I occasionally review and reread Humanism principles and guidance. I advocate for nuclear energy and I feel the following points from The Amsterdam Declaration are applicable
We affirm the worth and dignity of the individual and the right of every human to the greatest possible freedom and fullest possible development compatible with the rights of others
A free person has duties to others, and we feel a duty of care to all of humanity, including future generations, and beyond this to all sentient beings
We recognise that we are part of nature and accept our responsibility for the impact we have on the rest of the natural world
We are convinced that the solutions to the world’s problems lie in human reason, and action. We advocate the application of science and free inquiry to these problems, remembering that while science provides the means, human values must define the ends. We seek to use science and technology to enhance human well-being
We are confident that humanity has the potential to solve the problems that confront us,through free inquiry, science, sympathy, and imagination in the furtherance of peace and human flourishing
The Amsterdam Declaration
These points motivated me to send an email on Saturday, May 17, 2025 to supporters of
Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson’s work, “The Solutions Project”, and his plan for all human energy needs to be met by 100% WWS (wind, water, solar, aka renewables). Jacobson is adamantly opposed to nuclear energy.
The supporters I sent the email to include Bill McKibbon, Greg Laden, Dr. Michael Mann, Peter Gleick, Simon Donner, Bill Nye “The Science Guy”, Naomi Oreskes, MB Energy Justice Coalition, MB Eco-Network, International Institute for Sustainable Development (Winnipeg branch), David Suzuki Organization, Pembina Institute, David Roberts, Rocky Mountain Institute, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (MB branch), Naomi Klein, Avi Lewis, Science Moms, Jan Rosenow, Andrew Dessler, Dana Nuccitelli. I sent it to Dr. Jacobson, Christian Breyer, Auke Hoekstra and “The Energy Mix” website on Wednesday May 21. Later that day I also sent it to to Dr. Dan Riskin and Mr. Jonathan Jarry to seek their comments, opinions, etc. The original email was also cc’d to nuclear energy supporters Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Mary Fran Reed.
The contents of the email, with two questions and the two questions I had hoped to receive responses to (none as of this writing), are as follows:
“I really appreciate all the work you do to communicate that planet earth is in a climate emergency and crisis! We need to stop emitting greenhouse gasses and air pollution ASAP!!
One of the Paris climate targets is for electricity grids to emit less than 100 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis. See all electricity grids here.
Note that currently Germany is at 344, China is at 489, India varies from 560 to 750, Indonesia is at 640. Which electricity grids shown in this link have achieved less than 100 grams of CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis, do you support in their method for doing so? An update on Germany “Let’s dive into one of the most ambitious (and chaotic) energy transitions in the” See thread here.
Of note and to put into perspective, oil barely makes a blip for a source of global electricity generation (remote, isolated communities, islands and New England, USA, see here, yet it is the number one source of global energy production.
In 2023, Bangladesh used 2940 kwh of energy per person per year. Germany used 38,052 kwh. Germans have a decent lifestyle, the people of Bangladesh are, unfortunately, some of the poorest in the world (population 171 million).
Mark Jacobson’s The Solutions Project plans for all nations to use much less energy in 2050 than today. For example, they project that Bangladesh will use 59% less energy in 2050, as will Germany. Bangladesh citizens are some of the billions of poor people today who barely have enough energy for a refrigerator, let alone a stove, washer, dryer, microwave, air conditioning, computers, internet, running water, industry, manufacturing, careers, etc. Women lack an education because they need to do many domestic duties like hauling water, wood and dung for fires, cooking and boiling water over wood and dung fires and washing clothes by hand. They likely have little time for leisure activities and fun. In 2050, with access to much less energy, will these billions of people have access to all of these aspects of a modern society that many of us in the west enjoy today?
I am a proponent of “all of the above” low emissions energy, including nuclear. I don’t care how energy systems are decarbonized, just get it done and at the same time, at least try to have as many people on the planet as possible enjoy a decent standard of living. I agree with this article’s headline “Why more and more environmentalists are supporting nuclear energy” Fears of radiation, waste, accidents, lack scientific basis.
