May 8, 2025

Help Mom go Nuclear on Mother’s Day

Nuclear is pretty in pink3

She wants what's best for you . . .

Mother polar bear with cubsMoms protect their children. For better or worse, she does what she thinks best, given her means. She sees to our needs, supports us when we struggle and helps us develop into self-reliant adults, often at great personal sacrifice.

But we are now at a critical junction in human history, perhaps one of the most crucial moments that will determine our trajectory. Our moms, for all their superpowers, may not fully recognize the new threat we face—because it is entirely invisible.

"GraphCO2, the waste emission created by our growing energy usage, is both colorless and odorless. Yet, it is impacting our future. Unlike with most types of toxic emissions that contribute to smog, moms can't see that the emissions from powering things we love—cars, boats, planes, televisions, computers, refridgerators, washing machines, phones, the Internet, websites and especially our homes—has filled our atmosphere with large molecules that serve to turn the heat up on the planet.

Can moms adapt to defending us from the risks posed by climate change?

Mother gooseFor eons, moms have been perfectly evolved to meet their primary job qualifications: to provide for her child's physical and psychological safety. For as long as we have had recorded history, moms' love has helped populations thrive. But things have changed dramatically. Humanity, empowered with technologies unimaginable mere decades ago, are causing profound changes to our climate and ecosystems for the worse. Weather patterns are changing. Days are hotter and there are more of them. Trees flower earlier in the season. There is less and less rain, more severe droughts and forest fires. Areas that could once be farmed, can no longer grow crops. Fish populations that fed millions have declined. Bees, bats and insects are disappearing. Hurricanes and tornadoes arrive more frequently and fiercely. How can moms defend their children from a heating planet and all of its related effects? The job of protecting children from these climate threats is not straight-forward and may seem quite impossible, yet there are important things moms can and should do.

Focus on root causes and support an effective energy transition.

Many moms are already concerned about climate and fighting back. She may be planting trees, using less paper, fussing to close lights and turning down the heat. She's also probably recycling, refusing plastic straws and plastic bags and composting. Moms with excess resources are likely donating to stem deforestation, habitat loss and species extinction. She may even opt to invest in ESG and impact-focused funds. While laudable, none of these activities directly target the cause of the problem and so are not a good use of moms' time, talents or resources.

Co2 emssions owidMom, like the rest of us, must focus on the root cause of climate change. Which is the CO2 emissions from humanity's collective burning of over 100 million gallons of oil per day, 25 million tons of coal and a comparable amount of natural gas each day. It is these daily energy choices that generate over 100 million tonnes of CO2 emissions waste daily and over 40 billion tonnes annually—an enormous amount that goes almost entirely into the atmosphere, which further heats the planet. This is the real problem and the only way to lessen the threat we're facing is to transition away from carbon-emitting fossil fuels to other types of energy that don't emit CO2.

Tripling nuclear pledge cop28The good news: Over 200 countries agreed that transitioning away from fossil fuels is a global imperative. In late 2023, world leaders met in Abu Dhabi, Dubai at COP 28 and specifically agreed on this. It won't surprise Mom at all that it took all 28 of these week-long annual "Conference of the Parties" gatherings to arrive at this generic agreement. It was every bit as difficult as getting a child to agree to clean up his room. But they got it done at last. Some thirty countries committed to triple the amount of nuclear they use. Others committed to increasing their wind and solar. As hard as it was to arrive at this agreement, there's still much disagreement over how to effect this transition and over what period of time.

The bad news: While there's been considerable progress building out wind and solar, these technologies haven't lived up to the hype that they can solve the problem. Everyone hoped they would and, yes, we love getting free energy from the sun and the wind. Sadly, the actual technologies required to capture and convert that natural energy into power are neither free nor efficient. In the "you get what you pay for" department, renewables are cheap but so unreliable that even where they've been fully built out, we still need to burn fossil fuels to meet the 24/7 level of energy demanded by customers. It turns out that our near constant energy demand doesn't pair well with highly intermittent sources like wind and solar. Adding them to the grid has increased costs to end users largely because of the need for significant further expenditures on peaker gas plants and large batteries to try to firm up their very low generation capacity.

What other clean energy options are there?

There aren't many, which is why we need better options. And we need them urgently. Among the options we have are hydro power, geothermal power and nuclear power. Hydro and geothermal power are currently limited to specific geographies, most of which areas are already fully exploited. Traditional grid-scale nuclear is pretty darn good (despite its reputation) but has historically come in a "one-size-fits-all" configuration that can cost billions and take a decade or more to build. Against this backdrop, there's more good news.

Our world in data energy graphic

Entrepreneurs are working to innovate to make nuclear power smaller, modular and safer. And, best of all, these new advanced designs are on the verge of being commercialized, so adding exciting new energy options that can directly replace smaller coal and gas plants. Meanwhile, they are rapidly becoming the most compelling medium-term solution to our energy problems. Just recently, Google, Amazon, Dow Chemical, Nucor and other large companies have begun to place orders for power from advanced nuclear because they see it as helping them meet both their energy growth and decarbonization goals.

Tech companies have but will Moms go Nuclear to protect their children?

Mothers for peaceFor most of our lives, our moms opposed nuclear power. They feared nuclear bombs and believed that nuclear power plants posed similar risks. The idea that a melt-down accident at a nuclear power plant could explode and contaminate huge swaths of land seemed like an existential threat that had moms everywhere up in arms. Accidents like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima seemed only to prove them right. Protesting moms did their thing and eventually succeeded in preventing new nuclear power plants from being built for most of the last 40 years. At the time, with their then limited understanding of the risks, this seemed like the right thing to do, so it is easy to understand the rationale. But was it?

Kennedy and weinbergNow, more than 40 years later, we actually have a much better understanding. And it turns out it was a huge mistake. Had the original plans developed by Presidents Eisenhower and, later, John F. Kennedy to build out a fleet of nuclear power plants to meet all US energy needs succeeded, we would not have a climate catastrophe on our hands. But, because of public opposition, nuclear grew only to be 20% of our electricity needs and then its growth was halted.

In its place, the fossil fuel industry was allowed to grow unchecked, vastly accelerating CO2 emissions and turning global warming into a full blown catastrophe. We've already seen 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) of confirmed warming and there much more to come, as more emissions are added to the existing molecular blanket trapping solar radiation and heating the planet. It is as bad for the health of our planet as it would be if your child had a fever of 102.7 that just continued rising.

While the worst impacts of our use of fossil fuels may still be a ways off, even the current level poses an existential risk to humanity. We are failing to meet our initial goal of reducing emissions by 50% by 2030, which is five years away and emissions have not declined at all. Not solving this problem by greatly reducing our level of emissions is causing tremendous psychological stress in younger generations. This is why moms everywhere need to act and fast. They need to show their children that they are doing what it takes, which requires thinking outside the box and being willing to do things we may not be comfortable with.

Next-generation nuclear is the disruptive, scalable solution we need.

Things seem bad right now. The Trump Administration is in denial about climate change and the very topic of climate change has become terribly polarized. Progressives want to end fossil fuel use but demand that we replace it with renewables, which clearly aren't up to the job. Conservatives are rightly worried about rising energy prices and energy reliability and love nuclear but they've shown little concern about addressing climate. While thsese differences cause political dysfunction, there is considerable bipartisan agreement about the need to accelerate advanced nuclear. Somehow, between climate doom and climate denial, both sides for vastly different reasons, agree on the importance of accelerating next-generation nuclear.

