James Hansen criticizes state climate plan, leads calls for expansion of nuclear energy generation
By Cayte Bosler
The state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act calls for a rapid transition to carbon-free electricity by 2040, but the strategy plan needs a nuclear component, a leading climate scientist asserts.
“I am shocked by this document,” James Hansen said this month at an Albany press conference. “It looks like it’s a prescription for making New York the Germany of the U.S. It’s almost a carbon copy of the disastrous German energy plan.”
As a NASA scientist in the 1980s, Hansen testified to Congress that the planet was warming and that it was because of a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gasses in the atmosphere. His climate study, identifying a “greenhouse effect,” had already been featured in 1981 in the New York Times in a story that showed scientists found a trend of temperatures rising year by year with human activity. Dangers to wildlife and human communities from greater storms and floods and rising sea levels, described by Hansen then, have come to pass.
Now, Hansen is urging New York’s leaders to listen to the science, which he says points to a clear need for nuclear power as part of the solution to the climate crisis.
Germany decommissioned the majority of its nuclear plants because of strong public opposition following the meltdowns at Chernobyl and Fukushima. As a result of taking its nuclear fleet offline, Germany has risen to be one of the biggest carbon emitters in the European Union only second to Poland. The shift away from nuclear also made the country dependent on Russia for most of its gas. Across Europe, some countries rely heavily on nuclear energy like France whereas Denmark remains nuclear-free. The overall makeup of any country’s energy portfolio relies on a complex mix of political, economic and environmental factors.
The success of New York’s plans hinge on the state’s ability to decarbonize the grid. The “scoping plan” to get there, open for public comment through June 10, buries any mention of nuclear power and stated benefits appear only in the appendix.
Instead, it ramps up renewables – and with this comes the extensive conversion of farms, forests and off-shore coastal habitats. The plan includes massive investments in battery storage, which brings its own manufacturing emissions and environmental degradation due to the mining for critical minerals needed for production.
Nuclear advocates: Renewables not enough
The debate surrounding the role of nuclear power in meeting the United State’s energy demands has resurged in recent weeks as the ongoing Ukrainian-Russian conflict spikes gas prices domestically.
Around the world, 440 nuclear reactors provide over 10% of global electricity. In the U.S., nuclear power plants have generated about 20% of electricity for the last 20 years. Natural gas is the largest source of electricity generation in the country.
The recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report recommends nuclear expansion. In concert, President Joe Biden’s $2 trillion climate plan includes support for the development of nuclear energy innovations to address efficiency and safety concerns. The National Academy of Science, an authoritative body on scientific research, has published recent findings weighing the benefits of nuclear energy.
From the report, “Achieving deep decarbonization of the energy system will require a portfolio of every available technology and strategy we can muster. It should be a source of profound concern for all who care about climate change that, for entirely predictable and resolvable reasons, the United States appears set to virtually lose nuclear power, and thus a wedge of reliable and low-carbon energy, over the next few decades.”
Moving away from nuclear
New York’s leadership, however, has chosen not to include investment in nuclear technologies as part of their portfolio. A spokesperson for the Department of Conservation stated that the Draft Scoping Plan was developed based on recommendations from various advisory panels and working groups, including the Power Generation Advisory Panel.
That panel analyzed the potential of nuclear power based on cost, health, safety, community impact and environmental concerns, according to the DEC spokesperson.
In New York, three nuclear plants, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant in Oswego, R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power in Ontario, and Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station in Oswego, the upstate reactors make up nearly half of the state’s carbon-free electricity supply, according to the New York Independent System Operator. And the three plants provide nearly a quarter of the state’s total energy supply. This dipped from over 30% after the closure of Indian Point Energy Center in Westchester County last year.
Those who supported the shutdown of the Indian Point nuclear plant cited damage to Hudson River’s biodiversity, as well as a sleuth of safety concerns. Amplifying latent fears, oil slicked the river’s surface after a fire in 2015 sparking renewed calls to shutter it. Those campaigns were eventually successful and the plant closed in phases through April 2021.
The closure fiercely divided clean energy advocates – with some who were neither for or against nuclear power wholesale but viewed Indian Point as having specific risks that differed from the use of nuclear power elsewhere. A member of the state’s Power Generation Advisory Panel, Kit Kennedy of the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote about her support for the closure of the Indian Point nuclear plant here.
