An explanation of why nuclear energy must be part of any plan to provide carbon-free energy so that we can mitigate the effects of climate change.

1. Why Nuclear Energy ?
The message for 2019 has not
changed: We must educate
ourselves to the benefits of nuclear
energy and include
Nuclear energy in future plans.
Robert Kieronski
RNROWER@msn.com
April 2019
In the face of climate change ….

2. There is no credible path to climate
stabilization that does not
include a substantial role for
nuclear power.
Open letter COP 21: Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel, James Hansen, Tom Wigley
Sustainable Innovation Forum ,
Paris, France 2016

3. Solar and Wind
Have not Delivered
Germany spent over Euro$150 billion on renewables over last decade and got:
1. Zero emissions reductions
2. A 50% increase in cost of electricity
3. Electricity supply ten times more carbon-intensive as France’s
4. Electricity nearly twice as expensive as France’s
Meanwhile, France spent $33 billion on wind-solar over the last 10 years and the carbon intensity
of its electricity supply increased because the intermittent nature of wind & solar required
burning more natural gas. And electricity prices rose, too!
Like it or not , current data says …
2. https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-climate-change-green-energy-shift-is-more-fizzle-than-sizzle/
3, https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/369386-germany-shows-how-shifting-to-
renewable-energy-can-backfire
1. https://green-watch.net/german-renewable-energy-crisis-we-cant-afford-this-insanity-for-much-
longer-66bacda112ce

4. Placing all eggs in the basket of
wind and solar increases the
chances of a sustained victory of
today’s big winner: fossil fuel.
• In 2007, Google took up an ambitious plan. Google believed that the most
effective way to terminate the use of fossil fuels is by outcompeting them.
Google’s RE<C (Renewable Energy < Coal) plan was targeted at developing
strategies to achieve this goal. After investing $850 million, Google
terminated the program because it felt that their goals were not
reachable. See article:
• ‘Today’s renewable energy technologies
won’t save us. So, what will ? *
* IEEE Spectrum, 18 Nov 2014

5. How Safe is Nuclear ?
• Energy’s deathprint, as it is called, is a rarely-discussed
externality. The deathprint is the number of people killed
per trillion KWh produced. There is debate on the absolute
numbers, but no one debates on the relative ranking from
most dangerous to least It is notable that in media and
legislative discussions, the only time death is mentioned is for
nuclear. This is ironic since it has the lowest deathprint of any
source.
• SEE NEXT PAGE ! ….
SAFETY:

6. Article “Natural
Gas And The
New
Deathprint
SAFETY:

7. Molten Salt Update
SAFETY: So, What about Fukushima ?

8. SAFETY IS ALWAYS A CONCERN
• The previous slides apply to existing nuclear
energy plants
• With developments on the horizon, we will do
EVEN BETTER
• Unfortunately, the United States is slow in
coming to this realization
Now nuclear energy is the safest form of electric
power in the U.S.
An over-abundance of fear and caution have made the
hurdles of nuclear certification so stringent that they have
placed a barrier on further development. Irrational public
fears have made inclusion of nuclear energy a difficult topic to
approach.

9. So then, why do we Fear Nuclear ?
• It has an excellent safety record
• It has a realistic safety profile with
regard to radiation and waste hazards
• Is the most reliable source
• Could be cheaper than coal*
• Could be rapidly modulated*
Understanding the technology will clarify insights counter to
What many “green” proponents believe.
* With advanced designs now in progress

10. Will it be there when needed ?
What about availability ? …
Capacity Factor is the relative amount of time a
power source is available on-line.
It stands alone as a Dispatchable Carbon-free Energy Source

11. Today’s Pressurized Water Reactor
Dated design, Carbon free, but costly $$$
Currently in use:

12. • CLOSING EXISTING REACTORS AT THIS TIME
WILL ADD SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE CO2
BURDEN. *
• KEEP THEM OPEN AS LONG AS THEY CAN BE
SAFELY MAINTAINED
RECOMMENDATION:
• See handout: Green New Deal Excludes Nuclear And Would Thus
Increase Emissions -- Just Like It Did In Vermont Michael Shellenberger
Forbes Feb 7, 2019

13. Molten Salt Reactor (due mid 20’s)
Terrestrial Energy Design (Canada)
WILL SET NEW SAFETY STANDARDS
WILL BE CHEAPER THAN COAL $$ / KWh
One of the New Designs Under Development:

14. Tomorrow’s Small Modular Reactor
NuScale Design
Economy through Modular Construction
Most new designs will be smaller and modular
New reactors are being designed with production in mind

15. What we can do Today ?
• Advocate for the carbon tax
• Use that revenue to support Energy R&D, particularly, to
speed advanced nuclear Commercialization
• Keep existing reactors open as long as they can be safely
maintained
• Become educated on outstanding nuclear issues and
continue to dispel the anti-nuclear bias
Recommendation:

16. • We all live on the same earth and have the
same goal:
We must mitigate CO2 to minimize global
warming, while maintaining a practical,
clean, safe energy supply.
CLOSING THOUGHTS

17. NEW NUCLEAR LEGISLATION 2018
On Friday, September 28, 2018, the President
signed into law:
H.R. 589, the “Department of Energy Research
and Innovation Act,” which establishes policy
for Department of Energy science and energy
research and development programs and
reforms National Laboratory management and
technology transfer programs;RI legislators have come out in support of these bills

18. Reading
A free on-line .pdf document that
examines the Jacobson & Delucci
Report which claims that our
entire Energy/climate issues can
be Solved with solar and wind.
A good physics primer
That explains the funct-
ioning and advantages
of advanced nuclear re-
actors.
A scientifically accurate
summary of studies on
current understanding
of the dangers of radio-
active exposure