but we have ideas,' 56 reactors were built which, at their peak, supplied 70 per cent of its energy.
'They almost decarbonised their entire grid by accident before anyone cared about climate change,' says Gregory, holding up a chip for emphasis. 'There's a real lesson in that. It's actually possible. The science and technology is there already. We just need to get our act together and deploy it. We're already at about 30 per cent renewables in a lot of countries. What about 30 per cent renewables, 70 per cent nuclear? Then you've done it, and you can all talk about something else and just crack on.'
Gregory was thrilled by Mr Miliband's Sizewell C announcement, which the Energy Secretary described as a new 'golden age' for the British nuclear industry.
'I'm delighted. It's not every day a new 3.2 gigawatt nuclear reactor is announced.'
Yet Britain intends for nuclear power to contribute just a quarter of its electricity production by 2050. Gregory is not a betting man but, if he were, his money would be on France to be the first country to achieve net zero.
Reassuring the general public
Before we can begin building Gregory's fleet of reactors, some hurdles have to be cleared, not least the widespread safety concerns around nuclear power. A short walk from where we are sitting, nuclear waste from Sellafield is periodically discharged into the Irish Sea. You'd think it would be enough to deter even the hardiest wild swimmer, but Gregory is unfazed.
'They pipe radioactive waste offshore just over there,' he says, squinting up the beach towards the nuclear site. 'It's absolutely fine. I go swimming in there all the time in summer.' Sometimes pods of dolphins visit – and he hasn't seen any with three eyes.
A chunk of Gregory's book is devoted to countering 'radiophobia' – the undue fear of radiation that has been stoked by nuclear weapons testing, disasters and popular culture. There was a forensic examination of the impact of the Chernobyl disaster, which occurred when a reactor exploded during a safety test. Gregory estimates that the true death toll – even including cancers caused by radiation exposure – 'likely falls in the region of a few hundred'.
The Fukushima disaster, he notes, has only been linked to a single death, and at Three Mile Island, the worst nuclear accident in American history, 'nobody died, nobody was exposed to anything above background radiation in the surrounding population'. Yet the combined effect of these incidents on our appetite for nuclear power has been extreme. 'We built more nuclear reactors in Europe in the five years leading up to Chernobyl than we have since.'
In the lab, Gregory handles minute samples of some of the most radioactive isotopes on the planet. He and his colleagues wear sensors that measure the doses they are absorbing. Gregory, a 'spreadsheet geek', keeps a running tally but says the amount he absorbs each year is negligible – about the same as you would get from a two-week holiday in Cornwall, where high levels of radon gas in the rocks mean annual radiation exposure is more than three times the UK average.
He doesn't want to downplay the threat to health ionising radiation can pose, but his work affords him a different perspective. 'The people who work with radiation every day are the people who are least afraid of it,' he says. 'We're all living in radiation anyway, all the time. There's no escaping it.' We pause to acknowledge the glare of the sun.
Gregory believes we have no need to worry about nuclear power. But one concern he does not address in the book is the fear that nuclear power plants could become targets for terrorists or a hostile state – as we have seen in Ukraine, where Russia has held the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant hostage. His hypothetical nuclear world is persuasive but exists in controlled, laboratory conditions. 'Everything comes with a risk,' he says. 'The trick is to balance that risk with maximum trade-off, and I would also argue that with more energy, the world would become more peaceful.'
Air pollution – a problem that could be mitigated significantly by an expansion of nuclear power – kills more people every hour than have ever died in nuclear accidents, he notes. 'The sight of those Chernobyl liquidators in their respirators and their lead aprons is so much more harrowing than a slightly smoggy city, but actually air pollution is not just a little bit worse, it's orders of magnitude worse.'
Concerns around the storage of nuclear waste are similarly misplaced, he says. Long-lived waste that takes hundreds of thousands of years to lose its radioactive potency could be used as fuel for breeder reactors, which actually generate more fissile material than they consume. Building a network of these would leave us mainly with waste that needs to be stored for much shorter periods – think hundreds of years.