Indian Point supplied almost 12% of the state’s carbon-free electricity. That’s more than all of the wind turbines and solar panels in New York combined, according to calculations by Climate Coalition. Opponents of Indian Point champion large-scale renewable projects and “energy-efficiency” policies as the pathway to replace that energy source, but before those projects are completed, the state must burn natural gas as a substitute. Analysis by Nuclear New York (which lobbied to keep Indian Point open) shows that Indian Point’s carbon-free output was “replaced primarily by methane gas-fired generation at Cricket Valley (online from March 2020) and CPV, the largest and 3rd largest fossil plants in New York State, respectively.”
That means more fossil fuel combustion is being produced downstate for the metropolitan New York City area, according to the Climate Coalition. Additional materials from the coalition conclude that shutting down the Indian Point reactors is equivalent to the annual production of about 8 million tons of “avoidable” carbon emissions.
Addressing safety concerns
All energy sources require raw materials and land and resource uses that come with pros and cons. Energy experts and engineers perform “cost-benefit analyses” and “life-cycle analyses” to compare the consequences. All inputs considered, when solving for public health, nuclear is cited among the safest options according to Our World in Data, almost on par with solar and wind. The risk of accidents from nuclear power plants is low and declining according to the World Nuclear Association and as Jordan Wilkerson writes for Harvard University, “the problems associated with nuclear power do not justify its immediate dismissal as a potential energy source for the world.”
Hansen explains in a video how safety concerns that live in the public mind, like Fukushima, can now be addressed by engineering innovations. The bipartisan Nuclear Energy Leadership Act introduced in 2019 is designed to advance nuclear reactor concepts from research to commercialization by matching private capital. The Nuclear Waste Administration Act of 2019, introduced by a bipartisan group of senators, will create a new entity to focus on nuclear waste management. With proper funding and support, Hansen has said he thinks the major problems with nuclear power can be solved.
He appears in a recent documentary “The New Fire” which explores approaches to nuclear innovation. The research and development could bring more efficient technologies for waste management where the half-life of the radiation can be measured in decades, not millennia, he said.
For Hansen and like-minded climate scientists, sidelining nuclear power is a recipe for blundering climate goals.
“We need a credible climate plan that does not discriminate against viable carbon-free sources,” Keith Schue, a member of New York Energy and Climate Advocates said. In his own commentary for the Times Union, he states that “the public has good reason to be concerned about where New York’s [climate plan] is headed.” He argues that renewables are definitely part of the equation, but that there is no workable solution for “clean” energy without nuclear energy.
Stay informed
Sign up for Cayte’s weekly “Climate Matters” newsletter.
Princeton’s Net-Zero America study echoes what has been said here. It comprehensively models multiple net-zero scenarios for the United States, taking into account siting and transmission infrastructure. In all scenarios, new nuclear power plants play a significant role by 2050–especially in New York State, where we have excellent existing infrastructure in place for nuclear and thermal power plants, but lack the infrastructure and environmental conditions for rapid, economical deployment of large-scale wind and solar projects. This kind of regional planning is what we need if we are going to achieve our climate and environmental justice goals. It’s definitely worth a look: https://acee.princeton.edu/rapidswitch/projects/net-zero-america-project/.
JB,
I agree. Frankly, I believe until we can find a safer, cheaper, alternative to fossils that is truly SCALABLE, nuclear should be at the top of our list – if even for the short term. Two generations of people have been raised believing nuclear power is fraught with danger and environmental risk, and have been led astray. Sure, there have been large nuclear accidents, but we need to LEARN from them, not simply avoid nuclear power altogether. Indeed, there is a definite issue of nuclear waste/storage, but is this truly worse than storing CO2 in our atmosphere?? Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
How many decades of electricity have been generated by decommissioned and current nuke plants? Ask Europe about their experience with nukes. Now balance that against the accidents that have actually occurred with nuclear generation and depleted fuel transfer/storage? Shouldn’t the DOE be spouting these figures along with the NUMEROUS bad effects of coal, oil, and gas extraction, refining, and usage? Nuclear energy is not a newcomer to the party, but with the exception of a few accidents, has been quietly generating power and jobs for over half a century. How about a level playing field? The Navy loves nuclear for power generation.They don’t seem to be scairt! {But of course, they don’t actually pay for it – WE do!} Why is it good for the Navy yet bad for the country??
