Opinion: Nuclear power is the key to slowing global warming

Although the U.S. has cut its carbon emissions more than any other country, it’s not enough. Natural gas alone won’t work. We need more carbon-free nuclear power and renewable sources.

What is it going to take to deal forthrightly with climate change? Apparently, evidence that higher temperatures are melting the arctic permafrost isn’t enough. Extreme weather, reflected in an increase in tornadoes, isn’t enough. Nor is the combination of drought and beetle infestations linked to climate change that are killing millions of trees and making forests more flammable.

And now, the brutal heat wave that has ruined crops in much of the country and led to higher food prices won’t be enough. Those who reject efforts to scale back the use of fossil fuels ignore that every major national science academy in the world has reported that human-induced global warming is real.

The United States can and should do something bold about global climate change without waiting for other countries, but in a way that gets them to follow. The key to a successful climate strategy is to assure access to reliable and affordable low-carbon alternatives, increased demand-side management and other energy-efficiency improvements, increased natural gas supplies, advanced nuclear power and renewable technologies.

Timing is the key. Many economic studies show the need to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions right now and not to wait for decades. Action to slow climate change should not be delayed indefinitely. The potential cost from runaway atmospheric warming or rising sea levels and floods could be astronomical. Policies based on proven technology and sound economics implemented today to reduce emissions would be prudent insurance against the possibility of irreversible climate change that could trigger disasters.

The good news is that the United States has cut its carbon emissions more than any country in the world in recent years — 7.7 percent since 2006. What’s also worth noting is that U.S. emissions declined nearly 2 percent last year and are projected to drop 2 percent again this year, putting us back at 1996 levels. We still have a way to go before reaching the goal set by President Obama — a 17 percent decline (from 2005 levels) by 2020 — but that goal now seems achievable. But make no mistake: Reducing emissions to acceptable levels will require an 80 percent reduction by mid-century, and that’s going to require the adoption of a comprehensive and practical national energy policy.

How did the cut in carbon emissions happen? One reason is the dramatic drop in oil dependence. Energy efficiency expert Ralph Cavanagh says that while the economy has almost tripled in size over the past 40 years, oil use is up by only 1 percent. Credit goes to dramatic gains in fuel economy and the emergence of alternative fuels.

Looking ahead, Cavanagh says that higher fuel economy standards already adopted for cars and light trucks will be saving the equivalent of 2 million barrels of oil a day by 2025. That’s comparable to what we currently import from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela combined.

Almost half of the emissions reductions have come from power plants, particularly the switch away from coal in electricity generation. Coal’s share is forecast to fall below 40 percent for the year, down from 54 percent just four years ago, and by the end of this decade, it’s likely to be near 30 percent. The principal replacement source has been natural gas, which has less than 50 percent of coal’s carbon content. Had the switch been to nuclear power, which produces zero emissions, the decline would have been far greater. And nuclear power would be far better for public health, since it doesn’t pollute the air.

Read More...