Amy Harder opines that America's Liberal leaders are torn between fighting climate change and resisting nuclear power. Why it matters now: The nuclear power industry, which provides the U.S. nearly two-thirds of its carbon-free electricity, is reaching an inflection point. Several power plants are shutting down under economic duress (created by low-priced natural gas), which is putting pressure on Congress and state legislatures to keep them open, while a new generation of advanced nuclear technologies need government backing to get off the ground, (as with any new technology).
Some Democratic politicians and prominent scientists have come out to back nuclear in recent years because of climate change, but most of the biggest environmental groups and influential leaders remain opposed (because their members or constituents pay them are paid to do so). During interview after interview at a United Nations climate conference in Bonn, Germany, I noticed a trend: Politicians would cite the many challenges facing nuclear power, such as safety (but there is no safety issues), how to store radioactive waste (it is being stored safely), and the economics (no different than other large-scale projects), as reasons their positions didn't matter. Those more inclined to support the fuel would cite the challenges as hurdles to overcome. Three examples:
Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmental activist: "Obviously, nuclear does not create greenhouse gases. It creates other problems ... Nobody has any ability to create nuclear power at any kind of competitive price point, plus all of the existing nuclear plants have disposal and safety issues." ... (but Tom, the current economics are based on temporarily cheap natural gas, and there are no issues regarding waste or safety issues ... see what Dr. James Hansen and Michael Shellenberger have to say about the issues (more).
Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City, is opting not to put his money toward state initiatives trying to keep open struggling reactors. Instead, he's funneling his money — $116 million over the last month — to close coal plants in the U.S. and Europe. "Nuclear power is not killing people from air pollution and climate change the way coal power is," said Antha Williams, the head of the environment program at Bloomberg Philanthropies. "So he doesn't oppose nuclear.".
Democratic Gov. Kate Brown of Oregon, whose state is one of more than a dozen that effectively ban nuclear power, says she wants to see data ensuring safe storage of fuel waste (Kate, there are numerous examples of "safe storage of waste .... see what Dr. James Hansen and Michael Shellenberger have to say about the issues (more). Brown described Oregon-based NuScale, a startup building small advanced reactor technologies, as "innovative," but she declined to comment on state legislation exempting the technology from the ban. "I would just say it's not my focus at this point in time." (The question arises then if not nuclear, then what? Natural gas? (No), coal? (No), wind or solar? (look outside...) or just buy electricity from Washington or California at very high prices? (No) SMRs should be a major solution in the next 5 years or so.)
Many of America's largest environmental Groups, which have influence over Liberal politicians (because of membership leanings?), are doubling down on their opposition to nuclear power. Another reason: if they supported nuclear, they'd lose donations, according to James Hansen, a well-known and highly respected climate scientist at Columbia University, and his colleague Steve Kirsch, a California-based entrepreneur and philanthropist. At a meeting in 2014 between Kirsch and Frances Beinecke, who at the time led the Natural Resources Defense Council, Beinecke said one of the reasons the Group couldn't back nuclear power is because it would lose donations from members.The Groups argue plummeting prices of wind and solar make nuclear power unnecessary ( ... but have you noticed that grid-power is still needed even if the sun does shine and the wind blows, and watch for increasing prices as soon as operation and maintenance charges start building up on the windmills and sun farms).
"The lunch did in fact occur and there was no movement," Kirsch said by email last week. A spokesman for NRDC declined to comment. Beinecke, who retired from NRDC later that year, didn't respond to requests for comment. NRDC's position on nuclear power resembles that of many others on the Left: It would only support it if all of the industry's challenges are "properly mitigated." Democratic senators who traveled to the Bonn conference indicated an increased albeit cautious openness to nuclear power, but this rhetoric was not matched by any sense of urgency to press for action in Congress or otherwise.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island said there's bipartisan support to pass a pair of measures boosting advanced nuclear technologies and helping keep open existing reactors facing economic challenges (from natural gas and even coal.) On the latter point, he was talking about a bill he authored that puts a price on carbon emissions. That would help nuclear power because it would monetize its carbon-free attribute, but Republicans, most of whom don't acknowledge climate change is a problem but do back nuclear power (and coal as well, for now), don't support that bill. Meanwhile, smaller policies seem poised to pass. The tax overhaul bill the House just approved extends a production tax credit for nuclear energy, which industry executives say is critical to both existing reactors and advanced technologies still in planning phases.
Original URL: https://www.axios.com/the-lefts-nuclear-problem-1513307026-dd52bd5a-670b-4c7c-b011-2a9aa8079925.html
Managed by I2M Consulting, LLC