September 8, 2023

World is on track to miss climate targets


UN warns that the world will miss climate targets unless fossil fuels are phased out, according to an article in The Guardian by Environmental Editor, Fiona Harvey. This is a remarkable declaration by the UN, which has not previously called for the phase of fossil fuels so explicitly.  Unfortunately, the UN's draft with this important language now appears to have been removed.

There is so much money being made by fossil fuel exporting countries, that in nearly all prior rounds of climate talks and negotiations, discussion of the need to phase out fossil fuels resulted in unresolved controversy.  Yet, because we have failed to curtail carbon emissions, and In fact, they are still rising, the UN declared this "a critical moment" with a "rapidly narrowing window" for governments to reduce their emisisons. The language came out in the UN's report which was published in draft form on September 8th. 

Governments are failing to cut greenhouse gas emissions fast enough to meet the goals of the Paris agreement and to stave off climate disaster. Meeting the goals will require "phasing out all unabated fossil fuels," according to the draft report entited "Sythesis Report of the Technical Dialogue of the First Global Stocktake."  The UN published this draft, despite recognizing that that some oil-producing countries may find that statement hard to take. Meanwhile, the draft now appears to have been embargoed and removed from the UN's website, which is very much the way things have been going all along. We know what we need to do but those profiting from fossil fuels continue to have the power to block progress in phasing down use of those fossil fuels.

Read The Guardian's 'A critical moment’: UN warns world will miss climate targets unless fossil fuels phased out, by Fiona Harvey, Environmental Editor, published September 8, 2023.

August 14, 2023

Montana Judge rules in favor of having a livable future


Montana Judge Kathy Seely invalidated as unconstitutional the so-called “limitation” to the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which was amended by the legislature this year, in House Bill 971 as well as Senate Bill 557, which prohited the state from considering greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts when deciding whether to approve permits for energy and mining projects. 

In doing so, she upheld the claim of 16 youth plaintiffs who sued the state demanding that the state of Montana protect their rights to a clean and healthy environment and the state's natural resources from unreasonable depletion. In Held V. Montana, the plaintiffs demanded that the state Constitution be respected, in asserting that Montanans have a right to a clean and healthful environment and that each Montanan "shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations."

“By prohibiting consideration of climate change, (green house gas) emissions, and how additional GHG emissions will contribute to climate change or be consistent with the Montana Constitution, the MEPA Limitation violates Plaintiffs’ right to a clean and healthful environment and is facially unconstitutional,” Seeley wrote in her order.

According to Blair Miller, who published Judge sides with youth in Montana climate change trial, finds two laws unconstitutional, in the Nevada Current on August 14, 2023, the Held vs. Montana case was the first case challenging state and national climate and energy policies to make it to trial in the U.S., and is now the first in which the plaintiffs, 16 Montana youth now ages 5 to 22, were victorious.

This ruling was welcomed by the climate community and is expected to be a harbinger of things to come. Of course, not every state constitution provides a right to a healthy environment but the eggregiously pro-fossil fuel legislation that was passed by the Republican supermajority-held legislature was brashly unconstitutional in Montana. So, at the moment, there is at least one state that believes that children deserve a healthful future that cannot be simply denied because an industry wants to make more money. 

For a blast of good climate news, see the Nevada Current's: Judge sides with youth in Montana climate change trial, finds two laws unconstitutional, by Blair Miller published August 14, 2023.

July 25, 2023

A New Oppenheimer Moment

We've had a resurgence of interest in and conversation about nuclear energy since the release at the end of April of Oliver Stone's exceptional documentary, Nuclear Now. But Stone's historic film, much like Robert Stone's Pandora's Promise and Dave Schumacher's The New Fire, before it, suffers from the endemic unpopularity of documentaries. People don't flock to theaters to see them. Which made (what was called) "Barbenheimer,"  the culturally clashing concurrence of opening nights for Greta Gerwig's very pink Barbie movie and Christopher Nolan's explosive Oppenheimer so different. Theaters were packed. People went to see them as double-features. The press had a field day for a week and both films exceeded box-office expectations, providing welcome relief for movie theaters everywhere.

The public is, as a result, reacquainted with J. Robert Oppenheimer (JRO to those who knew him) and his tortured if heroic role in leading the U.S.'s war time emergency program, dubbed "The Manhattan Project," to a successful conclusion: creation of the first atomic bomb. Whether or not this crowning achievement by the secretive project—that recruited the world's top physicists, engineers and scientific minds to Los Alamos, a remote area in New Mexico—and let the atomic genie out of bottle was a net positive or a net negative, may still be debated. But now that it has, we must rely on our ability to self-regulate the use of this technology for good, as JRO understood so well.

We are now in the throes of sorting out how best to limit nuclear bombs but expand the beneficial uses of atomic tech for energy, industry, agriculture and medicine. Which is why we were so pleased to have been connected with Charles Oppenheimer some weeks ago and to have been invited to participate in the Oppenheimer Exchanges, a day long event bringing together leadership from within the DOE's National Labs and a few business groups, orchestrated to coincide with opening night for the Oppenheimer film. Fortunately, this included tickets to the San Francisco premiere at the Metreon iMax Theatre and a brief pre-screening conversation between younger members of the Oppenheimer family, who provided some perspective on the family's legacy and ongoing initiatives. 

For many of us, this was an eye-opening discussion. It was just in December of 2022, that the DOE finally restored Oppenheimer’s long lost—but still widely lauded reputation—with an order vacating the Atomic Energy Commission's 1954 decision to revoke JRO's security clearance. While largely symbollic, since JRO died in 1967, the DOE's order, and Secretary Granholm's Statement about it, addressed and began to reverse the damage that had been done to the Oppenheimer name, through what the DOE called a "flawed" process.