This bipartisan support is not new It started with the Obama Administration, which set the stage to support nuclear innovation. Thereafter, the first  Trump Administration signed several pieces of legislation passed by the Congress aimed at accelerating the commercialization of next-generation nuclear. Then, in the lead-up to the IRA, President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act, which set up the Civil Nuclear Credit Program, with funding to help prevent the premature closure of nuclear power plants. The IRA provided further support for nuclear by levelling the playing field and allowing nuclear power to qualify for the same clean energy tax benefits that wind and solar could. Biden also signed the Advance Act, which again sought to accelerate the commercialization of nuclear with a series of reforms of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

In each instance, Congress supported efforts to accelerate the commercialization of next-generation with huge bipartisan majorities, and often just a few nay votes. This shows just how much attitudes have changed around nuclear energy, which has one of the lowest carbon intensities—so is a top solution to climate change—while at the same time, providing energy security, job creation and national security.  At the moment, although the Trump Administration has shown no interest in supporting climate goals, the DOE recently re-issued a $900 million funding solicitation left over from the Biden era for advanced nuclear. Nuclear energy is the middle ground we need to solve climate.

Mom will likely be thrilled to support a true climate solution

Screenshot 2025 05 12 at 8.35.06 amSupporting the growth of advanced nuclear energy is the ideal pathway for those seeking to solve climate change. Next-gen nuclear is already in demand by tech hyperscalers and others seeking clean and reliable sources of energy. The innovations underway are working to make these new designs safer, cheaper and easier to deploy. The whole nuclear industry is hard at work increasing capacity factors, improving materials, fabricating safer fuels, making operations more efficient and training workers. This makes it the perfect time to invest into these ventures, so that new designs can finally get to market and energy buyers can begin to displace fossil fuels.

Maddy Hilly, a pregnant mom, pictured standing next to nuclear waste

A pregnant Maddy Hilly standing next to a dry cask storage tank holding nuclear waste.

So, for Mother's Day, help your mother get caught up with nuclear's incomparable safety record. Explain the many amazing benefits of nuclear. Show her that nuclear helps reduce ecologic impacts and cleans the air. Clarify why concerns about nuclear waste are a political red herring, since nuclear's waste is already safely stored on site—hurting no one and definitely not causing climate change, in stark contrast to fossil fuel waste, which pollutes the air, contributes to millions of premature deaths annually and causes our slow-moving global climate disaster.

Help your Mom go Nuclear on Mother's Day

Help mom become one of the growing numbers of women supporting nuclear. Introduce her to groups like Mothers for Nuclear, and show her how working mothers have launched pronuclear non-profits and permeated the nuclear industry because of their concerns about climate change. It doesn't take a mom to recognize that fossil fuels are well past their "Sell by" dates and need to go! But before that transition can happen, there has to be a much better way to generate reliable energy. That's next-generation nuclear power.

Mom will appreciate learning about next-gen nuclear and the many ways that she can help, whether by joining or supporting an organization like Mothers for Nuclear, investing into this sector and funding the companies developing innovative solutions or just by talking to her friends about nuclear power—it will all help. Almost nothing else she can do will be as effective at the global scale. But helping next-generation nuclear succeed can have a direct future impact on reducing carbon emissions.

She already loves you forever. You can now help her do her job to protect your future.

 


 

Happy Mother's Day from the Nucleation team!

Elizabeth in vestThank you for reading this. Love of our children and deep appreciation of what nuclear offers humanity is why we have worked to build the first venture fund that invest in advanced nuclear and deep decarbonization innovations. Nucleation's Fund I is in its fourth year and still accepting new accredited investors every quarter. We have made it easy and affordable. If you or your mom subscribe between Mother's Day and May 30th, 2025 and reference this Mother's Day post, we will send you your choice of a Nucleation Capital T-shirt, vest or baseball cap. Learn more and subscribe here.

March 19, 2025

Benefits of Nuclear

Nucleation’s listing of the notable benefits of nuclear power in helping secure and stabilize the world’s energy supplies in a zero-emission economy, while posing the least amount of ecologic impact, cost and materials burden.

July 1, 2024

African Nuclear Newcomer Aspirations

Post guest written by Collins K. Wafula, Bungoma Town, Kenya (with editing support from Darius Tirgan)

Introduction

Emerging countries have held discussions regarding the role of nuclear power in their energy mix. As a result, African states have embarked on a joint effort to achieve a nuclear renaissance. However, they face geopolitical tensions and technical incapacity alongside other issues identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Ten African governments are nuclear-ready and have discussed the IAEA’s milestone approach to achieve their nuclear goals and elevate Africa's standing on the global energy map. Examining their energy spectrum and economic capabilities, these nations are keen to collaborate on advanced reactors but struggle to find the right partners. Therefore, for large-scale power and nuclear deployment to succeed, there must be an increase in coordinated efforts and financing to meet the rising African energy demand.

African Energy Demand

Shows the change in total final energy consumption by fuel and sector in the Sustainable Africa Scenario, 2020 - 2030

Africa makes up 17% of the world’s total population but only accounts for 3.4% of global energy consumption, with fossil fuels being the most prominent power source. They generate 91.5% of the African energy grid, with oil and gas producing over 12 times more energy than renewables, despite aiming for climate neutrality by 2050. As of 2023, renewables have produced 62 GW out of Africa’s 245 GW installed capacity, with South Africa contributing 10.62 GW of renewable electricity.

Africa has the least modern energy consumption per capita. However, as the population grows and more people gain access to appliances, power consumption is projected to increase by 1,180TWh over the next decade. Although, increased energy and infrastructure efficiency is estimated to lower energy demand by 230 TWh, 550 TWh of power will be required for universal access to sustainable energy by 2030. The IAEA's Africa Energy Outlook (2022) predicts that energy consumption will increase by one-third between 2020 and 2030.

To meet this rising demand, African countries have approved the African Union Agenda 2063, which provides a growth path over the next five decades. This includes attaining equitable growth and sustainable development in the race to manufacture and enhance energy infrastructure. Initiatives and projects are in place across Africa to power the continent using solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, and other sources.

The question, “Is Africa ready for nuclear energy?” resonates with both the OECD and African nations. However, this should really be, “Is Africa ready to collaborate for a successful nuclear power renaissance?” The answer is yes. South Africa has a commercial nuclear power plant with two reactors in Koeberg, and other African nations are seeking to industrialize agriculture, mining, infrastructure, and other areas in a climate-friendly manner.

There is close competition between nuclear and renewable energy sources in Africa. Uganda has vast hydro resources, Ethiopia has powerful winds, Kenya has enormous geothermal power, and Morocco has widespread solar power. These renewable sources are crucial for meeting Africa's growing energy demands. However, there are still challenges in establishing a strong regional energy system. African nations follow differing energy policies. Kenya anticipates that nuclear power will provide 30% of its electricity by 2037 while constantly readjusting its plans to maximize its safety and security.

Geopolitics and the Energy Crisis in Africa

The African energy crisis is also linked to the geopolitical dynamics reshaping the global energy landscape. With climate change moving the world towards alternative energy sources, Africa has an opportunity to leverage its abundant renewable and nuclear resources.The pursuit of nuclear power could serve as a catalyst for greater regional cooperation and integration across Africa. The shared interests and technical expertise required for safe nuclear operation create incentives for collaboration on regulatory frameworks, skill development, and resource sharing. Strengthening nuclear governance and safety through continentally unified policies will build confidence and trust.

This cooperation also nurtures collective diplomatic capital. Groups like the African Commission on Nuclear Energy promote civil nuclear development as a pathway for sustainable development as opposed to proliferation. These unified positions give African nations greater leverage in non-proliferation discussions with global powers. The threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, however, still looms large in the minds of nations outside Africa. The latent risk of nuclear technology being used for military purposes or nuclear materials falling into corrupt hands raises security concerns. There is also an idea that poor states could collaborate with nations like North Korea given the right monetary and economic incentives.

This geopolitical stigma requires that African nations tread cautiously and work hard to assure the world of their commitment to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Ratifying and adhering to international safeguards, export control regimes, and nuclear safety and security protocols is crucial. Being transparent about their nuclear fuel cycle activities will help foster additional trust. While exercising their sovereign rights to pursue nuclear power for economic development, African countries must pacify the global powers that may impede access to nuclear technology, investments, and fuel supply chains if left unsatisfied by the non-proliferation commitments.

