Greens Still See Red on Nuclear Power

Major environmental groups are rejecting pleas from climate scientists to embrace reactors.

COVENTRY, ENGLAND - MARCH 19: Climatologist and NASA scientist Dr James Hansen poses next to a mock grave stone declaring 'Climate change-a matter of life or death' outside the ruins of Coventry Cathedral on March 19, 2009 in Coventry, England. The symobolic head stone is the first stage of a climate change campaign action day. Organisers Christian Aid, CAFOD and others will later take part in a New Orleans style funeral through the streets of Coventry. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)
National Journal
Ben Geman
Feb. 2, 2014, 8:14 a.m.

A lot of people fol­low­ing the on­go­ing fight over the Key­stone XL pipeline have heard the words of re­tired NASA cli­mate sci­ent­ist James Hansen.

It was Hansen who said fully ex­ploit­ing Canada’s oil sands would be “game over for the cli­mate,” a phrase that be­came a battle cry in the move­ment against the pipeline.

But while Hansen is a hero to many with­in the green move­ment, en­vir­on­ment­al groups are non­ethe­less hos­tile to an­oth­er Hansen view: that nuc­le­ar power is es­sen­tial to at­tack­ing cli­mate change as glob­al en­ergy de­mand rises.

Along with three oth­er prom­in­ent cli­mate sci­ent­ists, Hansen penned an open let­ter to en­vir­on­ment­al groups in Novem­ber about nuc­le­ar power, warn­ing that “con­tin­ued op­pos­i­tion … threatens hu­man­ity’s abil­ity to avoid dan­ger­ous cli­mate change” and ur­ging them to push for “de­vel­op­ment and de­ploy­ment of safer nuc­le­ar en­ergy sys­tems.”

No sale. Ma­jor groups such as the Si­erra Club, Green­peace, and the Nat­ur­al Re­sources De­fense Coun­cil haven’t budged in their op­pos­i­tion to a nuc­le­ar build-out.

“The [Si­erra] Club re­cently re­viewed our en­tire en­ergy policy, in­clud­ing nuc­le­ar, and con­cluded that it is not only a bad deal for pub­lic safety and the en­vir­on­ment, but it also doesn’t work eco­nom­ic­ally,” said Mag­gie Kao, a spokes­wo­man for the Si­erra Club, one of the coun­try’s biggest and most polit­ic­ally in­flu­en­tial green groups.

The un­waver­ing op­pos­i­tion among sev­er­al ma­jor en­vir­on­ment­al or­gan­iz­a­tions isn’t sit­ting well with Hansen, and he’s com­par­ing them to, yes, the very glob­al warm­ing skep­tics they of­ten lam­poon.

“It is ana­log­ous to cli­mate den­iers. Their minds are made up, facts don’t mat­ter much,” Hansen said in an email ex­change.

Hansen told Na­tion­al Journ­al he hasn’t had dis­cus­sions with green groups on the top­ic since he wrote the let­ter along with sci­ent­ists Ken Caldeira, Tom Wigley, and Kerry Emanuel.

“I can­not change their po­s­i­tion. That change will re­quire pres­sure from en­vir­on­ment­al­ists. People need to un­der­stand the situ­ation and put pres­sure on the en­vir­on­ment­al or­gan­iz­a­tions, for ex­ample by with­hold­ing fin­an­cial sup­port un­til they be­come (hon­estly) open-minded and sci­entif­ic,” said Hansen, who left NASA last year but re­mains af­fil­i­ated with Columbia Uni­versity’s Earth In­sti­tute.

Hansen doesn’t think get­ting en­vir­on­ment­al groups to em­brace re­act­ors is a lost cause. “I am hope­ful that some of them are be­gin­ning to change, but it is too early to tell.”

He also be­lieves that there’s more sup­port among the green-minded than the form­al po­s­i­tions of en­vir­on­ment­al groups might sug­gest. “En­vir­on­ment­al groups and en­vir­on­ment­al­ists are two very dif­fer­ent en­tit­ies,” said Hansen, who first test­i­fied about glob­al warm­ing be­fore Con­gress in the 1980s.

