in the media

Who's Right?: Climate Change Experts Debate Nuclear Energy

Nuclear power is not without risks, both from nuclear waste and the possible proliferation of nuclear fuel for weapons, and its cost and build-out time make it a partial solution, at best, to climate change.

published by
America.gov
 on December 10, 2009

Source: America.gov

Who's Right?: Climate Change Experts Debate NucleaIn the second round of the America.gov "Who's Right?" series of online debates, Carnegie's Sharon Squassoni and Patrick Moore of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. exchange their views on the benefits and risks of using nuclear power to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

First, Squassoni questions the practicality of switching to nuclear energy. Building sufficient nuclear capacity would take many years, while the need to reduce greenhouse gasses is immediate, she says. She argues the key to reducing energy consumption lies not just in replacing fuel but in improving energy efficiency. Switching to nuclear power would not immediately address emissions from other sources, such as cars, homes, businesses and industries.

While she agrees that a sense of panic won’t speed the process of replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power, Squassoni believes the climate change issue is urgent enough to require faster solutions — the leaders of the G8 countries have set 2015 as the year when carbon dioxide emissions cannot rise any higher. She also argues that private financial investors have shown little interest in funding the high cost of nuclear plants and are more focused on smaller renewable projects that offer a faster return. In addition, the hazards of nuclear waste and the possible proliferation of nuclear fuel for weapons are major concerns. Efficiency, she says, is the fastest and safest way to reduce emissions.

Finally, even if the world had 30 years to bring carbon dioxide emissions down, immediate action still would be the most methodical and logical approach, Squassoni argues. Since free markets favor coal as the cheapest energy source, governments still would have to act as soon as possible to make fast and low-cost changes that offer the least overall risk. Energy efficiency is not an abstract concept, but one that consumers easily can see in homes and offices. Ways to use less energy are not hard to find and are the fastest routes to reducing emissions. Also, using a mix of energy sources is better than relying on a single source, such as nuclear power. Even if nuclear energy is included in the mechanism that rewards developed countries for investing in clean technologies in developing countries, it likely would be too expensive even for the wealthiest of developed countries.

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.