Africa also has a rich uranium resource base that could power its nuclear reactors. For a long time, Namibia has been the largest producer of Uranium in Africa with reserves of up to 470,100 Mt, enough to power a 1GW reactor for a minimum of 1,175 years. Geopolitical tensions in Western Africa have caused Uranium prices to surge, with the spot price nearly doubling to $106 per pound due to Niger's reduced uranium supply impacting France. This comes after the G7 nations pledged to reduce their reliance on civil nuclear-related goods from Russia and diversify their fuel supply sources. It is a race towards sustainable energy which could highly benefit Africa.

At its core, Africa's energy crisis is a humanitarian emergency. Over 600 million people lack reliable access to electricity, one of the biggest barriers to economic mobility and human development today. This energy poverty perpetuates cycles of agrarian minimalism, disease, poor educational outcomes, and marginalization of entire communities and nations. Overcoming this through large-scale electrification via nuclear and renewable sources is imperative for inclusive economic growth and to unlock Africa's potential. Reliable base load power from nuclear energy can catalyze new industrial capabilities, healthcare provisions, education systems, and raise standards of living.

Extroversive Nations Seeking Advanced Reactors

Nuclear newcomer nations have looked at Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology as a solution for the energy crisis due to its lower installation costs compared to traditional nuclear. Other reasons include their flexibility in rural region development, which would greatly benefit Africa as it is 51.76% rural. There has been a rise in collaborative work and events to meet the African energy demand, leading to the World Bank funding $1.3 billion for the Eastern Africa Power Pool (EAPP) and sparking a debate on whether Africa should go nuclear. Interested nations include Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Namibia, Rwanda and Ethiopia. These nations are diversely choosing their collaborative partners through Nuclear Energy Agencies or Commissions, but their goal is still one: to increase their current energy capacity.

These are the current energy generation capacities excluding nuclear:

  • Nigeria 16.38 GW
  • Ghana 5.4 GW
  • Ethiopia 5.2 GW
  • Kenya 3.3 GW
  • Zambia 3.3 GW
  • Tanzania 1.9 GW
  • Uganda 1.8 GW
  • Senegal 1.4 GW
  • Namibia 0.6 GW
  • Rwanda 0.3 GW

The HDI of these nations may not be near the OECD nations, but their electricity access rates tell a different story. In 2022, Ghana had an 88.8% electricity access rate and an 86.8% household electricity access rate. It has been highly active in the nuclear power program and has established a  commitment to explore SMRs.

However, it is also important to mention renewables. Kenya’s renewable capacity is 2.7 GW with an additional 70GW of geothermal potential. Most Kenyans desire other energy sources to fully utilize Kenya’s current grid capacity. Ethiopia has a hydropower potential of 45GW—the second most after the DRC. In Rwanda, a small nation with big ambitions, the Ministry of Infrastructure has projected that 3.8 million households must be connected to the national grid. In 2021, it consumed 1.022 GWh with 58% coming from renewable energy. Nuclear is expected to produce up to an additional 300 MW. South Africa is ready to add 2,500 MW and combat severe power cuts affecting their country. ESKOM’s Koeberg Nuclear Power station is currently going through a refurbishment program to extend its reactor lifespan to 2044/45. Unit 1 shut down but was expected to be back up and running in the summer of 2024, and Koeberg Unit 2 will be coming back online in September 2024 as scheduled.

Developing New Technologies Needs Collaboration  

In an era marked by growing energy demands and climate change, Nuclear newcomer nations stand at a crossroads. With the African population projected to double by 2050 and rapid urbanization driving increased energy consumption, the continent faces a pressing need for sustainable and reliable power sources. Amidst this backdrop, nuclear energy is a promising solution, offering a low-carbon alternative capable of meeting Africa's energy needs while fostering economic development.

Ghana’s Energy Minister and Deputy Power Director, Robert Sogbadji, has listed the foreign companies vying for the prospective nuclear power plant project for Ghana. They include France’s EDF, US-based NuScale Power and Regnum Technology Group, and China National Nuclear Corporation. Other companies vying for the project include South Korea’s Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO), its subsidiary Korea Hydro Nuclear Power Corporation, and Russia’s ROSATOM. These companies are essential for providing the funding and regulatory support necessary to develop and manage successful nuclear energy programs. To sustain this new technological outpour, African countries are developing a skilled workforce capable of managing and operating nuclear facilities while ensuring safe and secure operations.

But there is no great development without resistance. The public and key activists, like Kenyan Phyllis Omida, echo the nuclear waste mantra. They are desperate to keep nuclear out of Kenya. Some politicians are resisting the project due to the high initial cost, and engineers are unsure if they can manage innovative technologies. New companies are encouraged to offer training and resolve these concerns, so nuclear programs remain a priority. Furthermore, Africa's new energy system aims to be powered by renewable and nuclear energy.

Nuclear is also gaining popularity at business and climate conventions, such as the Conference of the Parties (COP), as a sustainable energy source for Africa and the rest of the globe. Countries in Africa require clean and inexpensive energy. However, there are significant challenges in establishing the correct partners and energy policies. Do they support energy independence but compromise with coal? Which nation or nations are best suited to collaborate with specific African states?

Bringing nuclear into the energy mix can help nations like Burkina Faso, one of the least electrified countries in the world with only 20% power access, develop and industrialize. However, political incoherence is preventing collaborations with OECD states. The future of nuclear energy in Africa is a multifaceted endeavor involving holistic approaches and technologies aimed at ensuring sustainability, accessibility, and reliability.

Advancing Nuclear for Energy Independence

Nuclear power is especially appealing to African nations because it satisfies one of the most important cornerstones of economic and national security: energy independence. For years, African nations have heavily relied on imported fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and coal to fulfill their energy requirements. This dependency has left them highly susceptible to the unpredictable nature of energy markets’ price fluctuations, which are influenced by geopolitical factors, disruptions in supply chains, corruption and other external variables.

This absence of self-sufficiency has significantly hindered Africa’s ability to progress forward. Relying on imported fuels depletes foreign exchange reserves, limiting resources for investment in vital sectors like infrastructure, healthcare, and education. Furthermore, excessive reliance on suppliers raises concerns about security as energy sources may be exploited for influence or disrupted during conflicts. Nuclear power would allow African countries to break this cycle of energy dependence.

Domestically produced nuclear power does this by providing a consistent, self-controlled supply source. This newfound autonomy unlocks significant economic benefits through lower and more stable electricity costs for industries and households. A reliable power supply enables new industrial activities, attracts investment, catalyzes job creation, and bolsters economic growth. Additionally, stable and affordable electricity is a prerequisite for improving quality of life through the electrification of homes, schools, and hospitals.

Furthermore, nuclear energy can be a pathway to self-sufficiency since African countries possess abundant uranium reserves. By developing nuclear programs and fuel cycle capabilities, nations like Niger, Namibia, and South Africa could leverage these supplies to achieve total energy independence as well as greater economic activity. Instead of exporting raw uranium, they could capture more value by enriching it to fuel level and using it in domestic reactors.

This shift could lead to the emergence of high-tech industries, the creation of employment opportunities, export revenues, and a reduction in imported energy expenses. A true 'resource blessing.' Nations could enhance their expertise in engineering, manufacturing components, and managing the fuel cycle efficiently. Technological advancements and the development of capital stemming from initiatives would enhance innovation and progress across various sectors.

Nuclear power plays a key role in helping African countries lessen reliance on imports, strengthen energy security, decrease energy expenses, and utilize their uranium resources for complete self-reliance. This enables them to move away from the "resource curse" of exporting materials. Though requiring high initial investment, the lasting advantages include energy self-sufficiency, sustainable progress, and increased economic autonomy.