Much of what we think of as waste is actually extremely useful, finding its way into cutting-edge medical treatments like targeted alpha therapy, which uses a short-lived isotope of lead to destroy cancer cells without harming healthy tissue.
Britain, he is keen to point out, holds the world's largest civil stockpile of plutonium. One hundred and forty one tonnes of the stuff lies in a secure facility somewhere in Sellafield. If recycled, it could power the two new reactors at Hinkley Point C well into the 22nd century. But in January the government decided it would dispose of the stockpile by burying it deep underground.
Learning from Germany's mistakes
And what of global uranium supplies? By going nuclear, are we not simply swapping fossil fuel for a geological alternative? A calculation, which Gregory describes self-effacingly as having been done on the back of an envelope, suggests known reserves of uranium, thorium and recyclable fuel could provide power for 900 years. The 4.5 billion tonnes of uranium dissolved in the world's oceans would do for the next quarter of a million.
'It's a resource like any other – if you can't grow it, you have to dig for it,' he says. 'But there's plenty there to tide us over until we get fusion working. And it's actually quite geographically distributed around the world – it's not like any one country or small group of countries has a monopoly on it, like with oil.'
But what of the cost? Germany's Energiewende – its transition away from nuclear and fossil fuels to renewables, which began at the turn of the millennium but accelerated after Fukushima – provides the perfect counterpoint. Nuclear, argues Gregory, provides much better value for money than any of its rivals. For the €500 billion Germany spent on its 'failed energy transformation', Gregory writes, it could have had 40 reactors like the one built in Finland.
'With that much electricity, plus the nuclear it switched off since 2000, Germany could have entirely decarbonised its electricity supply, eliminated the need for unreliable wind turbines and solar panels, electrified all 49 million of its cars, and still have spare electricity to generate 1.7 million tonnes of green hydrogen every year.'
With large-scale infrastructure projects, Gregory concedes that there is a problem. 'We do seem to have a chronic inability to build large pieces of infrastructure,' he laments. 'It's not just the UK, it's the West in general, and it affects everything from high-speed rail networks to new hospitals to new housing estates, even potholes. There are lots of them around here, as you can imagine, with all the rain that we get.'
Again though, we have done this before. Calder Hall, the world's first full-scale nuclear power station, opened in what is now Sellafield in 1956. Queen Elizabeth II threw the switch to connect it to the grid.
'We used to be world leaders at building nuclear power stations'
We're back in the car and Sellafield is spreading out in the valley before us. A sign warning against the flying of drones flashes by as we come to a halt on a road named after John Dalton, the Cumbrian-born scientist who popularised the idea that the world was made from atoms. (The ancient Greeks got close but it was a 'lucky guess', says Gregory.)
'In the UK, we used to be world leaders at building nuclear power stations, not just quickly but en masse. The median build time in Europe back in the 1970s and 1980s was about six years, which is about what it is today in China and South Korea,' he says, pointing to the stacks where British scientists took the first steps into the Atomic Age.
'There is a doom and gloom in society, and people are demoralised,' says Gregory. 'I don't want to diminish the very real problems that a lot of people face and the big challenges that the UK faces and the world faces, but we are actually capable of doing some really cool stuff when we put our minds to it.' That's where his Apollo programme analogy comes in. 'A massive, concerted effort on the nuclear power front would solve a lot of our problems. And it's totally achievable.'
When he's not in the lab, Gregory is often out promoting nuclear power's green credentials, bringing him into contact with environmentalist groups who are at best ambivalent towards it. Many, like Greenpeace, have their roots in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and are implacably opposed to it, seeing it as linked with atomic weapons, though as Gregory says, 'you can have one without the other'.
He recalled a recent encounter with an eco activist. 'I've read a lot of Greenpeace literature, a lot of Friends of the Earth literature – I haven't just put myself into an echo chamber. But I came away from the conversation with this guy really disappointed by how weak the arguments were. They're either based on things that aren't true, or gut feelings, and energy policy is not something that should be dictated by gut feeling.'
Despite this, Gregory has a surprising amount in common with the naysayers of nuclear power. Raised in Dewsbury by a single mother, he was 'grabbed' by a passion for science at a young age. Bird-watching books, mushroom-spotting guides and encyclopaedias, provided by his mother, fuelled a love of the natural world.
