walter russell mead peter berger lilia shevtsova adam garfinkle andrew a. michta
Feed
Features
Reviews
Podcast
Future Power
Environmentalists Warm Up to Nuclear Energy

Gasp! The green movement may be getting smarter. Slowly, if not surely, more and more greens seem to be getting on board with nuclear energy. The reasoning is simple: Nuclear doesn’t emit greenhouse gases, and the alternatives for base-load power generation are the dreaded fossil fuels. Now, as the New York Times reports, a green group is preparing to publish a report lamenting the slow decline of the industry in the US:

The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, an independent nonprofit group based in Washington that was formerly known as the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, plans to release on Monday a research paper that charts the decline of the industry.

“The loss of nuclear plants from the electricity grid would likely lead to millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere each year,” because the substitute would be fossil fuels, the paper concludes. “This is a prospect the global climate cannot afford.”

Carol M. Browner, the former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and a former climate adviser to President Obama, and Susan F. Tierney, another former energy aide to Mr. Obama, are among the prominent figures expected to be present when the paper is made public.

While this new green support for nuclear is focused on keeping the older generation of plants online, there’s another, much more promising option coming down the pipe. A newer generation of nuclear technology is on the way, one that promises to produce base-load energy without causing as many problems with waste as the old reactor technologies do. The new reactors will also be much safer. Many of these new reactors will be smaller and modular, allowing planners to deploy nuclear power more easily as an energy source.

This is an environmentalist’s dream, or at least it should be: a consistent zero-carbon energy source. Instead, greens have resisted this technology’s allure, choosing instead to focus on what can happen in a worst-case scenario. Molten salt and thorium reactors can change all that, and they’re not far away. This is something America needs to invest in, and it would be a much better cause for greens to champion than the opposition to the Keystone Pipeline.

Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Gary Hemminger

    Nuclear energy is dangerous. Fossil fuels are plentiful and have allowed mankind to flourish on this planet. Why do we need nuclear energy when we have plenty of coal, oil, and natural gas. I don’t believe fossil fuels are endangering our planet. The problem that nuclear energy solves is a non-problem.

    • rheddles

      What’s wrong with wood and peat?

  • Jim__L

    Well, we keep hoping, anyway.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    This article misunderstands the Greens objective, which isn’t reducing greenhouse gasses; it’s the extermination of Mankind. They see Mankind and all his works as an ugly mark on Gaia’s beautiful Earth, instead of what Mankind really is which is Mother Earth’s greatest achievement.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2014 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service