Thus, Africa is working closely with nations around the world to develop nuclear reactors that will be cost-effective and flexible. Most of the discussion revolves around small modular reactors (SMRs), nuclear fuel design and production, medical isotope production, reactor safety analysis, robotics, and human resource development; many African nations question if they should be the first with a “new design,” due to the uncertainty of their safety. Additionally, these countries are considered poor nations, focused on establishing national grids as their main concern. However, a grid capacity of less than 10GW cannot serve a 1GW nuclear power plant, hence the focus on designs for smaller reactors. The lack of developed energy grids has become a major challenge in the nuclear transition.

Despite this, many countries are still assisting Africa with advanced reactors. The most notable is Russia, having made agreements with Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Nigeria, Ghana, Ethiopia, Sudan, Zambia, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, and Uganda. China, South Korea, Canada, and the USA are also willing to help.

ROSATOM is actively engaging with Africa, South Asia, and Latin America to develop Floating Power Reactors capable of being deployed across coasts and delivering nuclear energy to inaccessible areas. Of these FPRs, the RITM-200 has power capacities of 100 and 106 MW. Egypt has already started a $30 billion 1.2GW VVER at El-Dabaa and has received $25 billion from ROSATOM. Kenya signed an MoU with the USA-based Holtec Company for an SMR-160 design but may focus on developing a research reactor first.

The USA also recently announced that they will assist Ghana with SMR deployment through an MoU with NuScale. This MoU seeks to provide a NuScale Energy Exploration (E2) center and other related services at the Ghana Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC). The USA is the first country to offer training for African engineers in lieu of the IAEA’s standards for SMR deployment.

IAEA, the Watchdog

From the IAEA

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), based in Vienna, is the international agency charged with watching over activity involving nuclear energy. Their mission is "to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world’.’ As such, African nuclear newcomer nations have received great support from the IAEA through its milestone approach. However, a potential issue is whether the African nations would be held to the same standards as the OECD states, given that the requirements may be “too much” for such poor states. The IAEA is working closely with these states to map out the pathways towards potential nuclear builds, including identifying suitable locations for reactors, establishing a clear set of infrastructural rules, and eventually, guidance on bidding on and install these reactors.

These nations are also subject to the Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Reviews (INIR), which began in 2009, and many are eagerly attending training programs to help them achieve their nuclear goals.

Before the IAEA begins Phases 1, 2, and 3 of their Milestone approach to develop a country's nuclear power infrastructure, the national energy strategy must already include a nuclear power option. Uganda wants to generate 1GW by 2031, but they have another strategy to develop an additional 1GW by 2040. Ghana plans to issue a Request for Information (RFI) in 2024 to choose a partner for their nuclear power program. Rwanda began collaborating with Dual Fluid, a Canadian SMR business, in 2023, with the goal of establishing a research reactor by 2026. The Rwanda Atomic Energy Board (RAEB) has approved their feasibility study, which is scheduled for completion in August 2024. Kenya is still in Phase II of the IAEA milestone approach, having completed the INIR in 2015 and 2021. MoUs with China, South Korea, and the United States have demonstrated strong commitments to nuclear energy. Finally, Nigeria has invited the IAEA to conduct its second INIR, aiming to achieve the nuclear power strategy outlined in the National Energy Master strategy (NEMP).

Cost Concerns and Conclusion

Much of the objection to nuclear from the continent pertains to perceptions of its high costs. While the initial investment for constructing nuclear power facilities is notably high, the fact is that when the lifetime operating expenses and unique benefits of nuclear energy (high degree of reliability and operating capacity factors, long facility lifespan, stable prices, economic and educational ripple effects, negligible pollution or climate impacts and energy independence) , nuclear power emerges as one of the most cost-effective and beneficial sources of electricity generation, especially in a world that emphasizes reducing carbon emissions.

The high initial investment for nuclear plants is due to the historically massive construction process, requiring specialized talent, special equipment, robust safety protocols and systems, as well as a highly stringent regulator to conduct frequent inspections, which requirements all drive up costs. However, once a plant is operational, the fuel costs are remarkably low compared to fossil fuels. Uranium fuel is extremely energy-dense, and a single pellet can generate as much electricity as a ton of coal. This allows nuclear plants to operate with low fuel expenses over multi-decade lifetimes.

As per estimates by the IAEA, the levelized cost of introducing nuclear power systems in Africa falls within the range of $60 to $100 per megawatt-hour (MWh). Though this may appear steep, it stands on par with generation costs from fuels in African nations when factoring in greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution repercussions, and forthcoming policies on carbon pricing designed to curb emissions. Even now, the average LCOE for coal power in South Africa was about $75/MWh as of 2020 and is expected to continue rising with tighter environmental regulations. Meanwhile, nuclear costs would remain steady over 60–80-year reactor lifetimes. These economics increasingly favor nuclear over time.

Moreover, nuclear power offers a key advantage of price stability that fossil fuels lack. Once the initial capital is paid, operating costs are predictable due to low and stable fuel costs. In contrast, coal and gas plants are exposed to volatile global fuel markets with a history of major price shocks. When this price volatility gets factored into these Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) analyses, nuclear power's price advantage becomes even more compelling. Adding in both the benefits of energy security and nuclear low-carbon generation in a carbon-constrained future in which emissions result in economic penalties, the zero-emission profile of nuclear energy further improves its competitive strength.

Finally, it is apparent that deploying Gen IV reactors that are smaller, modular and which can be shipped to locations for more rapid assembly, could further reduce capital costs through economies of scale from factory manufacturing and reduced financing costs. For these, financing vehicles like public-private partnerships and energy banks can also help Africa access capital for major nuclear builds at levels far less than what has long been required for traditional nuclear builds.

So, while the price seems high initially, the total lifetime costs, price stability benefits, lack of emissions, and long-term economic payoffs make nuclear a compelling investment for African nations serious about energy security and sustainable development. With proper financing, nuclear power can be an affordable source of energy independence. Smaller designs with a shorter lifespan are cheaper to install, making them affordable for all.

In conclusion, Nuclear energy, while still posing significant challenges, remains a credible path for rapidly scaling Africa's electrification and catalyzing economic transformation, if the geopolitical tensions can be successfully navigated. With transparent governance and innovative international partnerships, nuclear power can be a blessing for human development across the continent and enable Africa to bring electricity and economic development to all people, while avoiding the detriments posed by increased reliance on fossil fuels.

* * *

Collins Wafula is a young graduate of Maseno University's School of Environment and Earth Sciences, where he studied Geography and Natural Resources Management along with Information Technology. With a passion for addressing energy and climate issues through nuclear power, he successfully leverage technologies (like LinkedIn) to connect with others, including the WePlanet team, a global grassroots movement  campaigning for radical science-backed solutions to the climate and nature emergency, and Nucleation Capital, all while remaining in his home village of Bungoma, Kenya. Collins represents the best of technology-empowered youth connecting globally to solve local problems. He is on the forefront of Kenyans working to leverage next-generation nuclear power to improve access to sustainable and clean energy for his country and other Africans.

[Note: Editing support for this article provided by Darius Tirgan, Nucleation Capital's 2024 Summer Associate.]

References:

  1. Energy Commission Ghana (ECG) (2023). National Energy Statistics Bulletin. https://www.energycom.gov.gh/newsite/index.php/media-center/latest-news/239-national-energy-statistical-bulletin-2023
  2. Orikpete, Ochuko & Egieya, Jafaru & Ewim, Daniel. (2023). Nuclear fission technology in Africa: Assessing challenges and opportunities for future development. Nuclear Engineering and Design. 413. 112568. 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2023.112568.
  3. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2020). Projected Costs of Generating Electricity: 2020 Edition. https://www.iaea.org/publications/14388/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020-edition
  4. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2022). Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2022. https://www.iaea.org/publications/14865/climate-change-and-nuclear-power-2022
  5. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2015). Milestones in the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power. No. NG-G-3.1(Rev.1), pg 5-10
  6. Jewell, J. (2011). Ready for nuclear energy? An assessment of capacities and motivations for launching new national nuclear power programs. Energy Policy, 39(3), 1041-1055.
  7. Adam, S. A., Othman, F., Misron, N., & Musa, M. N. (2017). Nuclear energy prospects in Africa: A review. Energy Reports, 3, 236-243.
  8. Whitfield, S. C., Rosa, E. A., Dan, A., & Dietz, T. (2009). The future of nuclear power: Value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 29(3), 425-437.
  9. Sovacool, B. K., & Valentine, S. V. (2012). The myths of nuclear energy: Analyzing and debunking oft-repeated claims about nuclear power. Energy Research & Social Science, 3, 24-30
  10. IEA (2022). Africa Energy Outlook 2022. Special Report. International Energy Agency (IEA)
  11. Advancement in African Nuclear Energy: A Comprehensive Overview of 2024 Developments: 2024. https://www.nuclearbusiness-platform.com/media/insights/advancements-in-african-nuclear-energy-a-comprehensive-overview-of-2024-devekopments Accessed:2024-01-31
  12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.10.041
  13. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/others/emerging-nuclear-energy-countries#:~:text=About%2030%20countries%20are%20considering,their%20first%20nuclear%20power%20plants
  14. https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/august-november-2018/africa-ready-nuclear-energy#:~:text=Power%20to%20the%20people&text=Kenya%20is%20considering%20nuclear%20to,for%20the%20country%20by%202030.
  15. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meeting-africas-growing-energy-needs-in-a-sustainable-affordable-and-efficient-way
  16. https://www.dw.com/en/why-africa-relies-on-nuclear-energy-rather-than-solar-energy/a-67152544
  17. https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/nuclear-energy-factsheet#:~:text=Powering%20a%20one%2Dgigawatt%20nuclear,%25%20is%20high%2Dlevel%20waste.
  18. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/others/uranium-in-africa

April 2, 2024

Twelve’s Transformational Mission: Obsoleting Fossil Fuels

Nucleation announces its investment in Twelve's Series C through its Fund I.

Twelve's tagline, "a world made from air," seems quite incredible at face value.  The average person may not realize that gaseous components of air, like CO2 and H2O molecules, contain the ingredients required for hydrocarbons, namely carbon and hydrogen. Twelve, however, has managed to develop some special technology that finally makes it possible to take CO2 and H2O, run them through an efficient electrolysis process, and get CO and H, which can be blended to create synthetic hydrocarbons that are exact substitutes for kerosene and naptha, which until now, have been produced from oil that has been extracted from the ground.

We all know that burning oil, coal or gas and releasing CO2 emissions is what is causing our atmosphere to warm. With every gallon of gasoline burned, we're releasing 2.7 times that volumetric amount in pollution, most of which converts to gas that is invisible to the eye but which traps solar radiation and warms up in the atmosphere.

Twelve's technology, however, utilizes CO2 that is "captured" rather than released into the atmosphere, and it blends that with hydrogen extracted from water using an electrochemical process powered by clean energy, to create a carbon-neutral high-octane fuel that is chemical identical to kerosene, also called Jet A.  Twelve's sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), which it calls E-Jet, can be substituted as a way to enable the aviation industry to achieve carbon-neutrality between now and 2050.

The key for Twelve, which uses a "power-to-liquid" pathway to create its carbon-neutral E-Jet, is to be able to power this production without releasing more carbon dioxide in the process. To do so, Twelve needs to have access to abundant, always-on, affordable and clean energy. Which explains why Twelve opted to build its first production plant not in California, where the power mix is primarily natural gas, but in Washington State, where Twelve can get access to hydropower. 

With that source of energy, Twelve's fuel, once deliveries begin later this year, can help reduce aviation emissions by as much as 90%. In the future, Twelve's growing E-Jet production business will benefit from being able to cost-reduce by being sited near sources of supply for its E-Jet, captured CO2 and airports where its customers refuel. We suspect that, in the future, being able to site a small advanced nuclear power plant near where Twelve's factories want to be, could give them yet another competitive advantage.

Meanwhile, the airline industry's projected demand for SAF far exceeds all known production from all sources, so in the short term, Twelve is able to sell its E-Jet fuel at a premium, while also qualifying for a myriad of local, state and federal incentives aimed at helping businesses like Twelve scale up production capabilities in combination with non-dilutive grants and sales of Scope 3 carbon credits.

Twelve's current Series C financing is providing it with the capital it needs to finish manufacturing its initial stock of reactors and complete the construction of its first commercial-scale fuel production plant in Washington State, where Twelve has a firm contract for hydropower sufficient to meet its production needs for now. Twelve is on track to begin this production and begin delivering initial quantities of E-Jet to Alaska Airlines for use on its flights later this year.

Nucleation is thrilled to have co-invested in Twelve's Series C round together with DCVC, Capricorn (Jeff Skoll), TPG (private equity), Pulse Fund and join many other investors, which include Microsoft, Shopify, Alaska Airlines and the US Air Force. In 2023, Twelve was name one of the Climate Tech Companies to Watch by the MIT Technology Review and was featured in this Bloomberg Green article, Microsoft-Backed Clean Jet Fuel Startup Fires Up New CO2 Converter, a Bloomberg Originals Episode: Dusk or Dawn and other press.

In addition to SAFs, Twelve's reactors can produce a range of carbon-neutral synthetic hydrocarbons, especially e-naphtha, that can be sold into other markets as clean ingredients to enable consumer product companies to make a wide array of carbon-neutral manufactured plastics items, reducing their carbon footprint by over 90%. Twelve has already successfully tested their use through partnerships with Mercedes-Benz (for use in car parts), Procter and Gamble (ingredients for Tide) and Pangaia (for the world's first CO2-made sunglass lenses, in a production run that sold out in under two hours).

Soon after we invested, Twelve was in London to jointly announce a 10+ year, 1 billion liter off-take agreement with the International Airlines Group (IAG), the world's largest publicly traded airline group, which was immediately recognized as the "SAF deal of the year." Twelve's deliveries under that contract will help decarbonize five European airlines, which include British Airways, Iberia and Aer Lingus, potentially as soon as 2025. This delivery contract is a testament both to the level of demand and to customer confidence in Twelve and its final product. It also signals that funding development of future decarbonization technologies can fundamentally transform our energy future and begin to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

[Note: Investor access to Twelve is currently available through Nucleation's syndicate SPV. If you join our syndicate, we will forward the deal details to you.]

April 26, 2022

Nucleation Capital’s Earth Day in Atherton

Nuclear energy has been making more frequent appearances at Earth Day events around the country. Groups like Generation Atomic, Mothers for Nuclear, Climate Coalition and Young Generation in Nuclear have been actively attending Earth Day events for a number of years.

On Saturday, April 23, Nucleation Capital participated in the Earth Day celebration hosted by the Town of Atherton, CA. The event, held in Holbrook-Palmer Park, attracted an estimated 600-800 community members in addition to some 150-200 people manning the 32 exhibitor booths, an electric vehicle and an e-Bike showcase, a special Kid “Bug” Zone, an art exhibit and a whole speaker series, which had experts from Stanford University, SFO and elected officials presenting.

In past years, Atherton has educated its commuity about the critical role of nuclear power in providing clean energy with Earth Day screenings of films like Pandora’s Promise and The New Fire. This year, the town actively sought out someone to talk about nuclear and invited Nucleation Capital to participate. Dozens of attendees stopped by the nuclear energy booth hosted by Nucleation Capital and chatted with one or more of the seven folks recruited to help man the booth. Some of them were probably attracted by this Nucleation advisor’s early vintage, midnight blue Tesla Roadster, with its attention-getting license plate.

