Everyone鈥檚 least favorite climate fix? Nuclear power gets fresh look.
A few years out of college, Robbie Stewart knew he needed to make a career change. It wasn鈥檛 that he didn鈥檛 love his job working as a mechanical engineer for General Electric 鈥� he did. But he also knew, as someone who felt deeply about being a steward of the earth, that he wanted to be part of fighting climate change.
So he thought for a while about how he could best contribute. And then he decided to go into the nuclear industry.聽
鈥淚 saw nuclear as a huge opportunity for decarbonization,鈥� he explains. 鈥淎nd this was where my skillset was.鈥�
Why We Wrote This
Nuclear energy has been pushed into decline by a host of concerns, from waste to disasters like Fukushima. But new technology and a rising group of climate pragmatists may be changing that.
Mr. Stewart quit his job, entered a Massachusetts Institute of Technology nuclear science Ph.D. program, and eventually co-founded the company Boston Atomics, which is creating 鈥渄esign to build鈥� nuclear power plants that can be constructed on a quicker schedule and at lower cost than traditional facilities.聽
鈥淥ur entire bet is that the value of low-carbon energy is only going to go up in the future,鈥� he says. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 a big part of our value case as a startup.鈥�
A聽slew of 鈥渁dvanced nuclear鈥� startups聽have launched recently to bring new, nimble technology to the long-lumbering nuclear industry, often with the goal of reducing global warming. There are companies working to build smaller 鈥渕icro鈥� reactors the size of shipping containers,聽some聽looking to recycle radioactive waste, and some that use materials other than water to cool reactors, among other innovations.聽聽
Many of the entrepreneurs聽are young, and many consider themselves climate activists. They are part of a broader mindset change involving nuclear power overall, in which more environmentalists 鈥� although certainly not all 鈥� are shedding negative feelings about nuclear and instead embracing the technology.
鈥淭here has been a shift where the broader climate community has realized the benefit that nuclear can bring to meet our climate goals,鈥� says Lindsey Walter, deputy director for climate and energy at Third Way, a center-left think tank聽in Washington. 鈥淭he biggest issue that we鈥檙e trying to address is the climate crisis. And if you鈥檙e going to follow the science, if you鈥檙e going to follow the evidence, then it鈥檚 really quite clear that nuclear has to be part of the solution.鈥澛�
On climate action, a rising focus on speed
In large part, supporters say, this is because renewable energy alone isn鈥檛聽ready to speedily聽free the power grid from carbon.聽And speed is of the essence, scientists say, as human emissions of greenhouse gases are already altering Earth鈥檚 climate.
Wind and solar power are dependent on the weather, and at this point battery storage technology is not advanced聽enough to smooth the electricity grid鈥檚 complicated fluctuations in supply and demand.聽聽
A nuclear power plant, on the other hand, can produce energy constantly, without releasing climate warming gasses. And that means that it could provide a key component to a fossil-fuel-free energy system, supporters say.聽
鈥淲e have to radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions,鈥� says Judi Greenwald, executive director of the Nuclear Innovation Alliance. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not something like a 10% or 20%, or even a 50% reduction. We have to get as close as we can to zero [emissions]. And that really makes you have to rethink the whole energy system.鈥�
Still, concerns聽about nuclear power聽remain widespread.
Traditionally, environmentalists have considered聽it聽dangerous. Accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and more recently Fukushima have reinforced this concern 鈥� along with lingering questions about what to do with radioactive waste, the environmental and ethical implications of uranium mining, and the risk of nuclear material being used for weapons.聽聽
鈥淣uclear energy is not safe, it鈥檚 not economical, and it increases the risk for nuclear weapons proliferation,鈥� says Shaun Burnie, a senior nuclear specialist with Greenpeace Germany who has been working on energy systems for 30 years. 鈥淲e are in a climate emergency, and we鈥檙e wasting our time, and a lot of column inches, talking about a technology that鈥檚 essentially irrelevant.鈥�
Beyond the ethical and environmental concerns,聽he argues that聽the impracticality of nuclear power should be enough to make people wary of the technology. Traditional nuclear power plants are hugely expensive to build, and they take years, if not decades, to actually come online. In the United States, which currently gets about 20% of its electricity 鈥� and about half of its carbon-free electricity 鈥� from nuclear, some 21 reactors are in the process of being decommissioned, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.聽聽聽
鈥淚t鈥檚 not possible for the nuclear industry to play the essential role for decarbonization over the next decades,鈥� Mr. Burnie says. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a myth.鈥�
But that has not stopped officials worldwide from turning toward it as a possible climate solution.
