Conservation scientists make nuclear entreaty

Over 60 leading conservation and environmental scientists have signed an open letter calling for environmentalists to set aside their preconceptions to nuclear power to play a substantial role in replacing fossil fuels.

In the document, An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy, academics from all over the world express their support for the conclusions drawn in a recent article by Barry Brook, Chair of Environmental Sustainability at the University of Tasmania, and Corey Bradshaw, Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at the University of Adelaide in the journal Conservation Biology.

Brook and Bradshaw's paper, titled 'Key role for nuclear energy in global biodiversity conservation', assesses the land use, emissions, climate, and cost implications of three previously published but contrasting "storylines" for future energy production and then uses a multicriteria decision-making analysis (MCDMA) framework to rank seven major electricity-generation sources (coal, gas, nuclear, biomass, hydro, wind, and solar) based on costs and benefits and also testing the sensitivity of their rankings to bias stemming from philosophical ideals. Irrespective of weightings, they found that nuclear and wind energy had the highest benefit-to-cost ratio.

"Of the limited options available, next-generation nuclear power and related technologies, based on modular systems with full fuel recycling and inherent safety, hold substantial yet largely unrecognized prospects for being a principal cure for our fossil-fuel addiction, yet nuclear power still has an undeservedly poor reputation in the environmental community," the paper concludes.

According to the scientist signatories of the open letter, Brooks and Bradshaw's work provides "strong evidence for the need to accept a substantial role for advance nuclear power systems with complete fuel recycling" as part of a range of sustainable energy technologies including "appropriate use" of renewables, energy storage and energy efficiency.

The letter acknowledges that this might not be a universally popular standpoint in the environmental science community. "Given the historical antagonism towards nuclear energy amongst the environmental community, we accept that this stands as a controversial position, the letter states. "However, much as leading climate scientists have recently advocated the development of safe, next-generation nuclear energy systems to combat global climate change … we entreat the conservation and environmental community to weigh up the pros and cons of different energy sources using objective evidence and pragmatic trade-offs, rather than simply relying on idealistic perceptions of what is 'green'."

The open letter is published on the conservation blogs ConservationBytes and Brave New Climate.

Researched and written
by World Nuclear News