Everything Is on the Table: Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy
Current 12 - Insights:
The first blog post I ever wrote, about 20 years ago, was titled “Everything Is On the Table”. The gist was that alarm bells were ringing in the climate science community, and we needed to do everything we could to forestall what appeared to be a relentless trend of global warming. This was before Kyoto, before Paris, before the fires and floods and atmospheric rivers of the past decade… and just after Germany committed themselves to the controversial “energiewende” policy. And certainly before the hyper-partisanship of today’s political environment.
The piece of that post that generated the most noise was a single paragraph about nuclear power. My argument at the time was this: so long as we want to replace labor with energy (sourced sustainably or not, and presuming that cold fusion remained a tantalizing mirage), we would need to accept some uncomfortable trade-offs. Lithium mining is an environmental catastrophe. Rare earth metals are a geopolitical football. Turbine blades are nearly impossible to do anything with other than truck them to a dump. Etc.
Seen exclusively through that lens, nuclear energy offers a suite of acceptable trade-offs. But an entire generation of Americans for whom Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and bitter fights over trucking radioactive waste deep into the Nevada desert were still living memories didn’t see it that way. Some of them contacted me and were quite pointed in their comments.
Spoiler alert; I still believe, with even more conviction, that if we as a species are going to survive the hydrocarbon era, everything should be on the table - including nuclear. Interestingly, as the world confronts the urgent need to transition to a low-carbon economy, the conversation is broadening to include all potential energy solutions - including nuclear power.
A significant development signaling this shift in attitude is the recent move to restart the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, which was finally closed in 2019 after a protracted, bitter legal battle, launched shortly after its partial meltdown in 1979. Yet, here we are, in 2024, with a growing recognition that the world’s energy system needs more reliable, clean, and scalable power sources—especially as fossil fuel dependency remains entrenched and renewables, while critical to any climate resiliency solution set, face challenges in terms of storage, intermittency, and incumbent opposition. For confirmation, just look to the swirling miasma of anti-science that has colored recent elections in the US.
This renewed interest in nuclear energy is not just about historical plants reopening, but also about cutting-edge technological advancements that offer the tantalizing promise to mitigate the risks of earlier generations of reactors. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), for instance, offer a safer, more scalable alternative to traditional nuclear plants. SMRs are designed with enhanced safety features, including passive cooling systems that can prevent meltdowns without human intervention. These next-generation reactors could potentially be deployed more quickly and cost-effectively, with smaller footprints, and in a broader range of geographical locations than their predecessors. Three Mile Island, for example, cost more than $1bb to build (over $2bb in 2024 dollars).
Moreover, breakthroughs in nuclear fusion—still in its early stages—promise even greater potential for clean energy production. While fusion technology remains in development, its future could radically change the energy landscape by providing an almost limitless and clean source of power with minimal waste. As I wrote at the end of that blog post, there may be a team of under-funded engineers in a garage somewhere in Nairobi on the verge of solving cold fusion. If so, the entire climate change conversation will be turned on its head.
The role of nuclear power in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cannot be overstated. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), nuclear power currently provides approximately 10% of the world’s electricity while contributing roughly 25% of global low-carbon electricity generation. In countries like France, where nuclear accounts for around 70% of the national electricity supply, nuclear power has been a cornerstone of their decarbonization efforts. If nuclear energy were to play a larger role globally, it could significantly accelerate the reduction of carbon emissions from the energy sector, which is the largest source of GHGs worldwide.
It is almost impossible to overstate the potential emissions savings from expanding nuclear power. The IEA estimates that nuclear energy currently avoids around 2 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions annually—roughly equivalent to the combined emissions of the United States and the European Union. If the world were to significantly scale up nuclear generation, it could help achieve near-term emissions reduction targets and pave the way for reaching net-zero goals by mid-century.
While renewables like solar, wind, and hydropower are indispensable to a clean energy future, they cannot fully replace the need for stable, baseload power sources. Solar and wind are intermittent, meaning that energy storage and backup solutions are required to maintain grid stability. Nuclear energy provides the consistency and reliability needed to complement renewables, filling the gaps when the sun isn't shining, and the wind isn’t blowing.
Critics of nuclear energy regularly, and appropriately, point to the dangers of radiation and the challenge of managing radioactive waste. Today’s apologists - engineers, investors, utilities, and, yes, lobbyists - argue that nuclear technologies are now designed with advanced safety systems that make accidents like Chernobyl or Fukushima highly unlikely. Note: they do not say “impossible”. Additionally, new approaches to waste management, such as deep geological repositories, might offer long-term solutions for nuclear waste disposal.
However, as 18th Century philosopher Alexander Pope famously observed, “to err is human”. If a solar array goes down, you have a field of dead panels. If a turbine collapses, you could take out a few cows. If a nuclear reactor melts down… you have a repeat of Chernobyl. This risk is simultaneously non-trivial and non-linear, and we would be wise to treat it with profound concern.
Ultimately, as we engage in the pride-swallowing seige to decarbonize the global economy, we must keep all options on the table. There simply isn’t enough time to pull any of the potential solutions. Nuclear energy, despite its complicated history, has the potential to be an indispensable player in the transition to the low-carbon future we all need. With continued technological advancements, regulatory reform, and public education, nuclear power could help us meet the growing demand for clean energy while significantly reducing our carbon footprint. As we aim for a sustainable, post-carbon world, it’s clear to us: nuclear power must be credibly evaluated as one part of the equation.
DISCLOSURE: The information presented in this blog is the opinion of Align Impact and does not reflect the view of any other person or entity. The information provided is believed to be from reliable sources but no liability is accepted for any inaccuracies. This is for information purposes and should not be construed as an investment recommendation. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. Align Impact is an investment adviser registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