For further information, read the
- Skeptical Inquirer’s Special Section: “Clear Thinking about Climate Unmasking the Claims of the Antinuclear Movement: Climate, Health, and Energy at the Crossroads”
- And Dr. Mary Fran Reed’s infographic
I look forward to further communication!
Dr. Mary Fran – “Where we Stand with Global Warming – and Why we Must Change Course Now
Author’s note: as of May 24, 2025 not a single response was received. Even for esteemed scientists, thinking beyond rhetoric and public opinion can be a challenge.
Hello!
I absolutely agree with you that the opposition to nuclear energy is often based on an incorrect perception (eg. of deaths caused by nuclear accidents, of the risks of radiation etc.) and that its greenhouse gas emissions are very low and therefore is great for the climate.
On the other hand, promoting nuclear as a solution worldwide seems risky to me, because of the risk of prolifereation of nuclear technology. Just like India originally prentended to only develop civil nuclear to in fact, develop nuclear weapons. Bangladesh that you talk about could be a good question: Is it a good thing that this country gets access to nuclear technology? Isn’t there a risk that it leads to it developing nuclear weapons in violations of treaties, like it close neighbours?
Also, if we are talking about Canada, isn’t it actually possible here to have almost 100% renewable energy? If I look at https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/CA-QC/12mo/monthly it seems that both Québec and BC are actually doing 95% renewable electricity and are well under the recommended goal of 90% of electricity in Canada being produced by renewable sources?
The last sentence had a part cut in the middle, here is what my last sentence was:
If I look at https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/CA-QC/12mo/monthly it seems that both Québec and BC are actually doing 95% renewable electricity and are well under the recommended goal of max 100gCO2/kWh. So wouln’t it be possible for all Canadians provinces to do the same and have like 90% of electricity in Canada being produced by renewable sources?
I concur with Seanna’s comment, the renewable electricity in BC and QC, as well as MB is almost entirely hydro. I live in Winnipeg, MB Canada. Most of our electricity comes from hydro (over 95%). The dams are about 1000kms from where most of the electricity is consumed. We had to pay $5.3 billion for a new long distance HVDC transmission line, big money for 1.4 million people. Here is a list of the top seven HVDC transmission line distances in the world, all for hydro, from 1400 to 2500 kms. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1305820/longest-power-transmission-lines-worldwide/ I do wonder if, for long distance HVDC transmission lines, the amount of concrete, steel, aluminium, etc and the amount of land that needs to be cleared are factored into lifecycle CO2 emissions, raw material requirements and cost estimates for hydro dams.
If a country is to build a nuclear reactor, they need to have a regulator either sanctioned by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) (eg. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission) or have the IAEA be their regulator directly. The IAEA would certify nuclear reactor designs, locations, safety systems, etc, as well as perform regular inspections. If a country like Bangladesh decided to make a bomb they would either need to enrich uranium to at least 80% uranium235 (too expensive for most countries), which the IAEA would not permit or somehow obtain it from another country, all under the IAEA being their nuclear regulator, highly unlikely scenarios. Uranium comes out of the ground as 99.3% uranium238 and 0.7% uranium235 (Canada’s CANDU reactors use this for fuel). Most nuclear reactors all over the world use fuel enriched to approx. 5% uranium235 . Read about uranium enrichment here https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/conversion-enrichment-and-fabrication/uranium-enrichment
Yes I know in theory these IAEA rules are good, but a lot of countries were able to get away without following them because if they violate them you can’t do anything after the fact. I mean we have all those countries that were able to develop nuclear weapons in violation of treaties: Pakistan, India, North Korea, Israel.
And if I understand correctly, at least 2 (India, North Korea) used their civil nuclear program, receiving international cooperation, to then develop nuclear weapons. Even after they violated the NPT, other countries basically said to them “ok that’s fine you have nuclear weapons, we’ll cooperate on civil nuclear anyway” (while the lack of civil nuclear cooperation is supposed to be the only “punishment” for violating the NPT). China did that for Pakistan and the US for India. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons
I actually wrote a few years ago my own article about this: https://www.thepurple.blog/post/does-more-nuclear-energy-lead-to-more-nuclear-weapons
Anyway to summarize I’m really skeptical about our ability to export civil nuclear technology while preventing a country to then say “sorry we lied, we’ll now build nuclear weapons”.