'I've always had a rock collection and a fossil collection. I had a miniature museum in my bedroom and posters of geological timelines and all the rest of it,' he says. 'I used to get the mickey taken out of me at school for loving science and that kind of thing – I used to get called Nasa boy.' Today, he loves nothing more than walking in the fells that surround his home. 'There's a certain awe you get from being out in the mountains,' he admits.
While some find it tough to adapt to the relative isolation of this corner of west Cumbria, Gregory revels in the fact that he is 100 miles from the nearest Pret. He met his wife Amy in a laboratory at Sellafield, and the pair married in a pub having bonded over a shared love of ale. Beer-making, he says, 'is the best kind of chemistry, after all'.
He rejects the popular view that achieving carbon neutrality means sacrificing quality of life. For example, 'I hate paper straws. They're an example of bad technology. They make me really resentful, actually,' he says.
Really good green technology, he says, should instead be about replacing something with an alternative that is not only more environmentally friendly, but is actually better – like the LED light bulb. 'That's exactly the kind of technology that we should be implementing more of. It's better than what it replaces in its function, and it's cheaper and it's better for the environment. It's perfect. Who can argue with that?'
He is similarly irked by 'greenwashing' and uses a brief section of Going Nuclear to interrogate Greta Thunberg's fabled transatlantic yacht voyage to the UN Climate Action Summit in 2019. While she may not have racked up any air miles getting there, the same cannot be said for a crew of five who had to fly to New York to retrieve the vessel and sail it back to Sweden. 'Of all the things in my book that might get me cancelled, the opening to that chapter might be one,' Gregory says.
Ultimately though, he feels he is mostly on the same page as the environmentalists, and indeed sees himself as one, of a sort. 'The aims of the environmental movement are really good, and I think most people would agree with them. We all want a cleaner world that's more sustainable – exactly the kind of view that we're enjoying now,' he says, pointing out Blencathra as it looms up out of the landscape.
'I really do think the penny is dropping that renewables on their own are just not going to do it, but with nuclear, it's like both sides of the debate win – everybody gets what they want.'
So what does Gregory's vision of the future look like? Regrettably, the nuclear-powered car doesn't come into it, though he expects every town and city will have one or more of the emerging breed of small modular reactors providing their power, alongside solar panels and wind turbines. In fact, the nuclear city of the future may not be unfamiliar to us today.
'It doesn't have to be fundamentally different, that's the point. Nuclear power is already Europe's biggest source of emissions-free energy by quite a long way, and that's really surprising, and the fact that it's surprising is really telling, because nobody notices.'
The Energy Coast, as this part of west Cumbria is known, provides a glimpse of such a future. Locals are big supporters of the nuclear industry and Gregory reckons they would be thrilled if a new reactor opened and Sellafield began producing power again. The same cannot be said, however, of a planned solar farm down the road. 'Everybody's kicking off about it. Nuclear is the thing around here – people are really proud of it.'
Going Nuclear: How the Atom Will Save the World, by Tim Gregory, is published on 12 June (Bodley Head, £25)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Alarming new map shows deadly arsenic levels in drinking water across the U.S.