A 鈥済reen investment鈥� or not?
Recently, a European Union proposal to classify some nuclear power plants as 鈥済reen investments鈥� drew both praise and debate. Germany, which has pledged to shutter the last of its nuclear plants by the end of this year, has argued that any process that leaves permanent radioactive waste can鈥檛 be labeled 鈥渟ustainable.鈥� But聽France, an atomic energy leader, lobbied in favor of the designation.
In the U.S., the bipartisan infrastructure bill passed last year included money to prevent the closing of nuclear power plants, since nuclear power that goes offline is largely replaced with fossil fuels. The bill also has money to support nuclear innovation.聽聽聽
It鈥檚 that innovation that is key for many climate activists, says Jessica Lovering, co-founder of the Good Energy Collective, a group that tries to make a progressive political case for nuclear power. Whether through small startups such as Mr. Stewart鈥檚 Boston Atomics, or Bill Gates鈥� company TerraPower, which last year announced plans to build a 鈥渘ext generation鈥� demonstration reactor on the site of a retiring Wyoming coal mine, the climate potential of new nuclear technology offsets old environmental concerns, she says.聽
鈥淲hatever gets us there鈥�
鈥淎 lot of the bigger traditional incumbent environmental groups, founded in the 鈥�60s and 鈥�70s, spun out of anti-war movements, anti-establishment movements,鈥� she says. 鈥淭hey come with a lot of baggage against nuclear. ... What we鈥檙e seeing with these newer climate groups is that they are really pushing for an aggressive standard on decarbonization. ... There鈥檚 this pragmatic viewpoint of, 鈥榳ell, we鈥檙e just trying to reduce emissions as fast as possible as much as possible. So whatever gets us there.鈥欌��
From a progressive point of view, Dr. Lovering says, it is also important that the ownership models of nuclear power plants are changing. For years, she says, nuclear power was the purview of large utilities, often with connections to the military. Now, there are more models that give communities more input, with scaled-down footprints. And even in its traditional form, nuclear takes up less land than large solar or wind farms, which can come with their own environmental challenges. While she acknowledges that advanced nuclear is still in the future, it is closer than many people realize, she says, with a number of demonstration technologies launching in the next decade.聽聽
And just because the technology doesn鈥檛 exist now, she and other supporters say, it doesn鈥檛 mean we shouldn鈥檛 be working for a future solution. That鈥檚 why many scientists are still excited about the as a potentially abundant and clean source of electric power.
In addition to electricity generation, some advanced nuclear technologies 鈥� including Boston Atomics 鈥� would be able to produce the extreme heat for industrial processes such as chemical production or steelmaking. That emissions-heavy, and varied, industrial sector is widely considered one of the hardest to address as far as greenhouse gasses.
鈥淭here鈥檚 embodied carbon in everything that we manufacture,鈥� Dr. Lovering says. 鈥淚 actually was not a supporter of nuclear until I learned more. ... You begin to realize, oh, shoot, we really do need this technology if we鈥檙e going to meet these [net zero] goals. I think a lot of others in the climate community that are supportive of nuclear came about it in the same way.鈥澛�
She concludes: 鈥淚鈥檓 not for nuclear for the sake of nuclear. I鈥檓 purely for nuclear for the sake of climate.鈥�
Editor's note: Judi Greenwald's remarks have been clarified to correct an editing error.
