Nuclear and the climate: the good, the bad and the long-term.

A skeptic’s analysis of the role of nuclear power in the fight against climate change.

Desirée A. Rammon, PhD
The Kernel

--

A recent piece in the New York Times, Nuclear Power Can Save the World, stirred up discussion regarding the role of nuclear energy in a future transitioning off fossil fuels. This discussion of the pros and cons of nuclear power is not new, but is frequently quite passionate.

While we (largely) agree that oil, gas and coal must be replaced with “cleaner” sources of energy, the US has not yet sat down and sketched out a thoughtful, implementable plan for a large-scale energy transition. A variety of political fears plague our ability to fully take on the responsibility of building, and re-building, energy infrastructure.

In addition to politics, certain ideological views trip us up on our way to sustainable power: the view that renewables such as wind and solar are pie-in-the-sky ideas, and that nuclear power stations are akin to bombs with an easily-lit wick. However, we have lived alongside nuclear power plants for over 60 years, so an honest discussion of its role is appropriate.

Limerick Generating Station, Montgomery County, PA.

From the suburbs of Philadelphia, where I live, you can sometimes see the rising steam from the Limerick nuclear plant on a clear, still day. I…

--

--

Desirée A. Rammon, PhD
The Kernel

Environmental engineer, climate hawk, scientist, parent, contemplative agitator communicating the science of the environment and the role of human stewardship.