nuclear-news

Bernie Sanders appears to be the only candidate to reject expressly an increased reliance on nuclear power. Back in May, Sanders indicated that he does not support building more nuclear plants “when we do not know how we get rid of the toxic waste from the ones that already exist.” Sanders, however, since then has side-stepped the issue. Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley have also been cautious and evasive, but clues from their climate proposals and past positions indicate support for nuclear energy in combination with renewable sources. Clinton’s climate plan seems to maintain nuclear at current levels, while O’Malley historically has expressed strong support for innovative nuclear technology. Jeb Bush has expressed robust support of nuclear power, emphasizing access to new technologies that include advanced nuclear power designs…….

The most critical question, in determining whether to promote nuclear energy, is whether there is a viable alternative. Increasing nuclear capacity is not necessary if a transition to renewables can be achieved before emissions cause a catastrophic rise in global temperatures. For Hansen, the answer is obvious. The idea that clean energy can scale up fast enough to replace fossil fuels is so naïve, he says, that we might as well believe in the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy.

But in reality, the question of how fast renewables can scale up is far from settled. Ananalysis by Greenpeace outlines a pathway to 100 percent global renewable energy by 2050, and engineers from Stanford University and colleagues similarly outlined a state-by-state roadmap to reach 100 percent renewables by the same year. Recent progress yields encouraging signs. Between 2007 and 2014, wind, solar, biomass, and other non-hydroelectric renewables together nearly tripled their contributions to the U.S. electricity supply. Including hydroelectric, renewables accounted for 13 percent of energy consumed in the electric power sector in 2014. By the end of 2014, renewables comprised roughly 27 percent of the world’s generating capacity.

Renewable energy provides the exclusive power source for three U.S. cities: Burlington, Vermont; Greensburg, Kansas; and Aspen, Colorado. States like Maine, California, Vermont, and Hawaii, have led with strong regulatory targets known as renewable portfolio standards (RPSs); New York adopted an ambitious RPS as well. The business sector likewise is prioritizing energy transition, with many corporations committed to 100 percent renewable power within the coming decades. Roughly 40 companies have joined the global RE100 initiative, including powerhouses like Nike, Walmart, Goldman Sachs, Johnson & Johnson, and Procter & Gamble.

Moreover, these strides are occurring in spite of entrenched support for non-renewable energy sources.  In 2013, fossil fuels received roughly $550 billion in global subsidies, artificially lowering consumption prices and making it harder for clean energy to compete. According to the International Energy Agency, renewable subsidies stood at less than one quarter that amount for the same year. Nuclear power likewise receives substantial public subsidies, as the Union of Concerned Scientistsreported in 2011. And the Price Anderson Act, originally passed in 1957, requires the U.S. government (i.e., taxpayers) to partially indemnify nuclear providers for damages from nuclear accidents.

Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmentalist and liberal donor, has called on the Democratic nomination seekers to provide additional details about their climate and energy plans. Yet any candidate who takes a stand on nuclear power will enter a daunting landscape. Not only will this require intricate analysis of the Clean Power Plan’s provisions and other complex policy questions, but candidates also must navigate a tricky path through the energy sector’s political war chests. These include considerable funds flowing from the nuclear industry itself. One company estimates that the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) budgeted $13 million in 2011 to coordinate an industry response to the Fukushima disaster. And in 2013 and 2014, the top five U.S. nuclear energy companies and NEI spent a combined total of $60.4 million to lobby Congress and federal agencies.

Despite its legitimate urgency, global warming should not trigger a race to build more nuclear power plants. Rather, an upsurge in political momentum is needed to support the rapid rise of renewable energy. Democratic and Republican presidential contenders have failed to clarify their own ideas about the future of nuclear power within our energy mix, and the time is ripe for a meaningful public conversation. Regardless of affiliations and preconceptions, the question of whether to rely on nuclear power in a warming world is too important to ignore. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-b-strozier/the-curious-politics-of-global-warming-and-nuclear-power_b_8674042.html?ir=Australia