In 1954, the Atomic Energy Commission revoked Dr. Oppenheimer’s security clearance through a flawed process that violated the Commission’s own regulations. As time has passed, more evidence has come to light of the bias and unfairness of the process that Dr. Oppenheimer was subjected to while the evidence of his loyalty and love of country have only been further affirmed. The Atomic Energy Commission even selected Dr. Oppenheimer in 1963 for its prestigious Enrico Fermi Award citing his “scientific and administrative leadership not only in the development of the atomic bomb, but also in establishing the groundwork for the many peaceful applications of atomic energy.” 

Among scientists and those who knew Oppenheimer's legacy, vindication had already begun as far back as 1963, when the Atomic Energy Commission selected Oppenheimer for the prestigious Enrico Fermi Award for his "scientific and administrative leadership not only in the development of the atomic bomb, but also in establishing the groundwork fo rthe many peaceful applications of atomic energy."

Then, in 2017, the DOE recognized JRO with the creation of the Oppenheimer Science and Energy Leadership Program, which was designed to support early and mid-career scientists and engineers to "carry on [RJO's] legacy of science serving society."

This DOE program has now graduated multiple cohorts. Many of these alumni gathered in San Francisco to discuss the Oppenheimer legacy and explore relevant topics, in particular the need for science and scientists to rise to the challenge of solving global crises with technology. Oppenheimer's leadership example is a model by which the scientific community can organize itself to tackle problems, such as climate change.  Given how badly we are doing responding to the threat posed by climate change, this is a very welcome concept.

 The Oppenheimer Science and Energy Leadership Program (OSELP) run by the DOE is “the premier leadership development program of the national Laboratory Directors’ Council, which comprises the leadership of all 17 National Labs.  The program exposes emerging leaders to the singular breadth, diversity and complexity of the National Labs and their partners in government, industry, and academia. OSELP represents a collective commitment from all 17 DOE labs to cultivate the leaders needed to sustain long-term impacts throughout the complex. Out of the OSELP has grown an alumni group now called the Oppenheimer Leadership Network, who are those who have been through the OSELP program.  The OLN is the formal network of ESELP alumni to collaboratively engage on strategic issues and produce deliverables that address major organizational, policy, scientific or other challenges within the National Labs’ mission space. We were pleased to meet many members of the OLN at the event. Now the Oppenheimer family has a new vision.  They are aiming to develop several initiatives, under the banner of The Oppenheimer Project, whose mission is to promote and advocate for solutions to mitigate the risks posed by technological development.   1) Promote JRO’s legacy and encourage scientific leaders to discuss and address today’s existential threats.2) Advocate and educate about nuclear energy, for increased cooperation on energy and decreased threats of weapons.3) Invest in the energy transition to carbon-free energy sources including nuclear energy. Already, Charles Oppenheimer, JRO's grandson, has come out strongly for nuclear power in a Time Magazine Ideas article, entitled Nuclear Energy's Moment Has Come, published May 11, 2023. In it, Charles calls for a "Manhattan Project" for carbon-free energy production.

In addition to having the support of the younger members of the Oppenheimer family, The Oppenheimer Project has received the support of Lynn Orr, a former Under Secretary for Science and Energy at the DOE and now at Stanford University, and Dr. Larry Brilliant, a physician, epidemiologist and senior counselor at the Skoll Foundation, as advisers. There are now some dozens of graduates of the OSELP and OLN members who could also participate. Given how poorly we are doing mounting the appropriate response to the threat from continued emissions, extending Oppenheimer's inimitable complex project management legacy to tackling this new global challenge has the potential to be significant development in the fight against climate change. 

June 30, 2023

Screen “Nuclear Now”

Nucleation Capital sponsored free screenings of Oliver Stone's timely documentary, Nuclear Now, through June. Now you can stream this film through iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Vudu, Microsoft Store/X-box, and cable-on-demand platforms like Comcast, Spectrum and Cox. Stone finally clears away the myths and fictions about this powerful source of carbon-free energy with a surprisingly positive and even encouraging film. Learn why a growing number of energy and climate experts call for the use of nuclear power in humanity's fight against fossil fuel emissions.

Oliver Stone’s documentary “Nuclear Now” opened in New York, Los Angeles and other markets across the U.S. and Canada on April 27th with great critical acclaim. Many theaters held a panel discussion after the screening, so viewers could continue the conversation. We hosted a series of virtual panel discussions that were well attended.  We have one final panel planned for later this summer. If you would like to learn about that and have not previously signed up to attend an event, use this registration link and we will send you an invitation to this event. If you have already signed up for an event, you don't need to do so again.

Schedule of Events

April 27, 2023
May 1, 2023

The film premiers in 350 theaters around the the country. Check for theaters and purchase tickets online through this link.

May 2, 2023

(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)

The 1st VIRTUAL PANEL DISCUSSION, hosted by Nucleation Capital, for those who were able to attend a viewing during the film's premier in theaters. To obtain the calendar invite and Zoom Link to attend this discussion, click this link to register. [PAST EVENT]

May 11, 2023

(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)

The 2nd VIRTUAL PANEL DISCUSSION, hosted by Nucleation Capital, for those who were able to access the GWU screening link. To obtain the calendar invite and Zoom Link to attend this discussion, click this link to register. [PAST EVENT]

May 25, 2023

(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)

The 3rd VIRTUAL PANEL DISCUSSION, hosted by Nucleation Capital, for those who register to view the film through Nucleation's Sponsored Screening Link. Fill in our registration form, and we will send you a link to download and stream the film. You will also receive a calendar invite and Zoom Link to attend this discussion, click this link to register. [PAST EVENT]

June 6, 2023

(5:00 pm PT/8:00 pm ET)

The 4th VIRTUAL PANEL DISCUSSION, hosted by Nucleation Capital, for those who register to view the film through Nucleation's Sponsored Screening Link. Fill in our registration form, and we will send you a link to download and stream the film. You will also receive a calendar invite and Zoom Link to attend this discussion, click this link to register. [PAST EVENT]

Stay tuned . . .

