Do Climate Scientists Support or Oppose Nuclear Power to Reduce Emissions?

Executive Summary

Many advocates of government action to address climate change argue that now is the time to discuss how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, they question whether nuclear power should play a significant role in our future energy mix. A review of public statements by prominent scientists addressing global warming shows most who have taken a position support nuclear power.

Prior to this paper, the public positions of the leading climate scientists have never been usefully compiled for the purposes of comparison. For this reason, the present study seeks to compile these various, publicly stated views so that policymakers and policy experts who seek action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be more adequately informed.

The resulting overview demonstrates that, among scientists who advocate for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there is a wide array of thought. However, of those who have expressed public opinions on the topic, a strong majority either support nuclear power or, at the very least, feel that it should be on the table as an available emissions mitigation option.

 

General Scientific Support for Nuclear Power

Across scientific disciplines, surveyed scientists generally support nuclear power. In fact, a Pew survey conducted as recently as 2015 found that of scientists connected with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 65% support the building of additional nuclear power plants.[i]

Citing the study, a recent Huffington Post article summarizes the most likely reason for such a view, as laid out by a group of scientists, policy wonks, and journalists who refer to themselves as “Ecomodernists”:

Nuclear fission today represents the only present-day zero-carbon technology with the demonstrated ability to meet most, if not all, of the energy demands of a modern economy.[ii]

Given such clear potential for tremendous benefit, it would be reasonable to assume that most scientists—and particularly those known to advocate strongly for emissions reductions—would vociferously support moves toward more abundant nuclear power capability in the United States. However, no compilation of these scientists’ views currently exists. Accordingly, the following is a summary of the positions—or, in some cases, lack thereof—taken by 35 of the world’s most prominent scientists who advocate for immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[iii]

Keith Briffa

Recently retired, Keith Briffa was the deputy director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. He has served as a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Briffa is well known for being a vocal opponent of climate skeptics, who frequently target his research.

However, the author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Briffa on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Ken Caldeira

Ken Caldeira is an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science’s Department of Global Ecology. New Scientist named him a “science hero”[iv] for his work on mitigating carbon dioxide emissions. He has served as a co-author of climate reports published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. National Academies of Sciences. He is also a science advisor at the public interest group Climate Communication.

In an article in the UK’s Guardian, Caldeira joined climate scientists Kerry Emanuel, James Hansen and Tom Wigley to support nuclear power as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

The climate issue is too important for us to delude ourselves with wishful thinking. Throwing tools such as nuclear out of the box constrains humanity’s options and makes climate mitigation more likely to fail. We urge an all-of-the-above approach that includes increased investment in renewables combined with an accelerated deployment of new nuclear reactors.[v]

Further, on his own Twitter page, he makes clear that he supports all energy sources that reduce greenhouse gas emissions: “I am not specifically pro-nuclear. I am pro anything that works. Climate change is too important to rule solutions out prematurely.”[vi]

Heidi Cullen

Heidi Cullen is the chief scientist for Climate Central. Prior to that, she worked for the National Center for Atmospheric Research and gained prominence as an on-air scientist at The Weather Channel, where she placed great emphasis on climate advocacy.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Cullen on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Scott Denning

Scott Denning is a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University. He is a frequent public speaker and advocates for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He is best known for debating the Heartland Institute’s affiliated climate skeptics.

On environmental grounds, Denning does not oppose the principle of nuclear power generation. He believes nuclear power should be an option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and existing nuclear power plants should be kept in operation. Nevertheless, Denning believes the future economics of wind and solar power will be superior to nuclear power.[vii]

Andrew Dessler

Andrew Dessler is a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University. He has also served as an editor for the American Geophysical Union books board. He frequently challenges skeptic arguments and often advocates in the media for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Dessler has published an in-depth discussion of nuclear power as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[viii]  However, he has not explicitly supported or opposed it. He has, however, acknowledged that nuclear power is a zero-carbon energy option, but his writings hint that he supports wind and solar power over nuclear power.