Nuclear energy was dealt such a blow from misinformation and fossil fuel propaganda that we stopped building plants in this country because of real and imagined safety issues combined with cost. So virtually no taxpayer dollars have gone into developing less expensive, smaller footprint, and safer nuclear generation and waste remediation for decades. BIG MISTAKE. Over a century ago, electrical energy into the homes was almost smothered in its crib because of accidents, fires, misinformation, and hysterics. But pioneers like Tesla worked on refining the science so much so that it is in widespread use around the world. Many problems were worked out, but indeed, some still exist.
Who do you suppose was/is behind these generations of people fearing nuclear power generation? Science and research?? Not at all. BIG OIL and the Koch regime. Carbon emission misinformation was not their only target. Any major competitor to fossil fuels was, and still is their target. Generations of politicians fueled their careers suckling at the teat of Big Oil. We need to get Big Oil and the Kochs’ money and propaganda out of world and US politics. Until we do this, there will be no real progress in clean energy generation.
New and/or better forms of energy production need a level playing field to get started. I, personally, look forward to Improved Nuclear energy for much of the world’s energy needs – at least until the perfect form of energy can be harnessed. Nuclear energy has worked well for powering the Sun and other stars for many billions of years, why not figure out how to use it here?
Knee-jerk reactionary politics is definitely playing a big role here–further complicating an already massively complex challenge. But I think economics is indeed the bigger problem. Profit-motivated shortcuts were arguably to blame for the few nuclear energy accidents that have happened. The same thing is going to happen with renewables if we continue down the same path–that is, allowing the renewable energy grid to be planned and overseen by free markets (or worse, public-private partnerships!) rather than comprehensive, inclusive and forward-thinking planning institutions.
I assume you’ve seen the obscene level of wind & solar sprawl in the 2050 U.S. map put out by Princeton & Net-Zero America?
https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Fig-2-JEsse-Event-2-1536×950.png (It would be impossible to not see eyesores for hundreds of miles in many regions, and that’s already happened in Germany, Texas, etc.)
When “environmentalists” literally become the world’s biggest industrial sprawl developers, you have to know something’s fundamentally off.
What do you do with the highly toxic waste that must be safely stored for thousands of years? Nobody has figured that one out yet. Plus, how long does it take to build a nuclear plant? Meanwhile, totally safe and cheap renewables like solar and wind are being built every day. Nobody wants a nuclear plant built in their backyard–including the proponents. Their tune changes the minute a plant is proposed in a particular location, and all of the proponents come out of the woodwork to proclaim that yes they want nuclear, but not next to them. That should answer how safe the average person feels with regard to nuclear.
I lived between 2 nuclear plants on Lake Ontario in the 80s and 90s. Did me no harm. Great sources of high-paying jobs (both for building the plants and for running them) that can’t be shipped overseas. Many people moved there for the jobs and the lake recreation. I would say it is primarily wealthy people who don’t want them in their back yard, but certainly use the power. Personally, I wouldn’t want a wind farm in my back yard. I would put up solar panels if I had any sun here. I am not about to cut beneficial trees to make them worthwhile.
Nine Mile Point was 5 times more expensive than was budgeted – primarily because of graft and the upgrades that had to be re-engineered and instituted after the 3 Mile Island accident. Re-designing a house while building it is similarly costly. The key is to design well and institute smaller-footprint plants as is often done in Europe – perhaps even where decommissioned coal/oil plants exist where possible, as the transmission lines/ROWs already exist.
Again, is depleted nuclear fuel useful for any other purposes? Can it indeed be stored safely underground? Launched to the sun? Is the remote risk of radiation accidents (emphasized by Big Oil obviously) WORSE than the ONGOING CO2 “waste” storage in our atmosphere that IS creating problems globally every single day??
We need to take a step back and look at the big picture. Use whatever relatively safe technology we have or can develop to minimize fossil fuel use and extraction into the future. Hopefully nuclear fusion research will be stepped up, but instituting ANY major energy changes is going to involve getting Big Oil/Energy profits out of the pockets of politicians and media so that other types of energy production are on a level playing field.