(Nuclear Movie Director Panel . . . being planned for later this summer.)

Streaming and other licenses

The Nuclear Now Film

(https://nuclearnowfilm.com)

There are many ways that NUCLEAR NOW can be licensed for viewing by groups or institutions through the filmmaker and media partners, including RoCo and Participant Media. Please visit the website to learn more.

Original publication date: April 29, 2023. Updated May 15 and June 30.

May 15, 2023

Parnassus Shows True ESG Leadership and Embraces Nuclear


Parnassus Investments reverses its 40-year ban on nuclear energy investments, and demonstrates rare but critical leadership within the sustainable investment community. 

There is nothing more difficult and potentially risky than breaking ranks with one's ideologic tribe. In deciding to eliminate its own negative screen on nuclear power, Parnassus Investments, a leader in sustainable investing, has demonstrated not just that it has done its homework (unlike, say, Green Century Funds), but that it is an organization that adheres to science and facts, rather than ideology and takes its commitments seriously. This takes exceptional courage and confidence in world riven by fearful ideologues and the furious misinformed.

We have been through what we imagine is a similar awakening process to that which the senior leadership team at Parnassus, led by Marian Macindoe, head of ESG stewardship at Parnassus, and its board of trustees clearly partook. If you are courageous enough to look and listen, the facts and experts all point to the inevitable conclusion that nuclear power, despite all of the controversy around it, is much better than we've been led to believe and it provides a key tool in the clean energy toolbox that doesn't otherwise exist: firm clean power. Only that can compete with the firm dirty power to which we are addicted.

It is a thing of beauty, so we reproduce the entire statement issued by Parnassus itself below:

San Francisco, CA May 1, 2023

In support of the transition to a low-carbon economy, Parnassus Investments, a pioneer in responsible investing, is removing its long-held exclusion on companies that make more than 10% of their revenue from nuclear power generation and/or related activities. This change was approved by the Funds’ board of trustees and will be reflected in the Prospectus dated May 1, 2023.

Parnassus initially established the nuclear power screen in 1984 because of the safety and cost issues involved with building and running nuclear plants. Today, we believe nuclear energy offers a critical source of fuel, with benefits that include low to no emissions, safety and stability. Tighter regulations governing nuclear plants have also led to improved designs and equipment as well as training and emergency response requirements. We are also pleased with the potential that the new generation of nuclear technology offers for higher safety and lower costs.

“We believe this is the right thing to do at this time because nuclear energy will be an essential source of fuel in the transition to the renewable sources required to support a low-carbon economy, and because we view nuclear power generation, in a highly regulated environment, as a reasonable choice,” said Marian Macindoe, head of ESG stewardship at Parnassus.

The change will have no immediate impact on Parnassus Funds, but it will enable nuclear power companies to be part of the universe of securities considered for investment. Any potential investment in a company with revenue exposure to nuclear power generation would not only be subject to extensive risk review but would also require deep examination of its traditional investment characteristics.

Parnassus research analysts will evaluate companies involved in nuclear generation and engineering for robust governance, oversight and safety processes, including risk assessments and preparedness for climate, geologic and geopolitical events; a commitment to science-based emissions-reduction targets; and strong policies for nuclear-waste storage and disposal.

In addition to acting in support of a low-carbon economy, Parnassus is removing the nuclear screen in response to investor preferences shifting from exclusionary screens and toward investments in companies with positive social and environmental attributes. The changes also reflect the firm’s Climate Action Plan, adopted in December 2022, to establish a goal of net-zero emissions in all our funds by 2050, in alignment with the Paris Agreement.

Shareholders in Parnassus Funds can obtain more information by calling (800) 999-3505 or emailing shareholder@parnassus.com.

Click here to go to Parnassus Investments own press announcement: Parnassus Investments Removes Investment Screen for Nuclear Power in Support of Our Transition to Low-Carbon Economy, published May 1, 2023.

March 24, 2023

IPCC’s Dire Warnings for Humanity

The planet is on track for catastrophic warming unless countries take extreme action, according to the IPCC’s latest climate report.

December 22, 2022

Dire warnings from Dr. Hansen and team

Those who receive Dr. James Hansen's occasional newsletter from his Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions team, will have seen some dire reports before. Still, nothing we have seen is quite as unimaginable or alarming as learning that global warming is happening at the equivalent of 750,000 exploding Hiroshima atomic bombs in our atmosphere per day, every day. From burning fossil fuels. That's a lot of warming . . . !

No one likes to think about nuclear bombs. Their very bad reputation already negatively impacts how people think about nuclear energy (even though bombs are designed to explode and nuclear energy is designed so it can't explode). But in this case, Hansen's comparison really helps. Not just as to the scale of the warming problem but as to level of threat.

Earth's Energy Imbalance chart and climate response.

Fig. 1: 12-month running-mean of Earth’s energy imbalance, based on CERES satellite data for EEI change normalized to 0.71 W/m2 mean for July 2005 – June 2015 based on in situ data.

In today's newsletter, Earth's Energy Imbalance and Climate Response Time, Hansen and team review findings recently detailed in a newly issued report called Global Warming in the Pipeline. From this report we learn that there is a lot more solar energy being absorbed by our planet than is being lost through heat radiation out into space. As they explain, the heat budget of our planet is badly out of wack. There is far more energy coming into our atmosphere than going out. As though we have put an "extra blanket" on the planet, our emissions trap heat and are causing excess warming. Dr. Hansen frames this massive experiment as “human-made geoengineering of Earth’s climate.” He writes:

Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI) varies from year-to-year (Fig. 1), largely because global cloud amount varies with weather and ocean dynamics, but averaged over several years, EEI tells us what is needed to stabilize climate.[4] When [Dr. Hansen] gave a TED talk 10 years ago, EEI was about 0.6 W/m2, averaged over six years (that may not sound like much, but it equals the energy in 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day, every day). Now, it appears, EEI has approximately doubled, to more than 1 W/m2. [Emphasis added.] The reasons, discussed in our paper, mainly being increased growth rate of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and a reduction of human-made aerosols (fine particles in the air that reflect sunlight and cool the planet).

