Aidan Enright
Any presidential candidate or member of Congress who advocates for reform on the premise of climate change, but doesn’t include nuclear power or carbon capture technology in their plan, is not only being dishonest, but handicapping any kind of effort to reduce our carbon footprint. We hear “listen to the scientists” all the time and yet, according to Forbes and the Huffington Post, there mis a general consensus in the scientific community that nuclear power is essential t reducing carbon emissions. Major political figures like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez not only advocate against increasing nuclear power but also for dismantling all current nuclear plants.
The hard truth of the matter is that renewables just aren’t reliable and don’t produce that much energy. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), carbon-free nuclear plants are generating energy about 93 percent of the time (336 days a year). To con- trast, solar panels only produce energy 25 percent of the time (92 days a year) and still leave a carbon footprint. Not only that, but when countries invest in re- newables at the expense of nuclear power, their carbon emis- sions actually increase, or stay constant — according to several studies. For example, Germany, which is anti-nuclear and invests heavily in solar and wind at the expense of nuclear, generates 54 percent of its energy from dirty sources according to a BP Energy Outlook study from 2016. Alternatively, Germany’s neighbor, France, who has in- vested greatly in nuclear power, produces a mere 8 percent of its energy with dirty fuels. This is because without nuclear energy and with renewables generating so little energy, countries are forced to use more high pollutant “dirty” fuels like coal and natural gas to continue to function. Factor in that, according to the U.S. EIA, a clean energy economy would have to produce roughly 150 percent of the electricity that we are currently generating, and you’re forced to face a serious problem. Any feasible solution to climate change must involve nuclear power. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either being dishonest, has ulterior motives or doesn’t know the scientific research.
The Elizabeth Warrens and Bernie Sanderses of the world don’t care about climate change. Their priority is fighting capi- talism and they are willing to jeopardize the green movement in order to do so. They use climate change in order to inspire fear and as a way to sell their policies that seek to reconstruct American society as we know it. They alienate potential allies in a fight that they say is an existential threat to human life on Earth, but huge problems are not solved that way. They are solved by having all hands- on-deck and using all possible resources available. We need to use the economic resources and innovative abilities of big energy companies and incentivize them to invest in green technology like carbon capture. We need to pass bipartisan legislation related to nuclear power that is supported by scientists and members of both parties. We need to be a leader on the world stage encouraging other countries to follow suit. I’ve rarely ever agreed with him, but Cory Booker said it best at one of the last Democratic debates. He claimed that anti-nuclear Democrats were as bad as climate change denying Republicans. “As much as we say the Republicans when it comes to climate change must listen to science, our party has the same obligation to listen to scientists,” Booker said. “The data speaks for itself.” There are certainly risks to investing in nuclear power but they are not greater than the risks of failing to do so. Nuclear power is not just the best way forward, it is the only way forward.