Scientists: nuclear power can prevent use of “the atmosphere as a waste dump”

This weekend, four well-respected climate scientists are emphatically calling for policymakers to rethink their stances on nuclear power. The group says "opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change" and that nuclear power will be key "to develop[ing] an energy system that does not rely on using the atmosphere as a waste dump."

Doctors Ken Caldeira (Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution), Kerry Emanuel (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), James Hansen (Columbia University Earth Institute), and Tom Wigley (University of East Anglia and the National Center for Atmospheric Research) sent their letter on the topic to a variety of organizations and journalists. Passages have now been published everywhere from The New York Times and CNN (both full text) to The Washington Post and The Weather Channel. The four argue that nuclear power isn't perfect, but it's the best solution given the constraints they see—the speed to scale, the need for effective waste removal, and, of course, the cost.

We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump.

Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power

We understand that today’s nuclear plants are far from perfect. Fortunately, passive safety systems and other advances can make new plants much safer. And modern nuclear technology can reduce proliferation risks and solve the waste disposal problem by burning current waste and using fuel more efficiently. Innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing plants. Regardless of these advantages, nuclear needs to be encouraged based on its societal benefits.

The researchers say quantitative analysis reveals the risks of expanding nuclear energy use are far less than the risks from fossil fuels. This is despite lingering concerns still on the public's mind following the 2011 plant disaster in Fukushima, Japan (read more about the mistake analysis done after or see images of areas affected). On the other hand, this pro-nuclear message comes just a year after construction of new nuclear plants was approved in the US for the first time in more than 30 years. And perhaps the names behind it—as the NYT notes, Wigley, Hansen, and Caldeira have all been published in credible, peer-reviewed outlets on energy issues—can make the conversation a priority, if not sway a few lawmaker opinions.