The Nuclear Problem: Phasing Out Reactors Would Worsen Global Warming

In the many controversies over nuclear power, there's one little-discussed aspect that could have serious consequences on a global scale: phasing out today's nuclear reactors without building new ones to replace them could actually increase worldwide carbon dioxide emissions and aggravate climate change.

The Keystone Center reached that conclusion last year after drawing together 27 experts from various areas -- nuclear energy, environmental groups, energy companies, universities and consumer organizations -- to examine the pros and cons of nuclear power. Their resulting "Nuclear Power Joint Fact Finding" found that failing to rebuild existing nuclear plants set to go offline by mid-century could increase total carbon dioxide emissions by 12.5 gigatons.

For comparison's sake, worldwide carbon dioxide emissions totaled 7.375 gigatons in 2004, according to the Global Carbon Project. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that carbon emissions must be drastically cut in the near future to prevent catastrophic climate change. More than 2,000 scientists from around the globe contribute to the IPCC's reports.

According to Princeton professors Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow, global carbon emissions could be stabilized by adopting 15 technology strategies that could each reduce carbon by one gigaton per year. One of those strategies calls for a worldwide effort to expand nuclear power capabilities. It's a proposal hailed by some, including renowned British scientist James Lovelock, and vehemently opposed by others such as Greenpeace.

The Keystone report says achieving a successful nuclear strategy under the Pacala-Socolow plan would require the construction of about 14 new 1,000-megawatt nuclear plants each year for the next 50 years. Whether or not nuclear power is expanded, though, the fact that many of today's nuclear plants are eventually scheduled to shut down -- with no replacements in sight -- could make climate change worse. To replace those would mean the construction of an additional 7.4 new reactors per year over the next 50 years ... or an equivalent arsenal of non-polluting alternative energy facilities that could deliver a total of 370 gigawatts of electricity.

Whether that's possible is one question neither pro-nuke nor anti-nuke forces have yet been able to answer. Meanwhile, the debate over whether nuclear power should even have a role in the fight against climate change continues. Just this week, two top green advisers blasted the U.K.'s plan to expand its nuclear capacity as a "technological megafix," while Finnish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen said it would be better to reduce the world's energy consumption than build new nuclear plants.