It appears that Dr. Hansen's 2012 TEDTalk, Why I must speak out about climate change, explained all these phenomena to us a full decade ago. So, in fact, his recent report is just providing us with an update on how little we have done to address the problem and thus how much worse things are. It is clear, we have not listened to him.

Dr. James Hansen's 2012 TEDTalk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWInyaMWBY8

In ten years, the amount of forced warming of our planet has nearly doubled and this is not a good thing.

So why has humanity failed to take the requisite actions to stabilize the climate? In characteristic understatement, we’re told it’s because of the climate’s delayed response. In other words, heat applied to oceans and ice sheets will still take a while to fully warm or melt them. Not only do the world’s oceans contain 270 times as much mass as the atmosphere, but water also needs 4 times as much energy as air to raise each unit of mass a degree in temperature. This provides a lag that allows global air temperatures to seem more normal than they really are. Without that lag, we’d likely have acted more aggressively to limit the heating. We’re just not fully experiencing how bad it really is. The good news: the climate’s delayed response gives us a little more time to take meaningful action, before we have so much disruption from our overheated world, that societies break down.

Dan Miller, a co-founder of the venture capital firm, Roda Group and a leading proponent of climate action, took time to review the entire 48 page  Global Warming in the Pipeline paper submitted by Hansen and 14 co-authors. He summarized its findings as follows:

1. The Earth Climate Sensitivity (ECS) — the Earth’s short-term response to a CO2 doubling — is higher than previously assumed. Most scientists said it was ~3ºC, but Hansen et al now say it is 4ºC or more based on paleoclimate data. This means there is more warming “in the pipeline” than previously assumed. 2. While humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by 50% since the industrial revolution, the actual climate forcing from all the added greenhouse gases is now ~4W/m^2, which is equivalent to a doubling of CO2 (i.e., CO2e (including all greenhouse gases, not just CO2) is about 560 ppm). 3. Part of the current warming has been hidden by human-made particulate air pollution (aerosols), mainly sulfur. When North America and Europe started to reduce emissions after the introduction of clean air acts in the 1970's, regional and global warming became more pronounced. In the past decades China and global shipping slashed sulfur emissions through cleaner fuels and sulfur filter systems ('scrubbers'). There are clear signals from ground, ocean and satellite based observations that the rate of global warming has recently doubled, which needs to be taken into account in risk assessments. 4. Assuming today’s forcing (4 W/m^2) stabilizes and human-made aerosols are eliminated, when all feedbacks — including “long-term” feedbacks — play out, we are on track for about 10ºC warming and 6~7ºC if aerosols stay at today’s levels. This is a “scenario” and we still control our future, though we are on track to increase climate forcing from today’s 4 W/m^2. 5. If greenhouse gas forcings keeps growing at the current rate, it could match the level PETM mass extinction within a century. We are increasing climate forcing 20X faster than in the PETM so “long-term” feedbacks won’t take as long as in the paleo record (though some feedbacks will still be much longer than a human lifetime). 6. The paper concludes that we must: (a) implement a carbon fee and border duty (Fee and Dividend); (b) "human-made geoengineering of Earth’s climate must be rapidly phased out,” i.e., we must stop emitting greenhouse gases, remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and research and implement safe solar radiation management to counter the massive geoengineering experiment we are currently running; and (c) we must improve international cooperation to allow the developing world to grow using clean energy. 7. A companion paper will be coming out that addresses the near-term shutdown of the AMOC and associated “multi-meter” sea level rise on a century timescale.

Dan Miller runs a Clubhouse group called Climate Chat. Following the release of Hansen's report, he interviewed Leon Simons, a co-author of the paper, about their findings and the implications. It was a 2.5 hour conversation.  It's not a happy topic but Dan, at least, is willing to confront the hard truths, in this case, that we must act immediately to address the climate crisis.

Part of the hard truth that is increasingly unavoidable, has to do with solutions. Once again, Dr. Hansen recognized the dilemma we have with respect to our options for solutions quite a long time ago: namely that we cannot realistically let go of fossil fuels without finding good alternatives, and the “best candidate is nuclear energy." Here he is discussing this in a 2013 interview:

Even though nuclear energy could dramatically help us alleviate emissions from fossil fuels, many people, including many smart investors, find the idea of proactively supporting nuclear power uncomfortable. They fear and loathe nuclear bombs—rightfully so—and can't emotionally separate those feelings enough to accept that there are compelling benefits from energy achieved by a related technology. Some just love "renewables," which generate energy from free wind and free sun. The costs of installing these have come way down and they are extremely popular, so what's not to like?

Nuclear, in contrast, is very hard to like.  It's so complicated and hard for people to understand, plus it's fraught with scary meltdown scenarios, exclusion zones and radioactive waste. Beside, we know that it's expensive and takes a long time to build, so with solid reasons like that to reject it, why risk putting one's own environmental credibility and "green" loyalty in question by supporting it, since it's already too unpopular to succeed, right?

This type of thinking has made nuclear power, quite likely the best solution we have for eliminating dependence on fossil fuels, easy to either ignore or outright reject. And this might have been the end of the story except for the inconvenient fact that wind and solar are not doing the job of reducing emissions.

