Skip to main content

An Obvious Nuclear Role in U.N. Climate Change Goals

UN LogoNot specifically about nuclear energy – or is it?

The White House on Tuesday introduced President Obama’s blueprint for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by nearly a third over the next decade.

Mr. Obama’s plan, part of a formal written submission to the United Nations ahead of efforts to forge a global climate change accord in Paris in December, detailed the United States’ part of an ambitious joint pledge made by Mr. Obama and President Xi Jinping of China in November.

And how to cut greenhouse gases?

Mr. Obama’s new blueprint brings together several domestic initiatives that were already in the works, including freezing construction of new coal-fired power plants, increasing the fuel economy of vehicles and plugging methane leaks from oil and gas production. It is meant to describe how the United States will lead by example and meet its pledge for cutting emissions.

These are all fine, but this is the bit where nuclear energy enters the picture:

At the heart of the plan are ambitious but politically contentious Environmental Protection Agency regulations meant to drastically cut planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions from the nation’s cars and coal-fired power plants.

And how do you do that without nuclear energy? You don’t because you can’t.

Obviously, all of this is highly contentious and none of it is settled policy. What the executive branch wants to do is not necessarily what the legislative or judicial branches will accept. It wouldn’t even be fair to say that the nuclear industry is fully comfortable with it – most energy companies are not nuclear pure plays and many have holdings that would be sorely impacted.

But looking at this just as a plan on its own – and endorsed by the President – then yes, this plan must find a major role for nuclear energy if it is to have any chance of success. Even swimming the waves of compromise that are likely to form in the months ahead, nuclear energy will be necessary to fulfill this policy goal. It’s as obvious as obvious gets.


The rise of nuclear energy as a potential energy source has really taken off around the world – these stories don’t reference the U.N. plan, but it may well be lurking as a motivation. The other day, we looked at some moves being made in Africa – specifically, Nigeria, Kenya and Morocco – and this week, well, consider:

Argentina, Bolivia sign agreement to develop nuclear energy – Argentina has a nuclear reactor, Bolivia does not.
To Meet Growing Demand, Jordan Turns to Nuclear Energy – This would be a first reactor. Russia is involved here.

This falls a bit outside our brief, but this is a thing that’s happening. Suggests a certain – momentum, doesn’t it?


Unknown said…
If the Press has accepted the science of climate change it will have to do a much better job at describing the solution which is inevitably nuclear power of some form

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…