Nukes aren’t perfect, especially with the waste issue, but that doesn’t mean they cannot be improved upon and revisited. Nothing is perfect. Wind and solar depend on extraction industries as well, and the infrastructure has limited lifetimes and usefulness depending on location. We need to be wary of rose-scented snake oil from all players. We need to be looking at everything and incorporate the technology that makes sense for the area – including modern hydro. NYS eats a lot of energy, and has shown nuke plants work. Nuclear may not be a fit for everywhere, but nothing is. But it may be an important tool to get us through this century. But voters need to be given the truth, not myth and spin pushed by the most profitable corporations in the world.
So, it takes a minimum of 5 years, and often 10-15 to build a new nuclear plant. Meanwhile, New York will be close to its goal of 70% renewables using mainly solar, hydro, and wind by 2030. Long before any possible new nuclear plant is likely to be built. Even if there was the political will to build new nuclear in New York (there isn’t) it would arrive too late to help us with the climate crisis.
Zephyr, based on everything I’m seeing right now, we’re looking at more like 50-60% renewable electricity in New York in the next 10-15 years, with maybe 5-10% of that in turn being solar and 10% imported from Quebec’s massive hydroelectric facilities.
The problem is that NYS electricity consumption will likely double in the next several decades, and going beyond that milestone of about 70 TWh of renewables (50% of current NY electric consumption) becomes exponentially more difficult with each additional TWh. We don’t have another Niagara Falls within our boundaries that can generate 2 GW renewable electricity on demand, even during future mid-winter peak seasons.
But the electric grid does not “stop” at political border crossings, nor is it as decentralized as some like to think. Will anti-nuclear sentiments really lead to a better alternative? Is a society that is unwilling to spend 15 years building a few nuclear power stations on existing sites where existing infrastructure already exists really going to be able–or willing–to build millions of acres of large-scale renewable energy projects in places that lack the necessary infrastructure but yet are home to millions of people? I think not. We’ll export our problems elsewhere by default, whether that be massive renewable projects in the Eastern Subarctic or the Midwest, natural gas plants, or the very same outdated nuclear power plants that we refuse to replace. And, whether we like it or not, our neighbor–Ontaro, Canada–will continue producing most of their energy with nuclear power stations just upwind of us.
Nuclear power plants produce waste–everything does, including renewable energy projects–but the amount of waste produced even by older nuclear plants is miniscule compared with the dangerous waste that is produced by any coal-fired power plant. And newer generation nuclear power plants produce orders of magnitude less waste than current 2nd-generation nuclear plants, and that waste can have a lifetime of a few centuries as opposed to tens of thousands of years.
In an ideal world, we would not need to make any environmental sacrifices in the name of energy production. The problem is that we will never get where we should be if we continue to insist that we’re already there. And unfortunately, insisting on this falsehood costs nothing, at least in the perpetually immediacy of the current political cycle.
it’s time to build next generation reactors, much safer, power failure safe, breeds new fuel and basically can run for decades with minimal new waste. reusing existing power sites for new energy production, waste products can be mixed with molten glass and solidified into glass rods that are much safer for storage and non leaking. does not require massive solar fields or numerous wind turbines and works 24/7 supplying and ever increasing power demand. if we are going to have all electric cars and replace car fossil fuels, then we are going to need giga watts of new electric power. it makes more sense to build a few new breeder reactors, than cover 100 sq. miles with solar panels with loss of wilderness, farm lands ect. and/or thousands of wind urbines with eroding blades, noise pollution and bird losses. We really dont have much other choice but next gen nuclear reactors to power a greener future.
I just read this article and apparently Mr. Hansen has left a few things out. 15% of our uranium comes from Russia, Europe about 20% plus the enrichment process an additional 10-15% from Russia. Currently the Zaporazhzhia nuclear plant the largest nuclear plant is being held hostage by Russia. Nuclear accidents have cost the world about 1 trillion dollars so far and will continue to be a hazard for centuries to come. With Fukashima leading the way. Not one watt of energy was produced for that 1 trillion dollars. In 2012 the Vogtl Plant outside of Atlanta Georgia nearly ran out of water due to a drought. Water levels everywhere are dropping. It is expensive to build, expensive to maintain, always a security risk. The security issue is three fold, unfriendly countries, nuclear waste held for randsome and sabatoge. No nuclear is not a good idea. Solar and wind have none of these problems.