Noah Diffenbaugh

Noah DIffenbaugh is a professor of Earth System Science at Stanford University. He is also Editor-in-Chief of the peer-reviewed science journal Geophysical Research Letters. Diffenbaugh has also served as a lead author for the IPCC.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Diffenbaugh on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Kerry Emanuel

Kerry Emanuel is a professor of meteorology at MIT. He is one of the media’s most frequently cited experts on climate change. He is a science advisor at the public interest group Climate Communication.

In an interview published in 2017 in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Emanuel suggests that “a society powered entirely by renewable energy, even if that were to be technically achievable, might not be the best possible solution from an economic or environmental standpoint.”[ix]

James Hansen

James Hansen is considered by many to be the godfather of the global warming movement. Hansen was the star witness in 1988 U.S. Senate hearings that focused public attention to global warming. Hansen led NASA’s Goddard Institute for more than 30 years. He is currently the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and frequently leads civil disobedience protests against coal power plants.

Hansen believes reducing greenhouse gas emissions to acceptable levels will require widespread implementation of nuclear power. In addition to co-authoring the aforementioned Guardian article, he has explained in Scientific American that, “[i]f you replace these [coal] power plants with modern, safe nuclear reactors you could do a lot of [pollution reduction] quickly.”[x]

Katherine Hayhoe

Katherine Hayhoe is the director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. Time magazine named her as one of its 100 most influential people in 2014. She also prominently appeared in the Showtime documentary series Years of Living Dangerously. She is a science advisor at the public interest group Climate Communication.

However, the author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Hayhoe on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Martin Hoerling

Martin Hoerling is lead scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Scene Investigators, where he assesses the impact of climate change on contemporary weather and climate events. He also served as editor for the American Meteorological Society’s peer-reviewed Journal of Climate. Hoerling is frequently quoted in the media, especially connecting heat waves and record high temperatures to global warming.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Hoerling on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Mark Jacobson

Mark Jacobson is Director of Stanford University’s Atmosphere/Energy Program. Jacobson gained prominence in 2017 for publishing a paper that claimed that renewable energy can reliably meet all of America’s energy needs at competitive prices.

Further, writing for CNN, Jacobson argued:

Nuclear proponents argue that not enough clean renewables exist to power the world […] However, part of our work at Stanford University has been to map world renewable energy resources. Enough wind and solar exist in high-wind and sunny locations over land to power the world for all purposes multiple times over. There is no shortage.[xi]

As demonstrated, Jacobson’s position is that there is ample wind and solar energy available and thus that the use of nuclear energy is necessary.

Tom Karl

Tom Karl served as Director of the National Climatic Data Center. He has received substantial media attention for disputing skeptic claims of a recent global warming hiatus.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Karl on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Pushker Kharecha

Pushker Kharecha is an associate research scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute. He is also Deputy Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

In an article co-authored with James Hansen in Environmental Science & Technology, Kharecha argues:

Because nuclear power is an abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, it could make a large contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution […] Nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000–7.04 million deaths and 80–240 GtCO₂-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces.[xii]

Thus, Kharecha clearly believes nuclear power is an important tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Hoesung Lee

Hoesung Lee Lee is the chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He is also a professor of climate change economics at Korea University.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Lee on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Michael Mann

Mann is the director of the Earth Systems Science Center at Penn State University. He is also the author of a high-profile article that asserts that, during the past 1,000 years, global temperatures resemble a hockey stick—with its blade representing rapidly rising temperatures that began in the 20^th century. Mann has served as a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He is also frequently quoted for advocating immediate action to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He serves as a science advisor at the public interest group Climate Communication.

Mann says nuclear power should be on the table as a zero-emissions energy option, although he is largely noncommittal about utilizing nuclear power.[xiii]

Jerry Melillo

Jerry Melillo is a distinguished scientist and emeritus director at the Ecosystems Center of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. He has overseen two reports on climate change impacts for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. He is a science advisor at Climate Communication.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Melillo on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Ernest Moniz

Ernest Moniz served as professor of physics at MIT and CEO of the Nuclear Threat Initiative before becoming Secretary of Energy under former president Barack Obama.

