Four prominent U.S. and Australia-based climate and Earth-system scientists released an open letter early November calling on world leaders and environmentalists to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power plants as a practical means of addressing the global climate change problem.
Read the full letter published by CNN
The authors urge policy influencers who are opposed to nuclear power to base energy source decisions “on facts, and not on emotions and biases that do not apply to 21st century nuclear technology.”
Many studies on how to address climate change and still achieve global energy security have concluded that there will be no single technological silver bullet solution to capping and subsequently reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The authors of the pro-nuclear letter say renewable energy sources “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.”
As of 2012, an estimated 1.4 billion people on the planet did not have access to electricity and approximately 3 billion used solid fuels- wood, charcoal, coal and dung for cooking and heating, mostly in the developing world, according to a report by the World Economic Forum. Assuming humanity depend continuously on fossil fuel sources for energy, future growth in population, capital investment and productivity will generate GDP growth that will promote greater energy consumption, and hence exacerbate greenhouse gas emission levels and other detrimental environmental effects.
The report adds that the energy architecture must respond to a growth in population from 6.8 billion in 2012 to 9 billion people in 2050, and an increase in affluence in the most populated countries. Those countries especially sub-Saharan Africa, India and some other regions in South Asia need readily available and affordable access to energy to support corresponding growth in capital and productivity that generates GDP growth. Increasing global energy demand must be achieved under a low carbon dioxide emission scenario or humanity will take climate change past a point of negative return.
The pro-nuclear environmental scientists argue that although, theoretically and in the context of energy security, it may be possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power option, there is no real-world credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.
The scientists recognize there is no energy system without downsides and for that reason; they admit “nuclear energy is far from perfect.” But they believe nuclear technological modernization and innovation and its expanded use can result in cutting-edge benefits in addressing climate change. They add that quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels.
For example, power plant safety can be improved with passive safety systems and other technological advances. The development of modern nuclear technology can reduce risks of nuclear weapons proliferation. Put simply, advances in nuclear technology can make difficult the diversion of civilian nuclear power plants to military purposes. Newer nuclear technology can significantly lower the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted to the atmosphere by burning nuclear fuel more efficiently.
On the cost front, the scientists say “innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing plants.” They posit that regardless of increased safety, proliferation resistance and lowered cost, development and expanded deployment of nuclear power worldwide need to be encouraged based on its societal benefits.
Nuclear energy will be a quintessential energy resource for sustainable development. Its fuel will be readily available for multiple centuries, presence confers energy autonomy, safety record is superior among major energy sources, and consumption causes virtually no pollution or produces greenhouse gases. Furthermore, its use preserves fossil resources for future generations, nuclear energy capacities are scalable from smaller reactors to large, costs are competitive and declining, waste can be secured over the long-term and operations are manageable in developed and developing nations.
The future use of nuclear power can help both developed and developing countries to meet their needs of rapidly growing energy demands. A global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by a full 60% by 2050 as provided in the Kyoto Protocol will also be achievable. Without the expanded use of nuclear energy and under the prevailing patterns of energy consumption, the intensifying concentration of greenhouse gases and resulting pollution from the use of fossil fuels will take climate change risk past a point of negative return.
Time is running out and there is one fear for human continued dependence on fossil fuels that use the atmosphere as a waste dump. The scientists say continued opposition of nuclear power seriously threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change. In other words, without significant nuclear use in the global energy mix, global energy consumption will overtake the planet’s ability to reverse the build-up of carbon dioxide pollution from burning oil, coal and other fossil fuels. At risk, according one of the authors Hansen, are disintegrating polar ice sheets and rising sea levels which will threaten coastal regions.
As governments worldwide grapple with the tough decision how to balance national energy security and global environmental responsibility, embracing clean-burning nuclear power energy is the only way, the scientists believe, to cap and reduce greenhouse gas emissions which they blame on fossil fuels.
The letter was released by four top scientists Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution; Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute; and Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.