It turns out that people not only want but societies need and demand reliable energy.  Even with cheap renewables, fossil fuel usage continues to expand. Because renewables are weather-dependent and the weather doesn't always cooperate. Which is, in turn, why more people are again revisiting the possibility of using nuclear power, because the alternative is natural gas.  This spurred Dan Miller to invite Carl Page, founder of the Anthropocene Institute, into the Climate Chat Clubhouse to explore these issues and discuss why public support for nuclear power has dramatically increased.

It seems Russia's attack of Ukraine followed by energy scarcity elevated global appreciation of several critical facets of energy systems beyond mere price. People woke up to the fact that energy supply security, grid reliability, energy price stability, climate resilience and limiting carbon are all important. Europe's dependence on Russian natural gas and now a war-induced energy crisis has re-focused the world's spotlight on nuclear energy—the only energy solution that addresses all of these critical energy needs. Germany, a nation deeply committed to nuclear phase-out, chose to delay the closures of its last nuclear power plants, rather than risk worsening their energy crisis. California choose to extend the life of Diablo Canyon for similar reasons.

Well maybe not shutting down existing plants makes sense, you might be thinking. But isn't it true that building new nuclear is too expensive and takes too long? The answer is not necessarily. Although Gen III nuclear power plant construction experiences have been mixed, with many in that class greatly delayed and vastly over-budget, a few of these Gen III plants have been built on time and in budget and nearly all are finally being completed. These are newer, safer light water designs and the learning process on those new designs has begun. Which means that costs of new builds can come down, if they get proper support. The question now for the industry and the world, is whether we are going to build on that construction knowledge to improve on past performance or abandon it.

Additionally, there's been movement in a whole new direction for nuclear technology: that of innovation.  Gen IV nuclear, or what many call advanced nuclear and next-generation nuclear, are innovative new designs on the cusp of commercialization. A new crop of developers are working to reimagine nuclear without water cooling. These designs largely rely on  physics for cooling, rather than muscular engineering. This reduces the need for back-up safety systems and redefines how small and how quickly nuclear can be built.

Next-gen is now widely expected to be smaller, modular, manufactured and constructed in a period of months and will be well-suited for use by corporate and industrial sites, college campuses, data centers, district heating systems and remote villages around the world. These advanced fission designs are engineering evolutions of previously demonstrated technologies such as molten salt, high-temperature gas and liquid metal-cooled reactors that do not require scientific discovery or breakthroughs. Fusion, which is developing the potential of magnetic confinement, inertial confinement and even metallic lattice confinement (formerly called "cold fusion") to generate massive amounts of carbon-free energy, still requires significant scientific breakthroughs but they also seeing progress and are widely expected to be ready to serve energy needs by mid-century.

[Click image to learn more about why Dr. Hansen and other scientists are suing the EPA.]

The question now is, will this growing global support for nuclear energy and the efforts of innovators to redesign nuclear for the 21st century enable us to meet our urgent climate goals?  Can we build nuclear faster while steadily reducing costs? Or will lingering antinuclear prejudice induce an investor delayed response that prevents construction of new Gen III designs and commercialization of a range of Gen IV designs?

The answer to that question will determine whether or not humanity meets or misses our very limited window to eliminate fossil fuels emissions by 2050. This is why we applaud the growing investor enthusiasm for building existing commercially-viable Gen III nuclear plants, as well as investing in the further development of innovative Gen IV designs, including fusion. We need them all if we are to have any hope of supplanting the 100 million barrels of oil burned every day and the 80% of electricity powered by coal and gas before it is too late.

According to Dr. Hansen, it is already very late and our climate situation is frighteningly dire. People need to act with urgency and purpose on climate: we can no longer afford delay. What we decide to do to move off the wrong path that we have been on up until now will set our course, perhaps permanently. We need good alternatives to fossil fuels. Nuclear power may not be environmentalists' or investors' first choice but it has decades of proven efficacy and safety. Best of all, current innovations hold the promise of being able to scale rapidly to serve the world's urgent energy needs.

Those who invest wisely into this risky "contrarian" area may ultimately reap the reward of seeing their investments succeed. If they do, it means they will have helped displace fossil fuel as the energy of choice and provided a compelling clean energy alternative. And for that, there could well be extraordinary returns.  There are plenty of risks for sure but, as it looks now, the risks of not investing in the solutions that can reduce emissions could well be far worse.

Hansen and team have  recently detailed new warnings and updated data in a newly issued report called Global Warming in the Pipeline, which has been submitted to Oxford Open Climate Change for publication. Read more of the history of Dr. James Hansen's research into the heating effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.  In August 1981, the New York Times published Study finds warming trend that could raise Sea Level, a report by Walter Sullivan about the study Dr. Hansen and six colleagues wrote which revealed the risk of sea level rise from global warming.

November 23, 2022

Giving Thanks & Getting

anksgiving isn't typically a time for making investment decisions . . . but it should be.

Americans give thanks in many ways, notably through the national holiday we call "Thanksgiving." We celebrate the abundance of the land we inherited centuries ago by feasting on turkey and other delicious indigenous foods, which sustained our existence as pilgrims. The holiday of Thanksgiving has survived  generations of tumult, crisis and even war relatively unchanged.  But we've arrived at a point at which we must recognize that humanity's current path—dumping fossil fuel waste into the atmosphere that is rapidly heating our climate—is disrupting those same ecosystems which have long supported us. Thus, it might be time to consider celebrating Thanksgiving both by honoring the bounties of nature that we have enjoyed and by working to save the ecosystems that have always supported human life and reverse the damage that we are doing by investing in climate solutions.

Given how large the climate problem is, the personal actions we might take, such as turning down the heat or even buying an electric car, will not make sufficient difference. Sadly, scientists tell us that the whole world must reduce emissions by a matter of gigatons in rapid fashion and we are running out of time to act, so our modest personal actions won't make enough difference. We must seek to find things that we can do which provide greater leverage. It turns out, investing in innovation is one of the ways that small individual actions can accumulate to make a big difference.