“It seems to me that there are a lot of en­vir­on­ment­al­ists who are be­gin­ning to look in­to the facts and ap­pre­ci­ate the po­ten­tial en­vir­on­ment­al ad­vant­ages of in­tel­li­gent de­vel­op­ment of nuc­le­ar power,” he said, call­ing re­jec­tion of nuc­le­ar a de facto ac­cept­ance of hy­draul­ic frac­tur­ing for gas and con­tin­ued re­li­ance on coal.

To be sure, there’s a long list of fin­an­cial and polit­ic­al bar­ri­ers to build­ing new re­act­ors in the United States.

Steve Kerekes, a spokes­man for the Nuc­le­ar En­ergy In­sti­tute, the in­dustry’s main trade group, said en­vir­on­ment­al op­pos­i­tion isn’t any­where near the biggest hurdle to build­ing the first new U.S. re­act­ors in dec­ades.

Even a ma­jor an­ti­nuc­lear group isn’t claim­ing that act­iv­ists are what’s hinder­ing the in­dustry’s long-hoped-for but slow-to-ma­ter­i­al­ize “renais­sance” of new U.S. con­struc­tion. “Wall Street and Main Street have both rightly aban­doned nuc­le­ar power,” said Jim Ric­cio, a nuc­le­ar-power ana­lyst with Green­peace.

The U.S. nat­ur­al-gas boom has driv­en down gas costs and helped make the fuel highly at­tract­ive to power com­pan­ies, while re­new­ables like wind and sol­ar — though still a very small frac­tion of U.S. elec­tri­city — are on the march too. The Ja­pan­ese nuc­le­ar dis­aster also put a spot­light on safety con­cerns.

And growth in U.S. power de­mand is slow, which Kerekes points to as a key reas­on why the num­ber of re­act­ors un­der de­vel­op­ment is at the lower end of the in­dustry’s earli­er fore­casts.

Just a small hand­ful of nuc­le­ar pro­jects are go­ing for­ward. Power com­pan­ies South­ern and SCANA are build­ing four new re­act­ors in Geor­gia and South Car­o­lina, while the Ten­ness­ee Val­ley Au­thor­ity is com­plet­ing con­struc­tion of a re­act­or that it had aban­doned in the late 1980s.

Would sup­port from green groups help spur de­vel­op­ment of more plants? “It couldn’t hurt,” Kerekes said.

Hansen ar­gues that an­ti­nuc­lear act­iv­ists have “surely” been a key factor be­hind the slow pace of new re­act­or de­vel­op­ment.

Right now nuc­le­ar plants provide roughly one-fifth of U.S. elec­tri­city. The En­ergy De­part­ment’s stat­ist­ic­al arm, in a re­cent fore­cast, pre­dicted that nuc­le­ar’s share will ac­tu­ally dip in com­ing years and then rise after 2025 as more gen­er­at­ing ca­pa­city comes on­line.

But the in­crease won’t be enough to make nuc­le­ar a big­ger part of the over­all U.S. mix. The de­part­ment pre­dicts that nuc­le­ar plants will sup­ply 16 per­cent of U.S. power in 2040. Kao, the Si­erra Club spokes­wo­man, said the nuc­le­ar ar­gu­ment is a sideshow. “Out­side of a couple nuc­le­ar plants, noth­ing is mov­ing for­ward, and this is only a live de­bate for pun­dits and in­dustry lob­by­ists,” she said.

“I don’t know when our next as­sess­ment will be, but the eco­nom­ics, pub­lic safety, and en­vir­on­ment­al factors go­ing against nukes seem un­likely to change for some time,” Kao ad­ded in an email.

However, a few con­trari­an en­vir­on­ment­al­ists are con­tinu­ing to try and move the needle on nuc­le­ar en­ergy. They ar­gue that it’s a cru­cial tool to bring the re­duc­tions in car­bon emis­sions needed to avoid the most dan­ger­ous warm­ing scen­ari­os. New re­act­or tech­no­lo­gies, they say, mit­ig­ate the safety risks and ad­dress waste prob­lems.

