Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson, director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program and professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, called the declaration the "stupidest policy proposal I've ever seen." Jacobson's most recent books are No Miracles Needed: How Today's Technology Can Save Our Climate and Clean Our Air and before that 100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything. He says: "The world needs to switch away from using fossil fuels to using clean, renewable sources of energy as soon as possible." In his books he details the use of existing technologies to produce, store and transmit energy from wind, water and solar sources. As to nuclear power, it is "not needed" to deal with climate change.
Beyond its danger and multi-billion dollar cost, nuclear power is not an antidote for climate change it's not "carbon emissions-free," its opponents say. Michel Lee, chair of the Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy, stresses how the nuclear fuel cycle including uranium mining, enrichment and fabrication of nuclear fuel is "carbon intensive."
And, nuclear power plants themselves emit carbon-14, a radioactive form of carbon.
Moreover, spending money on new nuclear power diverts funding to provide for implementation of truly carbon emissions-free energy technologies, they say.
Last year, the former heads of nuclear regulation in the U.S., Germany and France, along with the former secretary of the U.K.'s radiation protection committee, issued a joint statement that said: "Nuclear is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change."
The former leaders were Dr. Greg Jaczko, who had been chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Wolfgang Renneberg, ex-head of Reactor Safety, Radiation Project and Nuclear Waste for the German government; Dr. Bernard Laponche who had been director general of the French Agency for Energy Management; and Dr. Paul Dorfman, who had been secretary of the U.K.'s Government's Committee Examining Radiation Risk from Internal Emitters.
They wrote: "The central message, repeated again and again, that a new generation of nuclear will be clean, safe, smart and cheap, is fiction. The reality is nuclear is neither clean, safe or smart but a very complex technology with the potential to cause significant harm."
Their statement continued that "nuclear as strategy against climate change is: Too costly in absolute terms to make a relevant contribution to global power production; More expensive than renewable energy in terms of energy production; Too costly and risky for financial market investment and therefore dependent on very large public subsidies and local guarantees; Unsustainable due to the unresolved problem of very long-lived radioactive waste; Financially unsustainable as no economic institution is prepared to insure against the full potential cost, environmental and human impacts of accidental radiation release with a majority of those very significant costs borne by the public; Militarily hazardous since newly promoted reactor designs increase the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation;
Further, their statement said nuclear power is not suitable to counter climate change because it is: "Inherently risky due to unavoidable cascading accidents from human error, internal faults and external impacts, vulnerability to climate-driven sea-level rise, storm, storm surge, inundation and flooding hazard"; Subject to many unresolved technical and safety problems associated with newer unproven concepts including 'Advanced' and Small Modular Reactors; Too unwieldly and complex to create an efficient industrial regime for reactor construction and operation processes within the intended build-time and scope needed for climate change mitigation; Unlikely to make a relevant contribution to necessary climate change mitigation needed by the 2030s due to nuclear's impracticably lengthy development and construction time-lines and the overwhelming construction costs of the very great volume of reactors that would be needed to make a difference."
A presentation by Pope Francis was read at COP28. "Are we working for a culture of life or a culture of death?" asked the pope. "Let us choose life! Let us choose the future! May we be attentive to the cry of the earth".Climate change signals the need for political change. Let us emerge from the narrowness of self-interest".Now there is a need to set out anew. May this COP prove to be a turning point demonstrating a clear and tangible political will that can lead to a decisive acceleration of ecological transition"achieved in four sectors: energy efficiency; renewable sources; the elimination of fossil fuels; and education in lifestyles that are less dependent on the latter."
With the vested interest and self-interest shown so far at it, COP28 has far to go.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