A new map has revealed a disturbing truth about drinking water in the U.S. Scientists found millions of Americans may be regularly exposed to dangerous levels of arsenic, which is a naturally occurring element in soil and rock that seeps into groundwater over time. Using data collected between 2017 and 2019, researchers mapped population-weighted arsenic levels in community water systems. Alarming hotspots were found in parts of Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington, where levels exceed 5 micrograms per liter (µg/L), a point considered hazardous to human health. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a maximum arsenic level of 10 µg/L, or 10 parts per billion, in in drinking water. But research has shown that even lower levels can increase the risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease and developmental issues. Moderate-to-high levels (between 1μg/L and 5 µg/L) were found in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas and Idaho. While some states have low overall arsenic exposure, the map shows pockets of chronic contamination that disproportionately affect rural and low-income populations, many of whom may be unaware of the risks. Some studies suggest that more than two million Americans may be exposed to arsenic in their water supply, though not all at levels above the EPA's 10 μg/L limit. The map was created by scientists at Columbia University who utilized records from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess arsenic levels across specific regions. The team collected data to determine arsenic levels in each Zip Code Tabulation Area, geographic zones defined by zip codes, based on 13,998 participants across 35 sites from 2005 to 2020. The map reveals the highest arsenic concentrations, exceeding 5 μg/L, in Michigan's Lower Peninsula, where industrial and agricultural activity may contribute. Sheridan Haack, a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, previously said that several counties in Michigan have elevated levels of arsenic. Counties in the Thumb had the highest levels in the state, along with Oakland, Washtenaw, and Ingham counties. New York's southern tier, particularly around Binghamton, features bedrock and soils that may contain arsenic-bearing minerals that release the element into groundwater under certain conditions. This is a common phenomenon in parts of the Northeast, where glacial deposits and sedimentary rock layers can concentrate arsenic. California's Central Valley, known for intensive farming, also emerged as a hotspot. Other critical areas included Pennsylvania's western counties near Pittsburgh, Tennessee's eastern Appalachian areas, Utah's northern Cache and Weber counties, Arizona's southwest near Yuma, and Oregon's Willamette Valley. Concerned citizens can use at-home filters to reduce their arsenic risk, but popular brands like Brita likely aren't effective at getting rid of arsenic Instead, people can look for reverse osmosis systems, activated alumina filters or anion exchange resins, according to EcoWater Systems. A 2023 study by a separate team from Columbia found that arsenic in drinking water was linked to an increased risk for heart disease. They examined the health records of 100,000 Californians over 23 years and compared the data to their estimated exposure to arsenic in drinking water. They found that people exposed to high levels of the toxic metal for a decade or more were 42 percent more likely to develop heart disease. The study author, Dr Tiffany Sanchez, an environmental and molecular epidemiologist, suggested that current policy on the amount of arsenic allowed into drinking water may need to be re-examined. 'Our results are novel and encourage a renewed discussion of current policy and regulatory standards,' she said.


Times
4 hours ago
- Times
As the Beatles said, maybe all you do need is love
Perhaps more so than any other band the Beatles devoted much of their wordsmithery to questions of close affection. 'All you need is love,' was one Lennon-McCartney recommendation. 'Love me do' was their first such plea on vinyl, and the Fab Four's epitaph was famously 'the love you take is equal to the love you make'. For some, the lyrics summed up the band's message of peace and harmony; for others, they were hippy dippy smush. Now it turns out that Liverpool's finest may have had a point. Researchers at Pennsylvania State University have been tracking 52 individuals for a month, quizzing them six times every day via their smartphones on whether they had expressed amore, or had received some in return. In this context, the researchers interpreted 'love' broadly: spending time with someone close, gift giving, or expressing affection through words. The conclusion was one Messrs Lennon and McCartney would welcome: when people expressed love to others, they tended to feel more loved in return. However, the study found the reverse was not necessarily true: receiving affection from others did not automatically make people more generous with their love. The researchers admit they expected a two-way relationship: 'It was somewhat surprising to find that increases in feelings of being loved didn't increase expressions of love over time.' Their conclusion is that some individuals are better at receiving affection than giving it. • Why small acts of affection may be the key to feeling more loved yourself The power of love goes deeper than self-fulfilment. Participants in the study reported other psychological benefits. Those who felt more loved scored better on average when it came to mental health and feelings of loneliness. Such studies should always be treated with caution, given their observational nature. But at its heart is a timeless truth: saying 'I love you' costs nothing but can mean everything.


