The ranks of climate scientists speaking out for nuclear energy are growing. It is easy to understand why: nuclear power is the only clean, low-carbon energy sources that has scaled at the pace needed to quickly reduce carbon emissions.
EP works with climate scientists to reverse the decline of clean energy as a percent of global electricity, and the absolute decline of nuclear over the last decade.
The UN IPCC, the IEA and most mainstream energy analyses have long viewed nuclear as essential to reducing emissions, but it took an open letter to environmentalists from leading climate scientists — and the film, "Pandora's Promise" — to open up the public debate.
California — Save Diablo Canyon — Read more >>
"Closing Diablo Canyon would make it far harder to meet the state’s climate goals. Already, the percentage of electricity California generates from clean energy declined from 53 percent in 2011 to 38 percent in 2014. Without Diablo, California’s clean electricity generation would decline to 26 percent while electricity from natural gas would rise to 70 percent."
Illinois — Protect Nuclear By Treating Nuclear Fairly — Read more >>
"Illinois generates more zero-emissions electricity than any other state. Most of it comes from the state’s six nuclear power plants, which produce about half of Illinois’ total generation and 90 percent of its low-carbon generation... If Clinton and Quad Cities nuclear plants were replaced by natural gas, carbon emissions would immediately increase the equivalent of adding two million cars to the road. If they were replaced by coal, the carbon emissions would more than double."
Climate scientists open letter to environmental groups, 2013 — Read more >>
"Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires."