Alumni
As Fears of Global Warming Rise, Some Environmentalists Give Nuclear Power a Second Look
Illustration by Hadley Hooper
Though many environmentalists have looked on nuclear power with suspicion, some are now willing to reconsider nuclear generation because its low-carbon footprint may help resolve the biggest threat of all to the planet — global warming. Here is an excerpt from the session “Climate Change and the Possible Role of Nuclear Power” on why the nuclear power option is on the table again.
Mark Brownstein, Environmental Defense
Global warming is the single largest environmental challenge of our generation. For some time now, scientists have told us that we must stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million by the end of the century to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. This is no small task given that it’s now at 355 parts per million and growing.
There are signs that global warming is happening faster and more substantially than climate models have predicted. We have only to recall the images we saw this week of sections of the Antarctic ice sheet breaking off to understand the urgency of the problem.
In the U.S., we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 80 percent from today’s levels. The questions remain: How do we get there? What are the technologies that will allow the economy to prosper, even as we cut greenhouse gases?
Studies have emphasized that there is no silver bullet. That brings me to nuclear. The problem of global warming is so serious that we must consider every low-carbon option, including nuclear.
Today, about 20 percent of the electricity generated in the United States comes from nuclear. Given the rising demand for electric power, to simply maintain the nuclear share at 20 percent would require 220 new nuclear units by 2050 — and this in a country that all but ceased to build nuclear plants two decades ago.
Then there are the issues of nuclear waste, safety, security, and cost. The nuclear power industry is not without its problems and these cannot be wished away.
With regards to safety, the nation’s 103 nuclear plants have operated for decades without a major radioactivity release. There have been no fatalities from a nuclear accident at a commercial power plant in the United States during more than 30 years of operation, while emissions from coal-fired plants have caused hundreds or thousands of premature deaths.
Without subsidies, the cost of nuclear power may prove to be economically uncompetitive. But it is also a fact that just about every other form of advanced generation receives a subsidy to some degree. The argument tends to be about who is getting how much of the pie.
When most people think about nuclear plant security, they think of a plane crashing into a reactor. The U. S. Department of Energy says the current generation of reactors can withstand this kind of strike. The bigger concern revolves around proliferation of nuclear materials, particularly highly-enriched uranium or plutonium generated in the manufacture or re-manufacture of nuclear fuel. With uranium, the same technology used to make civilian fuel is used to make weapons-grade material.
Scientists generally agree that the best place to store nuclear waste is in a suitable geologic formation. The debate is over what constitutes a suitable formation. It’s fair to say that the process, to this point, has been as much about politics as it has been about science, and that is not helpful in resolving this issue.
It is the position of Environmental Defense that before embarking on an expansion of the nation’s nuclear fleet, a careful consideration of these issues must be undertaken, outstanding issues must be resolved, and appropriate changes in nuclear policy must be implemented.
Mark Brownstein is managing director of business partnerships in the Climate and Air Program of Environmental Defense, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to environmental issues.