Nuclear powerClimate scientists say renewables are not enough

Some of the world’s top climatologists have declared their support for nuclear energy as a complementary energy source, alongside wind and solar as energy, which would  cut fossil fuel pollution and reduce the growth of global warming.

In a letter addressed to groups and policy makers which influence energy and environmental policies but oppose nuclear power, the scientists promote a  discussion on the role of nuclear power in fighting climate change (see “Leading climate scientists urge support for nuclear power,” HSNW, 5 November 2013). The Durango Herald notes that environmentalists are aware of the threat global warming pose to ecosystems and humans, but many oppose nuclear power, arguing that current and developing renewable energy sources will be able to sustain the world’s energy needs in the coming decades.

The letter, signed by Dr. James Hansen od the  Columbia University Earth Institute; Dr. Kerry Emanuel of  Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Dr. Tom Wigley of the University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Dr. Ken Caldeira of the Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution insists that environmentalists have unrealistic views on the capability of wind and solar energy to sustain future energy needs. “Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power,” the letter reads.

The majority of climate scientists agree that pollution from fossil fuels have increased global temperatures during the last sixty years, and that a significant reduction in emissions is needed. Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels have increased sixteen times between 1900 and 2008, and by about 1.5 times between 1990 and 2008, according to a study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). China currently leads the world as the top carbon-polluting country, with the United States second.

In an interview with the Associated Press, Hansen says that opposing fossil fuels and promoting renewable energy sources offer but a limited solution. “They’re cheating themselves if they keep believing this fiction that all we need” is renewable energy such as wind and solar, Hansen said.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental advocacy organization warned that “nuclear power is no panacea for our climate woes.” NRDC president, Frances Beinecke cites the risk with nuclear power along with the waste storage and security of nuclear material as reasons to object nuclear power. “The better path is to clean up our power plants and invest in efficiency and renewable energy,” Beinecke said.

The letter acknowledges the risks that accompany nuclear power, but claims that those risks are of lesser magnitude than the risk associated with fossil fuels. The climatologists said: “We understand that today’s nuclear plants are far from perfect. Fortunately, passive safety systems and other advances can make new plants much safer. And modern nuclear technology can reduce proliferation risks and solve the waste disposal problem by burning current waste and using fuel more efficiently. Innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing plants. Regardless of these advantages, nuclear needs to be encouraged based on its societal benefits.”