James Hansen Criticizes State’s Climate Plan, Calls for Expansion of Nuclear Power 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 strategic plan needs a nuclear component, a leading climate scientist says.
âI am shocked by this document,â James Hansen said this month at a news conference in Albany. “It looks like it’s a prescription for making New York the Germany of the United States. It’s almost a carbon copy of Germany’s disastrous energy plan.”
As a NASA scientist in the 1980s, Hansen testified to Congress that the planet was warming and that it was due to a buildup of carbon dioxide and other man-made gases in the atmosphere. His climate study, identifying a “greenhouse effect”, had already been presented in 1981 in the New York Times in an article which showed that scientists had discovered a trend of rising temperatures from year to year with the human activity. The dangers to wildlife and human communities from greater storms and flooding and rising sea levels, described then by Hansen, have occurred.
Now Hansen is urging New York 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 dismantled the majority of its nuclear power plants due to strong public opposition following the Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns. Following the decommissioning of its nuclear fleet, Germany has become one of the largest carbon emitters in the European Union, just behind Poland. Abandoning nuclear power has also made the country dependent on Russia for most of its gas. Through Europe, some countries are highly dependent on nuclear energy such as France while Denmark remains denuclearized. The overall composition of a country’s energy portfolio depends on a complex mix of political, economic and environmental factors.
The success of New York’s plans depends on the state’s ability to decarbonize the grid. The âscoping planâ to get there, open for public comment until June 10bury any mention of nuclear power and the declared benefits only appear in the appendix.
Instead, it is accelerating renewable energy â and that comes with the extensive conversion of offshore farms, forests and coastal habitats. The plan includes massive investments in battery storage, which leads to its own manufacturing emissions and environmental degradation due to the mining of critical minerals needed for production.
Nuclear advocates: Renewables are not enough
Debate surrounding the role of nuclear power in meeting US energy needs has resurfaced in recent weeks as the ongoing Ukrainian-Russian conflict escalates. domestic gas prices.
Worldwide, 440 nuclear reactors supply more than 10% of the world’s electricity. In the United States, nuclear power plants have produced about 20% of the electricity over the past 20 years. Natural gas is the largest source of electricity generation in the country.
The recent report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends nuclear expansion. In concert, President Joe Biden $2 trillion climate plan includes support for the development of nuclear energy innovations to address efficiency and safety concerns. The National Academy of Sciences, an authority on scientific research, has released recent findings on the benefits of nuclear energy.
From the report, âAchieving deep decarbonization of the energy system will require a portfolio of all available technologies and strategies that we can muster. Anyone who cares about climate change should be deeply concerned that, for entirely foreseeable and solvable reasons, the United States appears to be on the verge of virtually losing nuclear power, and thus a share of reliable and low-carbon, over the next few years. several decades.”
More to explore
For just $10 you can dive into all the new content
of our printed magazine, as well as the annual release guide
Use code EXPLORE at checkout to save 20%!
Get out of nuclear
New York leaders, however, chose not to include nuclear technology investments in their portfolio. A Department of Conservation spokesperson said the draft guidance plan was developed based on recommendations from various advisory committees and working groups, including the Power Generation Advisory Committee.
This 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 power plants, the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Generating Station in Oswego, RE Ginna Nuclear Power in Ontario and the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Generating Station in Oswego, provide about a quarter of New York’s carbon-free electricity, according to United States. Energy Information Association. That number dropped more than 30% after the Indian Point Energy Center in Westchester County closed last year.
Those who supported the closure of the Indian Point nuclear power plant cited damage to the biodiversity of the Hudson River, as well as a detective of safety concerns. Amplifying latent fears, oil slid to the surface of the river after a fire in 2015 triggering new calls to shut it down. These campaigns were ultimately successful and the factory closed in stages until April 2021.
The closure fiercely divided clean energy advocates â with some who were neither for nor against nuclear power wholesale, but saw 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 his support for the closure of the Indian Point nuclear power plant. here.
Indian Point supplied nearly 12% of the state’s carbon-free electricity. That’s more than all the wind turbines and solar panels in New York City combined, according to calculations by Climate Coalition. Opponents of Indian Point champion large-scale renewable energy projects and âenergy efficiencyâ policies as a path to replacing this energy source, but before these projects are completed, the state must burn gas natural as a substitute. Analysis by Nuclear New York (which lobbied to keep Indian Point open) shows that Indian Point’s carbon-free generation has been “replaced primarily by methane gas generation at Cricket Valley (online as of March 2020) and CPV, the largest and the 3rd largest fossil power plant in New York State, respectively.”
This means more fossil fuel burning is being produced in the New York metro area, according to the Climate Coalition. Additional materials of 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.
Respond to security concerns
All energy sources require raw materials and land and resource uses that have advantages and disadvantages. Energy experts and engineers carry out âcost-benefit analysesâ and âlife cycle analysesâ to compare the consequences. All inputs taken into account, in terms of public health, nuclear power 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 rejection as a as a source of potential energy for the world”.
Hansen explains in a video how safety issues that live on in the public mind, like Fukushima, can now be solved through technical innovations. The bipartisan Nuclear Energy Leadership Act introduced in 2019 is designed to advance nuclear reactor concepts from research to commercialization by bringing together private capital. The Nuclear Waste Administration Act 2019, presented by a bipartisan group of senators, will create a new entity to focus on nuclear waste management. With proper funding and support, Hansen said he believes the major problems of nuclear power can be solved.
He appears in a recent documentary “The New Fire” which explores approaches to nuclear innovation. Research and development could bring more efficient technologies for waste management where the half-life of radiation can be measured in decades, not millennia, he said.
For Hansen and like-minded climatologists, sidelining nuclear power is a recipe for missing climate goals.
“We need a credible climate plan that doesn’t discriminate against viable carbon-free sources,” said Keith Schue, fellow at New York Energy and Climate Advocates. In its own commentary for the Times Unionhe states that “the public has good reason to be concerned about where New York [climate plan] Is directed.â He argues that renewables are definitely part of the equation, but that there is no viable solution for âcleanâ energy without nuclear power.
Subscribe to Cayte’s weekly “Climate Matters” newsletter.