Moniz is one of the most vocal scientists in support of nuclear power as a necessary means to address global warming: “Electricity generates more carbon dioxide in the United States than does transportation or industry, and nuclear power is the largest source of carbon-free electricity in the country.”[xiv]

Richard Muller

Richard Muller is a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley. He also runs the Berkeley Earth climate program and is a senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Muller generated headlines with his editorials in the Wall Street Journal, which emphasized that Berkeley Earth temperature compilations support significant recent global warming. Muller asserts these temperature compilations and related issues transformed him from a skeptic to a global warming believer.

Muller believes nuclear power should play a significant role in efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and, in an interview with Climate One asserted that: “Nuclear power should be an important part of our energy future and the energy future of the world.”[xv]

Gerald North

Gerald North is a distinguished professor in geosciences at Texas A&M University. He previously worked on climate issues for NASA’s Goddard Institute.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by North on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Michael Oppenheimer

Michael Oppenheimer is a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. He has served as coordinating lead author for the IPCC. He is also a science advisor at Climate Communication and is frequently interviewed on climate-related issues.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Oppenheimer on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Timothy Osborn

Timothy Osborn is a professor of climate science at the UK’s East Anglia University, where he serves as research director at East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. Osborn has also served as a lead author for the IPCC.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Osborn on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Burton Richter

Burton Richter is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and a retired professor at Stanford University. He advocates for the closing of coal power plants and helps to assemble broad political support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Richter supports a large increase in spending for research on storage for intermittent wind and solar power. However, Richter also supports nuclear power for its overall environmental and human health benefits, even as compared to solar: “Nuclear is really good, much less years of life lost than even solar photovoltaic.”[xvi]

Alan Robock

Alan Robock is a Distinguished Professor in environmental sciences at Rutgers University. He is editor of the Reviews of Geophysics and has served as a lead author for the IPCC.

In a Huffington Post article, Robock explains that he supports expanded nuclear research in the future but prefers wind and solar options in the short-term: “I certainly agree we need research into new nuclear technologies to see if they are a real potential solution sometime in the future. But solar and wind energy is here now.”[xvii]

Benjamin Santer

Benjamin Santer is a climate scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He has been a convening lead author for the IPCC. He is also a science advisor at Climate Communication.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Santer on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Michael Schlesinger

Michael Schlesinger is professor of atmospheric sciences and the director of the Climate Research Group at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The IPCC has used his climate modeling to produce its climate assessment reports.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Schlesinger on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Gavin Schmidt

Gavin Schmidt is director of NASA’s Goddard Institute and the co-founder of the climate blog Real Climate. He is one of the most influential scientists calling for immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Schmidt on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Susan Solomon

Susan Solomon is an atmospheric scientist at MIT. Prior to joining MIT, she worked at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and served as a co-chair for the IPCC. Her research on atmospheric ozone led to the Montreal Protocol’s ban and regulation of chemicals suspected of harming the Earth’s ozone layer.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Solomon on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Richard Somerville

Richard Somerville is a distinguished professor emeritus at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He is also on the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. He is a science advisor at Climate Communication.  Somerville frequently writes articles advising people how to argue for taking action against climate change.[xviii]

Distinguishing nuclear weapons – whose existence is strongly opposed by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists – from nuclear power, Somerville told the 2015 annual meeting of the American Nuclear Society that we will not be able to address global warming without a significant increase in nuclear power.[xix]

Hans von Storch

Hans von Storch is a professor at the German Meteorological Institute. He is on the advisory board for the Journal of Climate and Annals of Geophysics. He has co-authored several surveys of climate scientists that assess the state of climate consensus. Storch has also served as a lead author for the IPCC.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Storch on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Peter Stott

Peter Stott is the scientific strategic head for the Climate Monitoring and Attribution team at the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Science and Services. He is a co-editor of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society annual report, which assesses the connection between extreme weather and climate change. Stott has also served as a contributing author to the IPCC.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Stott on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Peter Thorne