The 2013 doc­u­ment­ary Pan­dora’s Prom­ise makes the case for nuc­le­ar power on cli­mate grounds. The film in­cludes pro­nuc­lear com­ment­ary from Mi­chael Shel­len­ber­ger, cofounder of the Break­through In­sti­tute, an en­vir­on­ment­al think tank prone to telling big green groups that, ba­sic­ally, they’re do­ing it wrong.

Ted Nord­haus, Break­through’s cofounder, said en­vir­on­ment­al groups’ hos­til­ity to­ward nuc­le­ar power gives them a big cred­ib­il­ity prob­lem when it comes to of­fer­ing a “plaus­ible path to mit­ig­ate emis­sions.”

But he also sees a subtle shift. “We’re not hear­ing much of the old scare tac­tics about low-level ra­di­ation ex­pos­ure and melt­downs but now greens are just doub­ling down on the eco­nom­ic ar­gu­ments,” Nord­haus, the group’s chair­man, said in an email. “This, sadly, still con­sti­tutes pro­gress.”

What We're Following See More »
HE ‘WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT’
Warren Goes After Trump Yet Again
3 hours ago
THE LATEST

When it comes to name-calling among America's upper echelon of politicians, there may be perhaps no greater spat than the one currently going on between Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump. While receiving an award Tuesday night, she continued a months-long feud with the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. Calling him a "small, insecure moneygrubber" who probably doesn't know three things about Dodd-Frank, she said he "will NEVER be president of the United States," according to her prepared remarks."We don't know what Trump pays in taxes because he is the first presidential nominee in 40 years to refuse to disclose his tax returns. Maybe he’s just a lousy businessman who doesn’t want you to find out that he’s worth a lot less money than he claims." It follows a long-line of Warren attacks over Twitter, Facebook and in interviews that Trump is a sexist, racist, narcissistic loser. In reply, Trump has called Warren either "goofy" or "the Indian"—referring to her controversial assertion of her Native American heritage. 

FIRST CHANGE IN FOUR DECADES
Congress Passes Chemical Regulations Overhaul
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS

The House on Tuesday voted 403-12 "to pass an overhaul to the nation’s chemical safety standards for the first time in four decades. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act aims to answer years of complaints that the Environmental Protection Agency lacks the necessary authority to oversee and control the thousands of chemicals being produced and sold in the United States. It also significantly clamps down on states’ authorities, in an effort to stop a nationwide patchwork of chemical laws that industry says is difficult to deal with."

Source:
NO MORE INDEPENDENT VOTERS?
GOP Could Double Number of Early Primaries
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Leaders of the Republican Party have begun internal deliberations over making fundamental changes to the way its presidential nominees are chosen, a recognition that the chaotic process that played out this year is seriously flawed and helped exacerbate tensions within the party." Among the possible changes: forbidding independent voters to cast ballots in Republican primaries, and "doubling the number of early states to eight."

Source:
LEVERAGE
Kasich Tells His Delegates to Remain Pledged to Him
8 hours ago
THE LATEST

Citing the unpredictable nature of this primary season and the possible leverage they could bring at the convention, John Kasich is hanging onto his 161 delegates. "Kasich sent personal letters Monday to Republican officials in the 16 states and the District of Columbia where he won delegates, requesting that they stay bound to him in accordance with party rules."

Source:
EFFECTIVE NEXT MONTH
House GOP Changes Rules for Spending Measures
8 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Speaker Paul Ryan is changing the rules of how the House will consider spending measures to try to prevent Democrats from offering surprise amendments that have recently put the GOP on defense. ... Ryan announced at a House GOP conference meeting Tuesday morning that members will now have to submit their amendments ahead of time so that they are pre-printed in the Congressional Record, according to leadership aides." The change will take effect after the Memorial Day recess.

Source:
×