Aside: Readers, especially younger ones, might not recognize the allusion implied in the license plate spelling. I’ll let commenters provide their guesses for reasons why someone might choose the word “Nukuler” for their prestige plate. End Aside

In the heart of Silicon Valley, the reception of attendees towards nuclear was refreshingly positive. Of everyone who engaged in conversation, only three people expressed serious doubts about nuclear energy. The rest were open to hearing about the need for nuclear and advances in the technology that make nuclear suitable for 21st century clean grids.

Our tabling team consisted of Nucleation Capital members, Valerie Gardner and Jonathan Tiemann, an expert advisor, Ross Koningstein, several local fund investors and Liz Muller, the CEO of Deep Isolation, Nucleation’s current syndicate offering and a Q1 fund investment. We really enjoyed the opportunity to talk with people about the roles that nuclear energy can play in the effort to transition more smoothly from hydrocarbons to clean energy sources. And, best of all, when people asked “what about the waste?” the answer was, “Talk to Liz!” Liz’s Deep Isolation team is developing the world’s first commercial solution to deep, geologic nuclear waste storage and we showcased The Deep Isolation Story video inside our booth.

It was very exciting to have one of the world’s leading experts with us and available to discuss the prospects of solving the nuclear waste “problem” with an inexpensive and permanent solution that is embraced by nuclear communities. We also addressed the speed by which the next generation of smaller, more modular plants could be built through pre-fabrication and mass production and how they could provide both electricity and high-temperature heat for industrial processes, so as to decarbonize industrial sectors that need heat not produced by renewables. People recognized that these are critical areas to address.

It almost goes without saying, but we also talked about the opportunities for investing in advanced nuclear energy ventures. Silicon Valley is ground zero for people receptive to providing risk capital for emerging technologies. We made the case that advanced nuclear ventures have a role to play and that private equity investment is an important ingredient for the successful development and deployment of advanced nuclear systems that will eventually supplant what are now record levels of fossil fuels being burned.

A significant portion of Atherton residents have the resources to help this important technology soar and most did not realize that there are now a few ways that investors can access these exciting areas of nuclear innovation through Nucleation’s offerings.

Of course, it being California, Saving the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant was also a subject of discussion during the day. We are deeply committed to doing whatever we can to help keep that valuable clean electricity generator operating for a full lifetime of 60-80 or more years. In addition to taking the opportunity to talk about the importance of extending the plant’s operating life beyond the currently planned closure, we collected dozens of signatures for the Climate Coalition’s letter to Governor Newsom to save the plant.

Earth Day in Atherton proved to be a fun and effective way for us to talk about the role of nuclear energy as a climate solution and broaden public awareness that it is a happening technology sector that is actively developing a broad array of innovative future solutions.

If you participated in an Earth Day event and took the opportunity to talk about nuclear energy, please share your story.

August 16, 2015

1000 Medical professionals urge fossil fuel divestment

From The Guardian, ‘Do no harm’: Medical professionals urge Wellcome Trust to end fossil fuel investments, we get the text of a letter from about 1,000 medical professionals regarding their demand that the Wellcome Trust and Gates Foundation divest their fossil fuel holdings. While there is nothing wrong about their reasons for urging divestment, it is foolish to think that our society can give up fossil fuels without replacing that energy with something else—presumably a better type of energy. When we investigated what could conceivably supplant our use of fossil fuels, the only solution we could find was nuclear power. These professionals make a good case for divestment but they don't think hard enough about where all that energy will come from if fossil fuel production ends. Still, it is worth it to reproduce this letter (many years later) for posterity.

Dear members of the Wellcome Trust executive board,

We write as concerned health professionals and academics in relation to the Guardian’s Keep it in the ground campaign calling on the Wellcome Trust and Gates Foundation to divest from the world’s 200 largest fossil fuel companies over the next five years.

The Wellcome Trust is an outstanding philanthropic institution whose work has a profound impact on the health and wellbeing of millions worldwide. We congratulate the Trust on its leadership in promoting and funding research into the impacts of climate change, and hope that this work will continue to grow in line with the urgent threat to human health and survival. However, we were disappointed to learn of the Trust’s decision to continue to invest in fossil fuel companies.

It is uncontested that the majority of carbon reserves listed on stock exchanges must remain underground if we are to avoid exceeding a 2C rise in global mean temperature and the catastrophic health impacts this would have. Our current business-as-usual trajectory commits us to over 2C warming – a point scientists have described as the threshold between “dangerous”and “extremely dangerous” – within decades.

As the Trust acknowledges, avoiding this scenario demands an urgent transition towards clean energy. Its view, as set forth by Professor Jeremy Farrar, is that engagement with fossil fuel companies’ boards is a more effective way to support such a transition than divestment. However, there is little or no evidence to suggest that this approach holds a realistic prospect of reducing global fossil fuel production sufficiently in the limited time available.

We believe a complete transformation of the energy sector is needed, driven by strong climate policies, and that divestment has greater potential to bring this about. The ethical and financial case for fossil fuel divestment is well founded and has been supported by the president of the World Bank and the director-general of the World Health Organisation (WHO), both public health physicians. Through the political change it has helped catalyse, the same strategy played a vital role in the movements against apartheid and tobacco. As such, we welcome the statement that the Trust would consider this step if engagement proves ineffective.

Our primary concern is that a decision not to divest will continue to bolster the social licence of an industry that has indicated no intention of taking meaningful action. Indeed, many of these companies continue to use their considerable influence to delay political action, as tobacco companies have done previously. Shell’s lobbying against binding EU renewables targets and its decision to drill for Arctic oil, which cannot safely be burned, give additional cause for alarm. Further, having a financial interest in the extraction of “unburnable” reserves may restrict organisations’ capacity to advocate effectively for the policy framework that is needed.

Lastly, divestment rests on the premise that it is wrong to profit from an industry whose core business threatens human and planetary health, bringing to mind one of the foundations of medical ethics – first, do no harm. We believe that, in aligning organisations’ investments with their aims and values, it goes beyond a “grand gesture”. The question is not only one of direct, short-term impacts, but of leadership. Health organisations such as the Wellcome Trust have considerable moral and scientific authority, and a decision to divest has the potential to influence policy-makers, other investors and the public, in the UK and internationally.

We thank the Trust for its openness to dialogue and its commitment to transparency, and request that you make public what, specifically, the Trust aims to achieve through shareholder engagement, and by when. We would particularly like to know at what point Trust will divest should these aims not be met, whether on a company-by-company or sector-wide basis.

Yours sincerely,
The undersigned

A

A
Prof Sheila Adam, retired director of public health
Neill Adhikari, critical care medical practitioner
Dr Jonathan Adler, doctor
Dr Ashish Agara, consultant ophthalmologist and chair of indigenous committee of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists
Sue Akehurst, counsellor
Dr Heba Al-Naseri, GP
Dr Roger Albin, professor of neurology
Dr Susan Albow, emergency medicine physician:  As a physician, I feel it is the medical professionals responsibility to be the voice that represents health; a healthy Earth means healthy people existing in harmony with the natural environment.
Prof Priscilla Alderson, professor emerita of childhood studies and sociology researcher, recipient of Wellcome Trust funding on bioethics: I research the sociology of childhood and how the youngest generations are most direly affected by current political, economic and ecological policies. Climate change specifically affects the youngest generations.
Dr Sarah Alhulail, medical doctor
Dr Sujata Allan, GP registrar and paediatrician
Iñigo Romon Alonso, hematologist
Khaldoon AlSaee, consultant psychiatrist and senior pain registrar
Dr Malcolm Altson, family medicine practitioner
Peter Amlot, medical oncologist and immunologist
Roger Amos, retired consultant haematologist
Sharyn Amos, nurse
Jon Anderholm, counselor and teacher
Dr Josephine Anderson, psychiatrist
Dr Sarah Anderson, health protection consultant
Judith Anderson, psychotherapist
Adriana Voss-Andreae, medical doctor
Rachel Andrew, physiotherapist
Carl Antonson, medical doctor
Keith Antonysen, retired social worker for young people with mental health difficulties
Reza Antoszewska, nurse
Dr Elizabeth Archer, retired GP
Salome Argyropoulos, community health worker
Carroll Arkema, psychotherapist
Frank Arnold, doctor
Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, professor emeritus, St George’s University of London
Api Ascaso, occupational therapist
Dr Sue Atkinson, co-chair, Climate and Health Council
Rhonda Attwood, clinical psychologist
Harriet Aughey, paediatric doctor
Dr Trevor Aughey, GP
Katherine Aynilian, nurse