Peter Thorne is a professor of physical geography at Ireland’s Maynooth University. He has worked as a climate scientist at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. He has also worked at the National Climatic Data Center. Thorne has also served as a lead author for the IPCC.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Thorne on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Kevin Trenberth

Kevin Trenberth is a distinguished senior scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He has been a lead author for the IPCC. He is also a science advisor at the public interest group Climate Communication.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Trenberth on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Tom Wigley

Tom Wigley is a senior scientist with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. He has served as the director of the Climatic Research Unit at the UK’s University of East Anglia. Wigley was previously a senior scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research. He is most known for asserting that the IPCC has been too conservative in its climate change assessments and that climate change may well be more severe than it predicts.

Wigley strongly supports nuclear power as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. After an interview with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, that publication summarized Wigley’s position as follows:

The climate problem cannot be solved with renewable energy alone, and that, without turning to geoengineering, consideration of the nuclear energy pathway – in particular, resuming the development of fast reactors – should be an essential component of attempts to address the climate crisis.[xx]

Donald Wuebbles

Donald Wuebbles is a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Illinois, where he has served as head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences and the first director of the School of Earth, Society, and Environment. He is a science advisor at the public interest group Climate Communication.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Wuebbles on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

Gary Yohe

Gary Yohe is a professor of economics and environmental studies at Wesleyan University. He is on two standing committees on climate science for the National Academy of Sciences. Yohe has served as a vice chair and a lead author for the IPCC.

The author of this paper could find no discernible public position expressed by Yohe on the question of nuclear power, natural gas or other low-emission energy sources.

 

As demonstrated above, of the 35 prominent scientists in this assessment, 21 have not weighed in on the issue of nuclear power.

However, of the 14 who have expressed public opinions about nuclear power as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nine strongly support nuclear power, two strongly oppose it, and three have not expressed strong positions either way. This is generally consistent with the sentiment of scientists as a whole, as shown by the AAAS survey, though the sample size among climate-specific scientists is small.

 

Environmental Groups Are Mixed, Less Supportive

Many environmental groups have also weighed in on nuclear power. An examination of public statements issued by the largest and most prominent environmental activist groups shows a difference in opinion from that of the scientific community, with fewer prominent environmental groups supporting nuclear power.

Accordingly, and for comparison to the above, the following is a summary of the positions—or lack thereof—taken by six of the most prominent environmental activist groups:

Audubon Society

The National Audubon Society asserts that nuclear power is not a desirable option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Writing to the Washington Post to clear up confusion about its position on nuclear power, senior staff scientist Jan Beyea states:

In my testimony to the House energy subcommittee, which I provided to The Post‘s reporter, I made it clear that ‘current nuclear technology cannot make a significant contribution to staving off climate disruption.’ I also made clear our conclusion that ‘the most practical program for solving the greenhouse problem in the next century involves […] {on the demand side} improved energy efficiency and materials recycling, {and on the supply side} emphasis on direct solar technologies, such as photovoltaics.[xxi]

Greenpeace

Greenpeace actively opposes nuclear power, arguing that wind and solar power are more environmentally friendly and will soon be more affordable than nuclear power. According to its website: “Greenpeace opposes nuclear power because it is dangerous, polluting, expensive and non-renewable.”[xxii]

Further, writing for the Guardian, Greenpeace director John Sauven has argued:

By the 2020s, it [wind power] will be as cheap or cheaper than any other form of power generation. It’s just become much cheaper than nuclear, even taking into account the additional costs associated with the wind’s intermittency.[xxiii]

Nature Conservancy

The Nature Conservancy has not taken an explicit position on nuclear power. Nevertheless, a research paper published by Nature Conservancy staffers reports that nuclear power has the smallest impact on natural habitat.[xxiv]

Sierra Club

The Sierra Club actively opposes nuclear power. The group asserts nuclear power is unsafe and wind and solar power are better energy options:

Besides reactor safety, both nuclear proliferation and the required long-term storage of nuclear waste (which remains lethal for more than 100,000 years) make nuclear power a uniquely dangerous energy technology for humanity.  Nuclear is no solution to Climate Change and every dollar spent on nuclear is one less dollar spent on truly safe, affordable and renewable energy sources.[xxv]

Environmental Defense Fund

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) supports the continued operation of existing nuclear power plants. EDF argues that when zero-emissions nuclear power plants are shut down, replacement power is typically generated by natural gas. Natural gas emits less carbon dioxide and air pollution than coal power, but it fails to match nuclear power’s zero-carbon impact.

On its website, EDF Lead Attorney John Finnigan writes:

When a nuclear plant is retired today, there is a greater chance the plant will be replaced by a natural gas plant than a renewable energy plant. This might change in the future as the cost of renewables continues to decline, with more grid modernization and improved capability to integrate renewables. ZEC programs can postpone the retirement date for some nuclear plants, until a time when the retiring nuclear plant might be more likely to be replaced by a renewable energy plant than a natural gas plant.[xxvi]

Natural Resources Defense Council

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is skeptical of nuclear power generated by existing technologies but is open to supporting a next-generation version of nuclear power.

Writing on the NRDC website, the group’s Senior Scientist Matthew McKinzie summarizes the group’s position as follows:

This isn’t ideological hostility to nuclear power; it is pragmatic skepticism. NRDC is not opposed in principle to nuclear power, and acknowledges its beneficial low-carbon attributes in a warming world. However, we take seriously the significant safety, global security, environmental, and economic risks that use of this technology imposes on society. They include: environmental harms from uranium mining; safety and security of nuclear plant operations; nuclear weapons proliferation impacts; and spent fuel disposal. This demands more stringent, improved policy and regulation of the complete nuclear fuel cycle, beginning with the mining and milling of uranium and ending with the final disposal of radioactive wastes. Until these risks are properly mitigated, expanding nuclear power should not be a leading strategy for diversifying America’s energy portfolio and reducing carbon pollution.[xxvii]

 

As shown above, a survey of the public statements by six highly prominent environmental groups reveals three strongly oppose nuclear power and three are ambivalent or mildly supportive. This contrasts with the strong support for nuclear power among the general scientific community and among climate scientists who have expressed an opinion regarding nuclear power.

 

Conclusion

As a zero-emission energy source, nuclear energy remains an option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For people seeking to follow the opinion of the scientific community, surveys show with a high degree of confidence that, in general, scientists support nuclear power. For people seeking to follow the opinion of climate scientists, a much smaller number of prominent scientists have expressed a public opinion regarding nuclear power. However, of those who have, most agree with the general scientific community in support of nuclear power.

 

Endnotes

[i] Cary Funk and Lee Rainie, “Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society,” Pew Research Center, January 29, 2015. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society.

[ii] Jon Entine, “Denialism and the ‘Scientific Consensus’: Naomi Oreskes’ Attacks on Nuclear Energy and GMOs Expose Deep Divide Among Environmentalists,” Huffington Post, January 29, 2017. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_10952_b_9111688.html.

[iii] These scientists were selected based on their prominence in climate science research and their advocacy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[iv] Rowan Hooper, “Scientist Heroes and Villains of 2008,” New Scientist, December 22, 2008.  https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16299-science-heroes-and-villains-of-2008.

[v] James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, et al., “Nuclear Power Paves the Only Viable Path Forward on Climate Change,” The Guardian, December 3, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change.

[vi] Caldeira, Ken (@KenCaldeira), “I am not specifically pro-nuclear. I am pro anything that works. Climate change is too important to rule solutions out prematurely” Tweet.

[vii] Denning, Scott (airscottdenning). “Nuclear power is a non-carbon alternative, but at 5x to 10x the cost of solar and wind it’s a tough sell. 16 Jun 2017, 3:47PM. Tweet. https://twitter.com/airscottdenning/status/875847202656198656.

