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
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
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 »
REPEATS CONTROVERSIAL CLAIM
Trump: Clinton “Doesn’t Have The Stamina” to be President
8 hours ago
DEBATE UPDATE

At the end of the debate, moderator Lester Holt asked Donald Trump if he stands by his statement that Hillary Clinton didn't have the look of a president. Trump responded by saying Holt misquoted him, instead saying that Clinton "doesn't have the stamina." Clinton responded by saying that when Trump visits 112 countries as secretary of state, he can talk to her about stamina.

WIDELY DEBUNKED CLAIM
Trump: Clinton Camp Started Birtherism
8 hours ago
DEBATE UPDATE

Donald Trump, when pressed by Lester Holt on why he finally admitted that President Obama was born in America, repeated his widely debunked claim that it was started by Hillary Clinton.

“AFRICAN AMERICANS” ARE “LIVING IN HELL”
Conversation Shifts to Race
8 hours ago
DEBATE UPDATE

Hillary Clinton went point by point on how race can so often determine the treatment that people receive, mentioning recent shootings in Tulsa and Charlotte, calling for restored trust between communities and police, and demanding criminal justice reform. Trump responded by calling for law and order and touting his endorsements from police unions. He then said that “African Americans are living in hell,” saying they are just walking down the street and getting “shot ... being decimated by crime."

JUST AS CLINTON INVITES VIEWERS TO VISIT HER SITE
During Debate, Trump Site Appears to Be Down
8 hours ago
THE LATEST

Just as Hillary Clinton was inviting debate viewers to visit her site for real-time fact checking, there appeared to be a problem with Donald Trump's own campaign website. For about a 15-minute period, a blank page or an error message appeared when we tried to load the Trump site.

INTERRUPTS CLINTON MULTIPLE TIMES
Trump Comes Out Swinging
9 hours ago
DEBATE UPDATE

Donald Trump has come out in the first segment of this debate raring to go. Trump has interrupted nearly every answer being given by Hillary Clinton, talking over her time and again. Clinton is sticking to her guns, smiling while Trump speaks and then calling on people to go to her website and see the fact checking being done.

×