Top Climate Scientists To Environmental Groups That Oppose Nuclear Power: “Stop It!”

By Michael Krancer
Follow me @MikeKrancer 

Four top climate change scientists have directed a tour de force letter to world environmental groups advising them of an important fact: we cannot stop global warming without nuclear power.  The letter comes from Dr. Ken Caldeira, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution; Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, MIT; Dr. James Hansen, Columbia University Earth Institute; and Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of East Anglia and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

The letter is remarkable for its frank and logical discussion of not only science and policy but also reality and context, commodities that the authors urge their environmental group audience to grasp more of.   They state that continued opposition to nuclear power “threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.”  Besides the obvious moral imperative of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, there is a further moral underpinning to their argument.   The developing world will require more electric power to meet the needs of and advance the health and safety of a huge population, and our future generations have every right to that aspiration.   In a very cleverly turned sentence, they sum it up this way, “we can only increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a [GHG] waste dump.”

While renewables like wind, solar and biomass will play a role, it is unrealistic to think those sources will be enough.  In the “real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.”

No energy system is without downside risks, they correctly note.  However, numerous systems and advancements make today’s nuclear plants much safer.  As a former insider at a nuclear generation company I can vouch for that.  Furthermore, spent nuclear fuel can be effectively and safely managed by utilizing efficient consumption and disposal techniques.  I would add that it can also be addressed in this country by the federal government stepping up to do what it should have done long ago—proceed with a decision on the Yucca Mountain facility or provide an alternative.   The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has weighed in on that issue too by ordering the administration to follow the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and make a decision.

The bottom line is that “quantitative analyses show that risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels.”  The authors pointedly ask the environmental groups to base their decisions and advocacy on “facts, not on emotions and biases that do not apply to 21st century nuclear technology.”

The letter  goes on to say that, “The time has come for those who take the threat of global warming seriously to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems” as part of the solution to global warming.  We cannot afford, they say, to turn away from nuclear power that has the potential to displace a large fraction of our carbon emissions.  In fact, our existing nuclear fleet in the United States has been doing just that for decades.   The U.S. Energy Information Agency says that U.S. carbon emissions avoided through nuclear power since 1995 total 11,879 million metric tons.  Moreover, numerous studies have shown that lifecycle carbon emissions from nuclear power are comparable to renewable power sources.

The scientists wrap up with the exhortation that “the time has come for a fresh approach to nuclear power in the 21st century” and by asking the environmental groups to “demonstrate [your] real concern about risks from climate change by calling for the development and deployment of advanced nuclear energy.”

At the end of the day, the scientists’ letter is a lesson and exhortation to all of us.

The text of Drs. Caldeira, Emanuel, Hansen, and Wigley letter can be read Here.

This entry was posted in Air Regulation, Electricity Markets, Legislative and Regulatory, Policy by Mike Krancer. Bookmark the permalink.

About Mike Krancer

Mike Krancer is an experienced and well known policy and substantive thought leader in energy development and deployment. He is a valued advisor to U.S. and global energy companies of all types regarding the full range of legal, public policy, government relations, state and federal regulatory, financial, corporate, and labor matters with his 20+ years of energy industry and public policy experience at the highest corporate and policy-making levels.

3 thoughts on “Top Climate Scientists To Environmental Groups That Oppose Nuclear Power: “Stop It!”

  1. Mike:

    Thanks. Your piece here was the first I’d heard of the letter. I just wish you had put even more emphasis on the balancing of risks. The concept of risk assessment seems to have gone over the heads of otherwise intelligent opponents of nuclear power. One thing I especially like about Gwyneth Cravens’s book *Power to Save the World” is the core theme of risk.

    Risk assessment is hard. As well as being frightfully complicated, as in nuclear waste disposal, it can be counterintuitive. But that doesn’t mean its essentials are unteachable, and if the essentials were understood, it would give more weight to the warnings of Caldeira, Hansen, et al.

    One other point that might deserve more emphasis, or clarification, involves lifecycle carbon emissions. I believe nuclear lifecycle emissions are not just comparable to renewables, they are better (i.e., lifetime power production versus lifetime emissions). But much depends on what the lifetimes are. As I understand it, not only are new nuclear designs going to last longer, but also existing plants are getting their permits extended, as more is understood about upgrades and the responses of materials to radiation. Current photovoltaics have relatively short effective lifetimes, but I expect those too will be improved. I haven’t heard much about the longevity of wind turbines, which may be improved or reduced by the effects of climate change and shifting weather patterns.

    As far as lifetime power production versus lifetime emissions is concerned, once we inevitably go back to recycling “spent” fuel in the U.S., the advantages of nuclear should multiply. Have the “numerous studies” you mention included the lengthy French “experiment”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s