If Canada exports nuclear reactors to other countries, these will be subjected to IAEA regulations and controls. In addition, these countries need the technology to enrich uranium to have 80%+ uranium-235 atoms. The Canadian reactors would use fuel enriched to 19.9% maximum uranium-235 atoms. These Canadian reactors will not provide the ability to enrich uranium to 80%+ uranium-235 atoms. If these countries desire to enrich uranium to 80%+ uranium-235 atoms, they will have to somehow obtain it or build it, it will not be available from Canadian nuclear reactors.
“Fears of radiation, waste, accidents, lack scientific basis.”
Absolutely! But the less-educated still point to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as justification for their uninformed and misguided fears.
Indeed, the worst that happened at Three Mile Island is that some people were exposed to the amount of radiation equivalent to a CT scan, so no one was injured. Meanwhile there are usually dozens of people killed every year in the USA due to natural gas explosions.
The Soviets knew the RBMK reactors could blow up like it did at Chernobyl and they knew the fix, they just decided to deploy the fix re-actively. The other three reactors at the Chernobyl site were back up and running within months and the last one shut down in 2000. So there were hundreds of workers onsite 24x7x365 until the last one shut down, with no ill effects experienced by any of these workers.
I just read your article. Excellent! Yes, we must gather the facts and then make rational decisions based on the facts and on our high natural valuations of survival, reproduction, well being, and advancement.
Factors to consider in choosing to develop, use, or buy any form of energy generation, e.g. nuclear, solar, wind, fossil fuels, etc., include:
1. Cost
2. Availability or accessibility
3. Sustainability
4. Reliability or dependability
5. Safety
6. Externalities such as contribution to global warming and other problems
Due to geographical luck, BC and Quebec are able to make extensive use of hydro-electric power generation. But other provinces (e.g. Saskatchewan) are not so fortunate. And perhaps worth noting that hydro power is often not as environmentally benign as it seems (thought still better than fossil fuels) – the flooding that results from the construction of the dams and power plants inevitably has a significant environmental impact. Hydro power is often generated far away from where it is consumed, so power transmission costs also need to be considered. Transmission technologies are improving, but line losses can still be up to 30%. Though the impact of the transmission lines themselves is relatively small once they are in place, there can be significant environmental disruption during their installation. Nuclear has the advantage that it can be deployed pretty much anywhere, which provides the opportunity for a smaller geographical (and environmental) footprint.
I understand that there are new fuel technologies that allow the development of micro reactors that cannot melt down. I certainly hope this is correct as they could be standardized and with successful production be a safe solution for power without the threat of nuclear proliferation. They could also be far less polluting than renewables and not as significant visual eyesores. Hydro power can be hugely polluting and the decomposition of trees and plants in flooded areas produces methane, plus climate change itself can reduce or eliminate the ability to produce electricity.
Correct, there could be molten salt reactors that cannot meltdown, as the coolant and the moderator, molten salt, is already in a “meltdown” state. The Molten Salt Reactor Experiment ran for four years in the ’60s at Oak Ridge National Labs. The salt did not get pure enough (only 99.9% pure) and there were oxidation or corrosion issues. Two companies that I know of claim to have resolved the purity issue and have commercialized this salt SaltGen, https://saltgen.net/ , a wholly owned subsidiary of Alpha Tech Research Corp (mentioned in May 2025 Critical Links) and Copenhagen Atomics https://www.copenhagenatomics.com/products/salt/ . Alpha Tech Research Corp states on the SaltGen website they have solved the corrosion issue.
Also, the International Atomic Energy has an Advanced Reactor Information System (ARIS), it is, um…… extensive (I also find it overwhelming), please give it a go and see what you think. https://aris.iaea.org/