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 »
PROCEDURES NOT FOLLOWED
Trump Not on Ballot in Minnesota
3 days ago
THE LATEST
MOB RULE?
Trump on Immigration: ‘I Don’t Know, You Tell Me’
3 days ago
THE LATEST

Perhaps Donald Trump can take a plebiscite to solve this whole messy immigration thing. At a Fox News town hall with Sean Hannity last night, Trump essentially admitted he's "stumped," turning to the audience and asking: “Can we go through a process or do you think they have to get out? Tell me, I mean, I don’t know, you tell me.”

Source:
BIG CHANGE FROM WHEN HE SELF-FINANCED
Trump Enriching His Businesses with Donor Money
4 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Donald Trump "nearly quintupled the monthly rent his presidential campaign pays for its headquarters at Trump Tower to $169,758 in July, when he was raising funds from donors, compared with March, when he was self-funding his campaign." A campaign spokesman "said the increased office space was needed to accommodate an anticipated increase in employees," but the campaign's paid staff has actually dipped by about 25 since March. The campaign has also paid his golf courses and restaurants about $260,000 since mid-May.

Source:
QUESTIONS OVER IMMIGRATION POLICY
Trump Cancels Rallies
5 days ago
THE LATEST

Donald Trump probably isn't taking seriously John Oliver's suggestion that he quit the race. But he has canceled or rescheduled rallies amid questions over his stance on immigration. Trump rescheduled a speech on the topic that he was set to give later this week. Plus, he's also nixed planned rallies in Oregon and Las Vegas this month.

Source:
‘STRATEGY AND MESSAGING’
Sean Hannity Is Also Advising Trump
6 days ago
THE LATEST

Donald Trump's Fox News brain trust keeps growing. After it was revealed that former Fox chief Roger Ailes is informally advising Trump on debate preparation, host Sean Hannity admitted over the weekend that he's also advising Trump on "strategy and messaging." He told the New York Times: “I’m not hiding the fact that I want Donald Trump to be the next president of the United States. I never claimed to be a journalist.”

Source:
×