Why innovation? We know that climate change is caused by humanity's use of fossil fuels. While we want to stop burning of coal, oil, petroleum and natural gas, at the same time, no one wants to have to go without reliable sources of electricity, heat or transportation. Thus, the dilemma we face is that clean renewables like wind and solar don't provide a direct, reliable replacement for the widely available sources of fossil fuel energy.

What we need are better clean energy alternatives. We are forced to burn these dirty, carbon-emitting fuels to  have comfortable, warm, well-furnished homes and functioning societies because we don't have better options available. We don't want intermittent lights, intermittent refridgeration, intermittent heart monitors or even intermittent Youtube videos. This is what makes addressing climate change so challenging for Americans: we're not willing to go cold turkey on the quality of life that we have enjoyed as a result of the abundance of fossil fuels. This is why we desperately need better options!

Investing in innovative ventures can accelerate their success in commercializing better energy alternatives. We have very few clean energy options and they all have significant downsides—such as intermittency—and there simply is nothing that is a runaway winner in terms of competing with natural gas or petroleum fuels. Which is why it is time for investors to step up and invest in those ventures innovating to create these improved technologies. These may be risky investments but if they can produce a broader set of clean energy options that enable us to maintain our lifestyles while reducing emissions, they will be very successful investments.

This is what Nucleation Capital is doing. Providing an investment vehicle that allows more investors to invest in some of the most exciting, most competitive clean energy alternatives coming out of the advanced nuclear sector.  For many, investing in solar or wind power is appealing because they think "renewable" energy is what's needed. In fact, wind and solar power will always be intermittent—and that will never compete directly with fossil fuels. What's needed to replace fossil fuels is clean, reliable, dense energy and many energy experts see next-gen nuclear as our best option.

Nuclear energy may not yet be as popular as renewables but what's popular doesn't necessarily translate into great investment returns. Even winning consensus investments don't beat winning contrarian investments.  Which is why, for those looking for impactful investments that are off the beaten path and which, by their nature, can produce extraordinary returns, nothing can beat nuclear energy innovation, which we believe will be the black swan of clean energy.

The advanced nuclear sector is the most under-appreciated clean energy sector that is innovating as fast as conceivably possible. This sector, more than any other, holds out tremendous promise for a technological solution to our climate dilemma, yet these innovators need access to more capital. Next-generation nuclear innovators are solving safety, scalability, cost, construction time and all the other issues we have long associated with traditional nuclear and making it into the energy source of our future. They are, for example, developing reactor designs that won't require water cooling or siting next to bodies of water. Innovators are also working to solve other problems that have held back the growth of nuclear, namely closing the fuel cyle and providing safe, permanent waste storage, among other things.

So, if you'd like to do more than just give thanks with your turkey, consider allocating some of your discretionary investment capital to a fund investing in the innovations that would allow us to end our dependence on fossil fuels. We expect that, over the next decade, the nations of the world will begin deploying any number of advanced designs to power cities, factories, campuses, ships, industry and homes without emissions, thereby maintaining energy security and grid reliability without needing fossil fuels. We'll even use nuclear to generate synthetic hydrocarbons (for where liquid fuels are still needed) and power carbon drawdown so can begin to reverse global warming.

Yes, investing in advanced nuclear is high risk. Yet it only poses the risk of losing your money (so allocate accordingly). Not solving climate change, however, risks losing everything we hold dear. Our propery, our children, our traditions. Which is why more investors are considering allocating a portion of their investible capital to investments that can meaningfully reduce demand for fossil fuels. Whether they can invest a lot or little doesn't matter so much: they will still get the satisfaction of knowing that they are using their money to make a difference in the final years that we have to rescue our future.

*  The "Th" image above is the period table symbol for the element Thorium, and comes curtesy of the Thorium Energy Alliance, which advocates for the use of thorium along with uranium as a fuel for nuclear energy. 

September 7, 2022

Celebrating A Nuclear Win and the Village that Created It


Diablo Canyon has been saved—for now! Rather than allowing this clean energy producing power plant to be wastefully decommissioned by those who simply dislike nuclear power, the California legislature, under the leadership of Governor Gavin Newsom, voted to extend its life by up to 10 years. Senate Bill 846, sponsored by Jordan Cunningham (CA-25, R), passed with nearly unanimous votes in both the Democratically-controlled Assembly and Senate. SB 846 also provides for as much as $1.4 billion in loans from California to PG&E for re-licensing and enables PG&E to also submit a timely application to the DOE's Civil Nuclear Credit program for further aid in re-starting licensing with the NRC and transitioning back to full-operating mode. This is a nearly miraculous win for California's pronuclear advocates and it is worth celebrating both the win and the broader community that made it possible.

While there are a lot of individuals and organizations who contributed to setting the stage for this phenomenal political win for nuclear power in general and Diablo Canyon specifically, there were also considerable underlying political realities that effectively forced the Governor's hand. In particular, the state's own energy experts from CALISO, CEC, as well as academia and industry, expressed extreme alarm at the high level of fragility of the grid and the high risk of power outages even with Diablo Canyon operating. The closure of Diablo Canyon was clearly going to exacerbate the already bad situation. Climate change and state clean energy mandates made the CPUC's plan to replace Diablo Canyon's clean energy with dirty coal power from PacifiCorp anathema to the both the state's goals and the Governor's political reputation. Meanwhile, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has resulted in dire energy shortages in Europe and rising gas prices. This is making the world's growing reliance on natural gas both uneconomical and politically unsavory.

