The Earth Is In Hot Water, So Can We Cool the Energy Debate? (3-minute read)

“Earth is in more hot water than ever before, and so are we,” was the climate headline recently at the United Nations. If energy rhetoric cools, that would be positive.

You can help. As companies, cities and states commit to low-or-no-carbon futures, fight for more energy teamwork.

Here’s an essential energy collaboration: Nuclear and renewables. A both of the above energy policy.

A 2014 essay, Nuclear vs. renewables: Divided they fall, colored outside the lines of general thinking, in a good way. “Media outlets have reported the schism between nuclear and renewables as if it’s a sporting contest, play by play. But the planet’s fate is no game…” said the essay, which is worth dusting off.

High energy-dense nuclear complements low energy-dense renewables. Base load nuclear covers for renewables that are not on 100%. These pearls are strung on the common thread of no-carbon.

The essay acknowledges, “That won’t be easy for environmental groups with a long history of anti-nuclear activism.”

Fast forward from 2014 to today, a blink of an eye in energy time. Some bridges have been started across the renewable/nuclear divide:

• “We need a low-carbon electricity standard [to] prevent the early closure of nuclear power plants while supporting the growth of other low carbon technologies,” said the Union of Concerned Scientists.
• "The [climate] urgency is forcing decision-makers to revisit their attitudes to nuclear ... If you look at its full record and its full life cycle, nuclear is safe, reliable and clean," said one policy publication (Source)
• “…keep in mind the incredible amounts of subsidies that renewables receive and that are responsible for their comparatively low-cost electricity. So if there is real political will to decarbonize, one could envision some level of subsidies for nuclear as well to disincentivize the usage of coal & natural gas,” said a researcher and science writer (Source)

Issues with nuclear power are ones of technique (bureaucracy/politics) versus technology. Clarion alarm bells might spur common sense. Yet in 2014, “Although both sides acknowledge the magnitude of the climate crisis, they stubbornly refuse to grow up and face the facts: Even with huge expansions of both nuclear and renewables, keeping global warming below a dangerous level will be a tough order.” (From the essay)

Some power customers are ahead of the curve in states with existing nuclear units and adding solar, wind and hydro to increase emission-free power.

Good. That is and-thinking versus either/or thinking.

Readers of this column can push for more. Ask elected officials for a commonsense and inclusive renewable/nuclear approach on energy. Drop deep-rooted and partisan frameworks. Support existing nuclear facilities and renewables; move ahead on new technologies.

Why? None of us want to be in hot water. 

* * *

Chart: Petroleum, coal, and natural gas have a lot they can give up. There is room for growth for renewables AND nuclear, especially when more electric vehicles can charge-up with no-carbon power. Image source: Energy Information Agency

Scott Carlberg began his public affairs work with the energy industry in 1975. His work has included electricity, oil, gas, chemicals, pipeline, and research.

#nuclear #climatechange #collaboration