Ken Silverstein | Nov 06, 2013

When four of the most prominent climate scientists emerged this week and said that nuclear energy was a must-have fuel to combat global warming, the message caught their biggest fans off-guard. Indeed, the green groups are saying that the four know a lot about science but not that much about nuclear power.

All such groups preface their remarks by saying how much they admire and respect the climate scientists who have made that proclamation. After all, they are the ones who raised the climate alarm to such a level that it has become a focus in many parts of the world. But most environmentalists are not moved, with their views ranging from the cost of construction is too prohibitive to the possibility that any accident could reach proportions that make the risks unaffordable.

“While solar power and wind power continue to march down the experience curve to even lower costs -- solar panels have seen a staggering 99 percent drop in cost since 1977 -- nuclear power has been heading in the opposite direction,” writes Joseph Romm, climate expert with the Center for American Progress, in his blog. “Nuclear power appears to have a negative learning curve.”

He adds that if every major environmental organization halted their opposition to nuclear energy then it would still not have much affect on whether new plants are getting built. That is a function of economics, he adds -- that developers can get other types of plants up-and-running much quicker and at less costs. “(T)the nuclear industry has simply been unable to to deliver a competitive product,” Romm adds.

Environmentalists, generally, point to the Price Anderson Act that reduces the risks to nuclear energy companies in case of accidents. They also call attention to the loan guarantees and specifically the one for $8 billion given to Southern Company and its partners to build two reactors in Georgia.

For better or worse, those are still subsidies -- similar to the ones received for wind and solar energies that nuclear operator Exelon Corp. has railed against. The goal of nuclear’s subsidies -- just as it is for any fuel -- is to ensure plants get built, economies of scale are reached and that private financing is ultimately attracted. 



Subsidy Addicts

As for nuclear energy, Doug Koplow, writing on behalf of the Union for Concerned Scientists, says that nuclear’s subsidies are not cash payments; rather, they shift construction costs and operating risks from investors to taxpayers and ratepayers.

“Conspicuously absent from industry press releases and briefing memos touting nuclear power’s potential as a solution to global warming is any mention of the industry’s long and expensive history of taxpayer subsidies,” writes Koplow. He says that there are more cost-effective ways to combat climate.

“While we agree that the climate crisis is the most urgent challenge of our time, this group fails to acknowledge that wind, solar and efficiency are the faster, cheaper, and safer way to fight the climate threat,” adds Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club in a formal response to the scientists.

He goes on to say that Germany has vowed to get rid of its remaining 17 nuclear reactors and to replace much of that power with renewable energy. Authorities have already shut down 8 such reactors. And at its peak, nuclear energy had provided a quarter of that European nation’s electricity mix.

But according to the World Nuclear Association, the move has only increased coal’s market share there: It was 43 percent in 2010 and it is 52 percent now. The result: Bloomberg news service is reporting that Germany’s Environment Ministry said that carbon dioxide equivalents rose from 917 million tons in 2011 to 931 million tons in 2012.

“There is ever-increasing recognition of the fact that greenhouse gas emissions would be vastly higher if nuclear energy facilities did not provide 40 percent of the electricity globally that is produced by carbon-free sources,” says Marvin Fertel, chief executive of the Nuclear Energy Institute.

The letter capturing the public's attention has been penned by James Hansen of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and formerly of NASA as well as Ken Caldeira, senior scientist at the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology, Kerry Emanuel, climate scientist at MIT and Tom Wigley, climate scientist for the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Greenies’ answer to them: Renewables are both cheaper and safer. “No technology but nuclear is capable of inflicting upon us all the horrifying catastrophe now unfolding at Fukushima,” says Harvey Wasserman, editor of Nukefree.org.

Environmentalists’ long-standing view of nuclear energy has “relaxed” but it has not changed. Such an evolution will only occur if the technology is able to work in Asia, where it is being highly utilized. Until then, each energy segment will battle over this nation's finite resources. While this is happening, emissions will continue to flow -- and the American public will be reminded time-and-again of what the climate scholars have been saying.

Twitter: @Ken_Silverstein

Copyright © 1996-2013 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.

To subscribe or visit go to:  http://www.energycentral.com

To subscribe or visit go to:  http://www.energybiz.com

http://energybiz.com/article/13/11/environmental-groups-respect-climate-scientists-disagree-over-nuclear-energy-recommendation