With that as the political and economic backdrop, we wish to take a look at some of the individuals and groups that took on prominent roles advocating for nuclear power in general and for Diablo Canyon specifically. Some of these groups worked behind the scenes and some played highly prominent roles. The press has recognized the advocacy of the San Luis Obispo-based Mothers for Nuclear, which has consistently stood up for Diablo Canyon at local hearings, rallies and in the press.  This mom-led non-profit further coordinated with Isabelle Boemeke, a model-turned "nuclear influencer," whose online presence "Isodope," introduced a witty, stylish and slightly snarky approach to pronuclear advocacy, sharing her frank messaging with a new generation. Together, they organized several recent and memorable public events, a rally on behalf of Diablo Canyon and the issuance of letter to Governor Newsom signed by 79 prominent scientific experts. As impactful as both of those campaigns were, their success rested upon a foundation of public opinion that had grown stronger due to very considerable contributions from the following very notable individuals and groups:

The Pronuclear Village


(Click to enlarge.)

Nuclear-Focused Writers

James Conca, Forbes
Robert Bryce,  Forbes and other
Michael Shellenberger, Forbes, Environmental Progress
Rod Adams,  Atomic Insights
Catherine Clifford, CNBC

Academics & Scientists

Dr, James Hansen, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, at the Earth Institute of Columbia University
Dr. Todd Allen, University of Michigan
Dr. Jacopo Buongiorno, MIT
Dr. Steven Chu,  Stanford University
Dr. Jesse Jenkins, Princeton
Dr. Jessica Lovering,  University of Colorado, Boulder
Also, another 75 or so who signed the February 2022 letter to Governor Newsom

Non-Profits & Think Tanks

The Breakthrough Institute, Ted Nordhaus
Clean Air Task Force,  Armond Cohen
Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Carl Wurtz, Dr. Gene Nelson
Anthropocene Institute, Carl Page
The Long Now, Stewart Brand
Energy for Humanity, Kirsty Gogan
Nuclear Innovation Alliance, Judi Greenwald
TerraPraxis, Erik Ingersoll, Kirsty Gogan
Good Energy Collective, Dr. Jessica Lovering, Suzy Hobbs Baker, Dr. Rachel Slaybaugh
Energy Impact Center, Bret Kugelmass
Energy for Humanity, Kirsty Gogan
Fastest Path to Zero, Dr. Todd Allen, at the University of Michigan
Climate Protection & Restoration Initiative, Dr. James Hansen, Donn J. Viviani and others
The Nature Conservancy, Mark Tercek
The World Resources Institute

Podcasters

Titans of Nuclear, Bret Kugelmass
The Atomic Show, Rod Adams
Decouple Podcast, Dr. Chris Keefer
Energy Impact Podcast, Bret Kugelmass
Climate Fix, Colby & Phil
Columbia Energy Exchange, Jason Bordoff, Bill Lovelass
Cowen’s Energy Transition Podcast, Marc Bianchi

Organizers & Advocates

Environmental Progress, Michael Shellenberger
Mothers for Nuclear, Heather Hoff and Kirstin Zaitz
Save Clean Energy, Isabelle Boemeke
Generation Atomic, Eric Meyers
Campaign for a Green Nuclear Deal, Madison Hilly
Stand Up for Nuclear, Paris Ortiz-Wines
Emergency Reactor, Zion Lights
Climate Coalition,  Valerie Gardner, Gary Kahanak
Nuclear New York, Dr. Dietmar Detering, Isuru Seneviratne
US Nuclear Industry:  NEI, ANS, USNIC, NIA, INPO, etc.
International:  IPCC, WNA, IAEA, WNN, etc.

Artists & Authors

Robert Stone, Pandora’s Promise (documentary)
Dave Schumacher, The New Fire (documentary)
Robert Bryce, Juice (documentary) and author of "A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations"
Oliver Stone, Nuclear: Time to Look Again (a new documentary, being released now)
Joshua Goldstein, "A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change and the Rest Can Follow"
Meredith Angwin, “Shorting the Grid: The Hidden Fragility of our Electric Grid” and "Campaigning for Clean Air"
Dr. Robert Hargraves, author of "Thorium, Energy Cheaper than Coal"
Michael Bloomberg, co-author of "Climate of Hope"
Gwyneth Cravens, author of "Power to Save the World: The Truth about Nuclear Energy"
Mathijs Beckers, author of "Highway to Dystopia: About spaceship Earth, Climate Change and more"
Isabelle Boemeke, creator of the “Isodope” TicTok videos and tweets
Baba Brinkman, Nuclear/Science rapper

Influencers

Stewart Brand, The Whole Earth Catalog
Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Dr. Gene Nelson
What is Nuclear, Nick Touran
Radiant Energy,  Mark Nelson
Thorium Energy Alliance,  John Kutsch
Google,  Ross Koningstein (IEEE, White Papers)
D.J. LeClear, The Rad Guy
TEA,  Silicon Valley,  Alex Cannara
Save Clean Energy, Isabelle Boemeke
Citizen’s Climate Lobby,  Jim Hopf (Nuclear group)
4th Generation Blog, Canon Bryan, Amelia Tiemann
Rethinking Nuclear, Richard Steeves

Politicians & Biden Admin

Trump Administration & Congress, laid a foundation with the passage of NEIMA & NEICA
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, loudly pronuclear
Senator Cory Booker, introduced his support of nuclear power during the 2019 Primary Climate Debates
President Joe Biden, ushered in the Energy Bill of 2020,  which funded the Advanced Reactor Development Program (ARDP), to accelerate commercialization of the next generation of reactors
Dept. of Energy, Secr. of Energy, Jennifer Granholm, worked overtime to introduce the Civil Nuclear Credit program in a timely way, plus, she has posted many great videos about the need for nuclear to address climate
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has expressed her support for the protection of the Palisades Nuclear Power plant and now for Holtec's application to restart it
The Infrastructure & Jobs Act, set up the Civil Nuclear Credit Program, with a $6 billion fund to save nuclear power plants, such as Palisades and Diablo Canyon
Representative Elaine Luria, has introduced a bevy of important nuclear energy bills, including the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (’19), Nuclear Power Purchase Agreements Act (’21), and Fueling our Nuclear Future Act (’22)
All of Congress, has used voice votes to approve key pronuclear pieces of legislation
Senator Diane Feinstein, wrote about her support for Diablo Canyon in a number of OpEds
DOE’s Loan Program Office (LPO), under the leadership of Jigar Shah, has been working to provide Government-guaranteed loans to key projects

Funders

There is a small but dedicated community of funders who have shown a willing to support many of the above non-profits, as well as the various artistic and advocacy campaign initiatives.  We are greatful to them, as they have allowed much of the work that others have not been willing to fund, to be produced.