[viii] Andrew Dressler, Introduction to Modern Climate Change (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 2016), p. 186.

[ix] Dawn Stover, “Kerry Emanuel: A climate science for nuclear energy,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, January 2, 2017. https://thebulletin.org/2017/january/kerry-emanuel-climate-scientist-nuclear-energy10375.

[x] David Bello, “How nuclear power can stop global warming,” Scientific American, December 12, 2013. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-global-warming.

[xi] Mark Z. Jacobson, “Nuclear power is too risky,” CNN, February 22, 2010. http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/22/jacobson.nuclear.power.con/index.html.

[xii] Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen, “Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power,” Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 47:9 (2013), 4889–95.  http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197.

[xiii] Richard Moore, “Michael Mann: Energy markets moving toward renewables,” The Northwoods River News, May 31, 2016. http://www.rivernewsonline.com/main.asp?SectionID=6&SubSectionID=59&ArticleID=72852.

[xiv] Ernest Moniz, “Why we still need nuclear power,” Foreign Affairs, October 17, 2011. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2011-10-17/why-we-still-need-nuclear-power.

[xv] Richard Muller, “Interview by Greg Dalton: Skeptical Climate Science,” Climate One, June 21, 2012. https://climateone.org/audio/richard-muller-skeptical-climate-science.

[xvi] See, e.g., Mark Golden, “Stanford physicist Burton Richter’s moderate approach to climate change gaining fans,” Stanford News, December 21, 2011. https://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/december/richter-climate-qanda-122711.html.

[xvii] Alan Roback, “Nuclear energy is not a solution for global warming,” Huffington Post, May 12, 2014.  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-robock/nuclear-energy-is-not-a-solution_b_5305594.html.

[xviii] Richard C.J. Somerville, “Thanksgiving Advice: How to deal with climate change denying Uncle Pete,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, November 21, 2016. https://thebulletin.org/thanksgiving-advice-how-deal-climate-change-denying-uncle-pete10196.

[xix] James Conca, “White House Gets Behind Nuclear Power to Fight Climate Change,” Forbes, Nov. 12, 2015. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/11/12/white-house-summit-opens-annual-nuclear-meeting/ – 1af92a622617.

 

[xx] “Tom Wigley: Why nuclear power may be the only way to avoid geoengineering,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, April 14, 2014. http://www.nat.vu.nl/environmentalphysics/comments_third_edition/9/geo engineering/2014 04 18 Tom Wigley_ Why nuclear power may be the only way to avoid geoengineering.html.

[xxi] “Audubon does not embrace nuclear power,” Washington Post, September 6, 1989. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1989/09/06/audubon-does-not-embrace-nuclear-power/2319d343-7351-41b4-b738-cefe2206ecad/?utm_term=.9dbb122fdf23.

[xxii] “Nuclear Power is Part of the Problem,” Greenpeace, July 1, 2016. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/Solutions/Reject-false-solutions/No-to-nuclear.

[xxiii] John Sauven, “Wind power is not cheaper than nuclear – the energy revolution is happening,” The Guardian, September 26, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/26/offshore-wind-power-energy-price-climate-change.

[xxiv] Robert I. McDonald, Joseph Fargione, et al., “Energy Sprawl or Energy Efficiency: Climate Policy Impacts on Natural Habitat for the United States of America,” PLOS One, August 26, 2009.  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0006802#s4.

[xxv] “Nuclear Free Future,” Sierra Club, 2017. http://www.sierraclub.org/nuclear-free.

[xxvi] John Finnegan, “Why we still need America’s nuclear power plants – At least for now,” Environmental Defense Fund, April 17, 2017. http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2017/04/17/why-we-still-need-americas-nuclear-power-plants-at-least-for-now.

[xxvii] Matthew McKinzie, “NRDC Analysis: Nuclear Energy and a Safer Climate Future,” National Research Defense Council, September 29, 2017. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/matthew-mckinzie/nrdc-analysis-nuclear-energy-and-safer-climate-future.