B

Peter Bailey, GP
Rachel Bailey, retired community paediatrician
Celia Baker, dentist
Dr Hannah Bakewell, GP registrar
Dr Natalia Bakunina, medical doctor
Judith Baldacchino, psychologist
Crispin Balfour, psychotherapist
Jacquelyn Ballance, nurse
Dr Richard Banks, retired consultant physician
Paula Baranski, nurse
Joanna Santa Barbara, retired child psychiatrist
Dr Simon Barclay, GP
Jennifer Barker, doctor
Ronald A. Barker, optometrist
Dr Maggie Barker, public health doctor and Wellcome Trust Fellow
Lynn Barnett, retired consultant child and adult psychotherapist
Katherine Barraclough, nephrologist
Dr Robin Barraclough, GP: I am a rural GP who looks after the health of people on a tiny strip of coast to the west of the Southern Alps of new Zealand. The area is beautiful and remote. Climate change is denuding the local glaciers and threatening people livelihoods.
Prof Vincent Barras, professor
Kate Barrows, psychoanalyst
Dr Amy Baxter, post-doctoral researcher in HIV
Anne C Bayley, retired general surgeon, active Anglican priest and former professor of surgery, University of Zambia
Sarah Beardon, research assistant, patient experience research centre, Imperial College London
Dr Gale Bearman, GP
Katherine Beaven, eurythmy therapist
Elaine Becker, patient advocate: I developed asthma while living in a smoggy area, so I understand just how much dirty air is costing in lost productivity and increased healthcare demands.
Jane Beenstock, public health consultant
Bruce Bekkar, obestrics and gyneacology physician
Alex Bell, retired psychiatrist
Rosemary Bell, counsellor and psychotherapist
David Bell, consultant psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. Former president of the British Psychoanalytic Society: The implications for health are both obvious and devastating.
Warren Bell, family physician:  My province in Canada, British Columbia, is experiencing an extreme weather event (high temperatures, low precipitation) and is peppered with small and large forest fires.
Ray Bellamy, orthopedic surgery
Peter Bentzer, associate professor. medical doctor, anesthesia and intensive care
Rakel Berg, retired pediatrician
Jonas Berglund, medical doctor, nephrologist
Gus Bergonzoli, epidemiologist
Dr Jeanette Berman, psychology practitioner
Jean Berolzheimer, speech-language pathologist
Tazeem Bhatia
Chris Bird, biomedical scientist: I worked in the NHS for 30 years to improve people's lives. Climate change will negate my life's work.
David Birks, surgeon and senior lecturer
Dr Christopher A Birt, public health consultant
Mary Coll-Black, obstetrics and gynecology doctor
Prof Nick Black, professor of health services research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Ian Blackstone, retired orthopedic surgeon: I have seen a steady rise in respiratory complications in the industrial town where I practiced.
Alison Blaiklock, public health physician
Dr Andrew Blewett, consultant psychiatrist
Dr Nicolas Blondel, doctor
Andrew Blood, nurse
Johanna Blows, retired psychologist
John Blyth, emergency medicine practitioner
Sir Ian Gilmore Board, professor and member of the Climate and Health Council
Shannon Boldon, global health and development practitioner
Connie Boles, social worker
Brian Booth, former NHS governor
Aleta Borrud, retired physician
Diane Bos, psychologist
Gary Bota, doctor, emergency medicine
Dr Frank Boulton, retired medical practitoner
Sarah Bowen, podiatrist
Dr Peter Bowes, psychotherapist in trauma work
Chris Covert-Bowlds, family physician
Dr Juliet Boyd, retired consultant anaesthetist
Geoffrey Bradshaw, psychiatrist
Vana O'Brien, licensed clinical social worker
Dr Diana Brighouse, retired consultant in anaesthetics and chronic pain
Sadie Britton, shared lives host for young adults with learning difficulties
Stewart Brock, research fellow, department for health
Yosef Brody, clinical psychologist
Dr Catherine Brogan, chair, Public Health Action Support Team
Adrian Brooks, psychology lecturer
Peter Brown, retired surgeon
Dr Barbara Anne Brown, retired GP: I respect the Wellcome Trust and feel they should be trailblazers for ethical investment.
Katrina brown
Hamish Brown, surgeon
Jo Browne, therapist
Professor Richard Bruckdorfer, professor emeritus in biochemistry
Dr Ludwig Brügmann, doctor in gastroenterology
Therese Brummel, nurse
Dr Nigel Bubb, dentist
Don Buckley, retired pharmacist
Aoife Bulman, student in global health
Fedor Bunge, family health nurse and health visitor
Dr Judith Burchardt, GP
Susie Burke, psychologist
Nathan Burns, acupuncturist
Dr Chris Burns-Cox, internal medicine physician
John P Bursell, medical doctor, physical medicine and rehabilitation
Mark H Burton, retired health and social care manager and clinical psychologist
Kate Buser, acupuncturist
Andrew Buttery, healthcare simulator and educator

C

Dr Philippe Calain, senior researcher
William Cameron, internal medicine physician
Colin Campey, GP:  The need to keep it in the ground is so bleeding obvious that those who are against keeping it in the ground are putting short term financial interests ahead of human welfare, not to mention the welfare of all other life on Earth
Dr Daniel Campion, medical doctor
Dr Edward Cantrell, senior lecturer in rehabilitation and rheumatology
Melanie Cantua, healthcare consultant
Nicolás Carballeira, retired public health professional and clinical instructor
Damian Carey, doctor of chinese medicine
John Carlin, biostatistician and epidemiologist
Andrew Carr, professor of medicine in clinical immunology
George Carter, director, Foundation for Integrative AIDS Research (FIAR)
Marilia Sa Carvalho, physician and senior medical researcher
Amy Mulick Cassidy, research fellow, medical statistics
Dr Bill Castleden, retired professor of surgery and vascular surgeon
Anne Chafee, nurse
Ellie Challans, nutritional therapist
Sir Iain Chalmers, medical practitioner, James Lind Initiative
Edward Chandy, oncology doctor
Dr Lucia Chaplin, junior doctor
Siobhan Chapman, occupational therapist
Dr Kate Charlesworth, public health physician: If we don't act on climate change, there isn't much point in doing anything else. The really frightening health impacts will be: morbidity and deaths from extreme weather events, food and water insecurity, conflict over scarce resources, and mass migration.
Mike Cherrington, mental health social worker
Prof Colin Chesterman, medicine, haematology, physician
Dr Rose Chesworth, medical researcher
Prof Imti Choonara, emeritus professor in child health
Dr Kit Oi Chung, GP
Cristina Cilla, anaesthetist
Colleen J Clark, retired public health research scientist
Robyn Cleaves, nurse
Tim Clench, clinical scientist
Margot Clerc, nurse
Ruth Clifford, psychologist
Judi Clinton, body therapist, Rolf Insitute
Dr Fiona Cochrane, medical practitioner

