background image

Former nuclear leaders: Say ‘No’ to new reactors


💡 This article is featured in The Definitive Reading List: illuminem’s Recommended Sustainability Classics

The climate is running hot. Evolving knowledge of climate sensitivity and polar ice melt-rate makes clear that sea-level rise is ramping, along with destructive storms, storm surges, severe precipitation and flooding, not forgetting wildfire. With mounting concern and recognition over the speed and pace of the low carbon energy transition that’s needed, nuclear has been reframed as a partial response to the threat of global heating. But at the heart of this are questions about whether nuclear could help with the climate crisis, whether nuclear is economically viable, what are the consequences of nuclear accidents, what to do with the waste, and whether there’s a place for nuclear within the swiftly expanding renewable energy evolution.

As key experts who have worked on the front-line of the nuclear issue, we’ve all been involved at the highest governmental nuclear regulatory and radiation protection levels in the US, Germany, France and UK. In this context, we consider it our collective responsibility to comment on the main issue: Whether nuclear could play a significant role as a strategy against climate change.

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. Nuclear isn’t cheap, but extremely costly. Perhaps most importantly nuclear is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change. To make a relevant contribution to global power generation, up to more than ten thousand new reactors would be required, depending on reactor design.

In short, nuclear as a 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 and CO2 mitigation, even taking into account costs of grid management tools like energy storage associated with renewables roll-out

• Too costly and risky for financial market investment, and therefore dependent on very large public subsidies and loan 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 the majority of those very significant costs being borne by the public

• Militarily hazardous since newly promoted reactor designs increase the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation

• 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, resulting in international economic impacts

• Subject to too many unresolved technical and safety problems associated with newer unproven concepts, including ‘Advanced’ and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

• Too unwieldy 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 2030’s due to nuclears 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

Energy Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Energy & Sustainability writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Did you enjoy this illuminem voice? Support us by sharing this article!
author photo

About the authors

Dr Paul Dorfman is the fmr. Secretary to the UK Government Scientific Committee Examining Radiation Risks (CERRIE). He now serves as an Associate Fellow at Science Policy Research Unit of the University of Sussex, a Member of the Irish Governmental Environment Protection Agency's Radiation Protection Advisory Committee, Chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group, a Member of the International Nuclear Risk Assessment Group and a Consultant to the Greenpeace Environmental Trust.

author photo

Gregory Jaczko is the founder of Rexan LLC and Clear Strategy LLC, where he advises on nuclear energy and regulatory policy. He served as Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2009 to 2012 and was a Commissioner from 2005. He also teaches at Princeton University’s School of Public and International Affairs, drawing on decades of experience in science, policy, and government oversight.

author photo

Wolfgang Renneberg is a leading expert on reactor safety and Head of the Office for Nuclear Safety, which he founded. From 1998 to 2009, he served as Ministerial Director for Reactor Safety, Radiation Protection, and Waste Disposal at Germany’s Federal Ministry for the Environment. A physicist and lawyer, he has also held academic roles, including at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna.

author photo

Bernard Laponche is a French engineer and author. He began his career at the French Atomic Energy Commission, contributing to the development of France's first nuclear reactors. Later, he became Director General of the French Agency for Energy Management (AFME) and served as an advisor on energy and nuclear safety to the Minister of the Environment. Currently, he leads the NGO Global Chance, advocating for energy efficiency and sustainable alternatives to nuclear.

Other illuminem Voices


Related Posts


You cannot miss it!

Weekly. Free. Your Top 10 Sustainability & Energy Posts.

You can unsubscribe at any time (read our privacy policy)