[Please note: All of the above listed groups have websites that are available online. Legislation is all searchable. We are not able to provide links for every group but have provided for some that may be harder to find. If you have trouble finding information you need, please reach out through our contact form. We have had a prime seat for the last decade or so to follow the events but we cannot possibly include everyone or every group that is active in this space. However, if you think we have omitted an important contributor who should be listed as having had a meaningful impact on the decision to save Diablo Canyon, please use the comment box below to send us a private message.]

September 1, 2022

California Legislators Vote To Save Diablo Canyon

California's legislature, by nearly unanimous votes in both the Assembly and the Senate, agreed with Governor Gavin Newsom, to extend the operating life of Diablo Canyon. This was the result of multiple converging factors, the most important of which was that the closure would have worsened the already fragile state of the California energy grid, maing black-outs far more likely. But, behind this looming awareness were many other factors influencing public opinion and political pressure, which include pronuclear advocacy, scientific concerns about climate change, shifting political winds in the face of Russia's invastion of Ukraine and leadership from the Biden Administration. There will be many efforts to understand what tipped the political weights in favor of saving Diablo Canyon, and not all will be correct, but the good news for is that rationality prevailed in California, despite concerted anti-nuclear pressures.

Climate change and Russia's invasion of the Ukraine are looming backdrops to this stunning victory. Yet, most directly, the basis of the success comes down to the fact that Governor Newsom himself became convinced that delaying the closure of Diablo Canyon was both the right thing to do and was politically feasible. It isn't clear exactly how he arrived at this conclusion but it is certain that his political weight made it happen. What caused the politics to shift? Possibly, Newsom found sufficient political cover and acceptable polling data from the fact that Illinois Governor Pritzker and Michigan Governor Whitmer, both Democrats, took action to protect their nuclear power.

Nevertheless, coming out in favor of extending the life of Diablo Canyon, was enormously risky and difficult for Governor Newsom, as it involved making a 180 degree shift from his prior position of working to ensure that Diablo got closed. Yet, with state policy experts warning that the closure would cause blackouts and likely deaths as a result, Governor Newsom bit the bullet and did the right thing. 

There were a multitude of pronuclear individuals and groups providing support and political cover for this decision. As far back as 2015, Michael Shellenberger and his organizations, The Breakthrough Institute and  Environmental Progress, argued on behalf of nuclear power. Shellenberger split out of TBI, a think tank, in order to engage in more active pronuclear advocacy. He and a group of younger activists organized and held the first pronuclear rally, a three day protest and parade against the closure of Diablo Canyon. From there, numerous groups were formed which contributed advocacy towards the support of nuclear power: Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Generation Atomic, Mothers for Nuclear, Climate Coalition, Rethink Nuclear, Nuclear New York, Protect Nuclear NOW and many others.

Meanwhile, filmmakers Robert Stone and Dave Schumacher produced luscious documentaries that challenged the status quo attitudes about nuclear power. Their films, Pandora's Promise and The New Fire respectively brought new insights into our understanding of both the facts about nuclear power and the reality about the concerted and often nefarious efforts to besmirch nuclear's reputation. These films had surprising reach and helped soften widespread knee-jerk antinuclear reactions. Then, the academics from Stanford and MIT played their parts  and issued a report providing evidence that closing Diablo Canyon would cost the state $21 billion.

While, no single person or group can take sole credit for this victory, there was little discernable action until the joining of Isabelle Boemeke to the campaign. Representing the younger generation and signing up to support Diablo Canyon as the first "nuclear influencer," Isabelle served as the spark to ignite public attention to the support that Diablo Canyon had as our largest source of clean energy, and helped turn the tide in favor of saving it. Under the handle "Isodope," she adroitly leverage social media tech platforms, including Instagram, TicTok and Twitter, to send highly stylized, informative and compellingly snarky videos to a broad spectrum of followers. She also acted on the momentum garnered by the Stanford/MIT report to organize an in-person rally in San Luis Obispo, complete with support from local politicians and residents. That turned to be very successful and she then parlayed that success to corral scientific experts to weigh in with a direct letter appeal to Governor Newsom.

Finally, with the introduction of the Biden Administration's Civil Nuclear Credit program and its offer of up to $6 billion in support of saving aging plants, Governor Newsom could no longer afford to ignore the reality that saving Diablo Canyon could help him avoid energy embarrassment and liability from the rash of civil lawsuits that would have followed black-out related deaths.

There are now many articles coming out with their assessments of the factors that enabled this success. None capture the whole picture, which spans much more engagement, work and adroit advocacy in California, across the US and even internationally, that contributed to making ignoring reality of nuclear impossible for Gov. Newsom.

Read the Forbes article, In Big Win For Nuclear, California Legislators Vote To Save Diablo Canyon, by Robert Bryce, September 1, 2022 here.  There are many other articles reporting on this significant achievement but we can't list them all here.

© 2025 Nucleation Capital | Terms & Policies

Nucleation-Logo