As of this writing, California is on fire. It is, once again, the worst wildfire season in recorded history.[1] My own family has contemplated what to bring with them and what to leave behind in the event of an evacuation. And Hurricane Delta is swirling in the Gulf, so-named because the letters of the alphabet, used to name storms, have been exhausted this year for only the second time ever.[2] With these very unnatural disasters unfolding as of this moment, climate change is on the minds of many.
Climate change is undeniable, and so is its cost. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has estimated that climate change has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $350 billion in clean-up and disaster assistance from flooding and storms over the past decade.[3] In 2018, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported the total cost of severe weather and climate disasters to be $91 billion. The previously record-setting 2018 wildfires alone cost $24 billion.[4]
It's worth remembering that climate change is an expensive problem, and it requires expensive solutions. It's also a time-sensitive problem—it's getting worse by the year, with one climate model predicting a 7°F rise in global temperatures by the end of the century,[5] resulting in more frequent and costly extreme weather events.
Reducing our CO₂ emissions is crucial to mitigating climate change, but what if I told you that Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and hundreds more environmental groups are against the single most effective way to reduce greenhouse gases?[6] I refer, of course, to that bugaboo of the environmentalist left—nuclear power.
I do not dispute that renewables such as wind and solar are the energy sources of the future. But nuclear should be the energy source of now, as climate change is nearing a point-of-no-return. Nuclear energy produces no CO₂, and it is capable of replacing coal- and gas-fired power plants immediately,[7] rather than merely supplementing fossil fuels, as wind and solar currently do.
And it is safe. "Nuclear power has the safest track record of any power source," concludes Wired magazine. Events like Chernobyl and Fukushima are exceedingly rare, and aren't particularly deadly, either. No one died in the Fukushima disaster, for instance. Meanwhile, particulate matter from coal power plants kills about 7,500 people in the US every year.[8]
A 2005 broadside against nuclear power signed by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and more than 300 other environmental groups raised several objections to nuclear power; among them, that it is "unnecessary" and it is "too expensive."
With respect to the argument its "unnecessary," the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) disagrees. "Limiting the worst effects of climate change may require other low- or no-carbon energy solutions, including nuclear power," the UCS writes.[9] And the argument that nuclear power is "too expensive" is ironic to me, considering the United States spends billions of dollars a year on renewable energy subsidies—far more than it does on nuclear. Remember that climate change is an expensive problem that requires expensive solutions, including "financial support for [nuclear] power plants," according to the UCS.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that, in order to meet the world's energy needs and avoid the worst effects of climate change, low-carbon electricity generation must increase from providing 36% of the world's energy today, to 85% by 2040.[10] Nuclear is the vehicle that can help get us there. We shouldn't be afraid to use it because of baseless phobias. The environmental movement—which I otherwise support—has resisted nuclear power for decades. No new plant has been built in the United States since 1996. Meanwhile, France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear power, and it's on track to have net zero carbon emissions by 2050.[11]
There has been some good news for nuclear in recent weeks. For the first time in nearly 50 years, the Democratic party platform favors a “technology-neutral” approach to energy that includes “all zero-carbon technologies, including hydroelectric power, geothermal, existing and advanced nuclear, and carbon capture and storage.”[12] It's the first time since Three Mile Island that both parties endorse nuclear power, and with Biden currently 9 points up in the polls, we could soon have a President who is cognizant of the threat of climate change and the necessity of nuclear to mitigate it.
With proponents of the Green New Deal adamantly opposed to nuclear, however, it remains to be seen what Biden will be able to do. It's something I'll be watching for the next four years.
[1] https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-fires-damage-climate-change-analysis/
[2] https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/2020-hurricane-season-exhausts-regular-list-of-names
[3] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/6-ways-to-prepare-your-finances-for-climate-change-2016-12-20
[4] https://www.c2es.org/2019/02/record-wildfires-push-2018-disaster-costs-to-91-billion
[5] https://www.ibtimes.com/temperature-earth-rise-7-degrees-2100-climate-sensitivity-may-be-far-higher-thought-1523752
[6] https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/groupnuclearstmt.pdf
[7] https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/how-can-nuclear-combat-climate-change.aspx
[8] https://www.wired.com/2016/04/nuclear-power-safe-save-world-climate-change/
[9] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-global-warming
[10] https://cen.acs.org/energy/nuclear-power/nuclear-power-help-save-us/97/i37
[11] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-emissions/french-carbon-emissions-fell-4-2-year-on-year-in-2018-idUSKCN1TJ2F3
[12] https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2020/08/23/after-48-years-democrats-endorse-nuclear-energy-in-platform/#456c97e35829