The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
US to breed billions of flies and dump them out of aircraft in bid to fight flesh-eating maggot
The US government is preparing to breed billions of flies and dump them out of airplanes over Mexico and southern Texas to fight a flesh-eating maggot. That sounds like the plot of a horror movie, but it is part of the government's plans for protecting the US from a bug that could devastate its beef industry, decimate wildlife and even kill household pets. This weird science has worked well before. 'It's an exceptionally good technology,' said Edwin Burgess, an assistant professor at the University of Florida who studies parasites in animals, particularly livestock. 'It's an all-time great in terms of translating science to solve some kind of large problem.' The targeted pest is the flesh-eating larva of the new world screwworm fly. The US Department of Agriculture plans to ramp up the breeding and distribution of adult male flies – sterilizing them with radiation before releasing them. They mate with females in the wild, and the eggs laid by the female aren't fertilized and don't hatch. There are fewer larvae, and, over time, the fly population dies out. It is more effective and environmentally friendly than spraying the pest into oblivion, and it is how the US and other countries north of Panama eradicated the same pest decades ago. Sterile flies from a factory in Panama kept the flies contained there for years, but the pest appeared in southern Mexico late last year. The USDA expects a new screwworm fly factory to be up and running in southern Mexico by July 2026. It plans to open a fly distribution center in southern Texas by the end of the year so that it can import and distribute flies from Panama if necessary. Most fly larvae feed on dead flesh, making the new world screwworm fly and its old world counterpart in Asia and Africa outliers – and for the American beef industry, a serious threat. Females lay their eggs in wounds and, sometimes, exposed mucus. 'A thousand-pound bovine can be dead from this in two weeks,' said Michael Bailey, president-elect of the American Veterinary Medicine Association. Veterinarians have effective treatments for animals suffering from an infestation, but it can still be unpleasant – and also cripple an animal with pain. Don Hineman, a retired western Kansas rancher, recalled infested cattle as a youngster on his family's farm. 'It smelled nasty,' he said. 'Like rotting meat.' The new world screwworm fly is a tropical species, unable to survive midwestern or great plains winters, so it was a seasonal scourge. Still, the US and Mexico bred and released more than 94 billion sterile flies from 1962 through 1975 to eradicate the pest, according to the USDA. The numbers need to be large enough that females in the wild can't help but hook up with sterile males for mating. One biological trait gives fly fighters a crucial wing up: females mate only once in their weeks-long adult lives. Alarmed about the fly's migration north, the US temporarily closed its southern border in May to imports of live cattle, horses and bison and it won't be fully open again at least until mid-September. But female flies can lay their eggs in wounds on any warm-blooded animal, and that includes humans. Decades ago, the US had fly factories in Florida and Texas, but they closed as the pest was eradicated. The Panama fly factory can breed up to 117 million flies a week, but the USDA wants the capacity to breed at least 400 million a week. It plans to spend $8.5m on the Texas site and $21m to convert a facility in southern Mexico for breeding sterile fruit flies into one for screwworm flies. In one sense, raising a large colony of flies is relatively easy, said Cassandra Olds, an assistant professor of entomology at Kansas State University. But, she added, 'You've got to give the female the cues that she needs to lay her eggs, and then the larvae have to have enough nutrients.' Fly factories once fed larvae horse meat and honey and then moved to a mix of dried eggs and either honey or molasses, according to past USDA research. Later, the Panama factory used a mix that included egg powder and red blood cells and plasma from cattle. In the wild, larvae ready for the equivalent of a butterfly's cocoon stage drop off their hosts and on to the ground, burrow just below the surface and grow to adulthood inside a protective casing resembling a dark brown Tic Tac candy. In the Panama factory, workers drop them into trays of sawdust. Security is an issue. Sonja Swiger, an entomologist with Texas A&M University's extension service, said a breeding facility must prevent any fertile adults kept for breeding stock from escaping. Dropping flies from the air can be dangerous. Last month, a plane freeing sterile flies crashed near Mexico's border with Guatemala, killing three people. In test runs in the 1950s, according to the USDA, scientists put the flies in paper cups and then dropped the cups out of planes using special chutes. Later, they loaded them into boxes with a machine known as a 'whiz packer'. The method is still much the same: light planes drop crates containing flies. Burgess called the development of sterile fly breeding and distribution in the 1950s and 1960s one of the USDA's 'crowning achievements'. Some agriculture officials argue now that new factories shouldn't be shuttered after another successful fight. 'Something we think we have complete control over – and we have declared a triumph and victory over – can always rear its ugly head again,' Burgess said.