D

Joanne Dahill, massage and bodywork therapist
K Danowski, biochemist
Beth Darlington, psychoanalyst
John Davenport, dental practitioner
Robert Davidson, mental health nurse and clinic advisor
Anne Davidson, clinical psychologist
Elisabeth Davidson, GP
Ms Glenys Davies, physiotherapist
Justine Davies, doctor and editor-in-chief
Prof Alan Maryon-Davis, public health doctor and honorary professor of public health, KCL
Hilda Daw, retired mental health social worker
Dr Elizabeth Day, senior lecturer in counselling and psychotherapy
James Day, neuromechanics PhD student
Dr Adrian Degeratu, retired dental surgeon
Anna Maria Delios, neurologist
Laura Derks, community health worker
Constance DeRooy, nurse
Kathy Dervin, climate and health specialist, California Department of Public Health
Amy DeSantis, public health researcher
Selena Despres, pharmaceutical technician
Dr Niels Detert, clinical neuropsychologist
Dr James Deutsch, physician
Dr Laura Devlin, GP
Reshma Dhrodia, social worker
Anja Dickel, clinical pharmacist
Karen Dike, retired nurse: I already see changes here in Colorado, including a devastating flood 18 months ago. Colorado has high ozone levels and air pollution from fracking has been measured at levels known to cause health issues.
George Dionyssopoulos, psychotherapist
Dr and Mrs Vernon Dixon, psychiatrist
James Dixon, sustainable healthcare practictioner
Dr Larry Dobson, family physician, retired
Joanne Dollard, researcher
Dr Jenny Donnison, clinical psychologist
Mark Dooris, professor in health and sustainability
Mitchell Dormont, psychotherapist
Dr Nicola Dowling, GP
Tom Drake, health economist working on malaria
Chantal Dransart, pediatric nurse
Dr Peter Draper, public health consultant
Diane Driver, retired academic at the Resource Center on Aging at the University of California
Roselyn Druce, naturopath
Barbara Le Duc, nurse practitioner in cardiology
Connie Duchene, nurse
Joan Dugdale, medical herbalist
Dr Graeme Duncan, oncologist

E

Paul Eaton, orthopaedic surgeon
Dr Sue Edgley, medical doctor
Susan Beaney-Edwards, psychotherapist
Viv Edwards, anaesthetist
Kaye Edwards, director of health studies
Maggie Eisner, retired GP
Vienna Eleuteri, medical anthropologist
Patricia Elliott, occupational health physician
Judith Emanuel, retired public health practictioner
Jacqueline Emery, nurse and lecturer in health and social care:  Redirect the money to renewables, ideally community based ones; solar power could revolutionise the lives of people in the developing world.
Markus Enderle, health officer
Paul English, environmental epidemiologist
Dr Jane Roderic-Evans, retired GP
Melissa Everett, GP registrar
Dr Garth Everson, retired medical ethics researcher
Rose Evison, psychologist

F

Dr Ian Fairlie, radioactivity consultant
Dr Emily Farrow, GP
Kavi fatania, doctor
Dr Sophie Febery, trainee GP
Prof Gene Feder, professor of primary health care, University of Bristol
Martin Claude Felt, natural medicine specialist
Dr Jacqueline Ferguson, retired psychiatrist and psychotherapist
Jan Ferguson, occupational therapist
Dr Claire Ferraro, core medical trainee
Suzannah Ferron, marriage and family therapist
Michael Fisher, hearing researcher
Lana Fishkin, psychiatry
Daniel Flecknoe, speciality registrar in public health
Edward Fletcher, GP
Dr Rebecca Flower, anaesthetic registrar
Dr Jonathan Fluxman, GP
Joan Fogel, psychotherapist
Nicole Forbes, nurse
Dr Lindsay Forbes, visiting senior lecturer, division of cancer studies, King’s College London (KCL)
Abi Foreshew, cancer research practitioner
Dr Sallie Forrest, public health doctor
Sally Forsstrom, mental health nurse:  I visit a number of declared mental health facilities in rural and remote New South Wales in Australia and witness first hand the impact of the environment on the mental health of citizens. I live in a region where water is precious and fossil fuel mining puts this resource at risk.
Margaretha Fortmann, nurse
Dr Maria Foulds, trainee GP
Dr Jürg Frank, retired internist
Michaela Franzén Malmros
Dr Alec Fraser, health policy and management
John Frevert, counselor
Merlin Friesen, emergency medicine practitioner
Harald Fuchs, psychotherapist
Marilyn Fuller, nurse and social worker

G

Dr Stuart Galey, occupational physician
Jennifer Gamble, midwife
David Gangsei, clinical psychologist in trauma recovery
Alejandro Molina-Garcia, medical doctor in environmental and public health
Dr Katy Gardner, GP
Dr Bill Genat, health sociologist
Dr Mike Gent, public Health Doctor
William Andrew Gibbens, hospice spiritual care counselor: I see people every day suffering from respiratory and cardiac diseases, along with various kinds of cancers and other ailments. Through industrial activity, we are creating a situation for the body of the Earth that can easily be likened to these bodies overcome with disease and cancer.
Frederic A Gibbs, radiation oncologist
Rebecca Gibbs, nurse
Jennifer Gibson, retired missionary doctor
Arnold Gillespie, medical practitioner
Professor Anna Gilmore, professor of public health, University of Bath
Robert B Gilsdorf, surgeon, clinical professor in nutritional support,
Dr Mary Giltinane, medical doctor
Dr Jean Gladwin, consultant in public health
Cheryl Glancy, student nurse
Lezli Godfrey, nurse
Dr Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief, The British Medical Journal: This letter reflects the powerful new consensus among health professionals in the UK and beyond. We are deeply concerned about the threat of climate change to human health and survival. A decision by Wellcome to divest from fossil fuels and reinvest in alternative energy would be hugely important both symbolically and practically ... I am hugely encouraged by the strong voice now coming through from senior figures within healthcare globally calling for action to tackle climate change. Personally, of all the work I am involved in to improve health and healthcare through the BMJ, I consider this the most important.
Toby Gold, nurse
Dr Ursula von Goldacker, medical doctor, psychoanalyst
Prof Mark Goldberg, occupational and environment epidemiologist:  It is high time that the people running grant organisations actually appreciate what the real world is about. We hear lots of preaching by these bureaucrats on knowledge translation – perhaps they should consider taking their own advice.
Silvia Oclander Goldie, child psychotherapist and psychoanalytic psychotherapist
Brydon Gombay, community psychologist
Dr Chris Good, GP
Benny Goodman, lecturer in health studies (adult), Plymouth University
Meic Goodyear, retired public health intelligence specialist
Gordon Gosse, physician
Anita Gould, psychotherapist
Leonor Gouldthorpe, mental health clinician
Peter W. de Graaf, retired surgeon
Robert Grant, senior lecturer in health and social care statistics, UCL
Matthew Gray, clinical scientist
Florencia La Greca, scientific researcher in immunology
Hal Greenham, body-centred psychotherapist
Jeremy Greenwood, family psychotherapist:  There are days in London when the pollution is so bad that's it impossible to exercise in any form outside. For people with asthmatic problems it's obviously even worse.
Peter Grey, psychiatrist
Melinda Griffiths, GP
Alistair Griggs, social worker and manager
Carlos Grijalva-Eternod, nutritionist and trustee, MedAct
Kathy Grimaldi, nutritionist
Susanne Groenendaal, psychotherapist
Douglas Gross, musculoskeletal physiotherapist
Dr Rupert Gude, medical doctor
Angel Guevara, physician
John Guillebaud, family planning and reproductive health practitioner
Andy Guise, research fellow
Ann-Sofie Gumaelius, GP
Dr Ashray Gunjur, basic physician trainee
Tracy Gunston, nurse
Dr Cornelia Gutjahr, child and adolescent psychiatrist
Nicolas Guyon, PhD neuroscience student

Please continue reading the names of letter signatories at The Guardian.

© 2025 Nucleation Capital | Terms & Policies

Nucleation-Logo