Dr. Hansen warning humanity to get its act together, deploy renewables and nuclear

Dr. James Hansen's year-end update contains an admonishment right in the title, "A Miracle Will Occur" Is Not Sensible Climate Policy." Those who have followed his work and his typically well-tempered writing will recognize this as a very strong indictment of what we've not done to date to address climate change. This is, for this mild-mannered scientist, the equivalent of "Hey Guys, Get your S _ _ T together!"

Dr. Hansen proceeds to call "bunk" on the assertions from both the COP 28 Chairman and the UN Secretary General who imply that the goal of keeping temperature rise to below 1.5°C is still feasible. According to Dr. Hansen, the already banked warming will take us beyond 2.0°C "if policy is limited to emission reductions and plausible CO2 removal." In other words, he makes it clear that this is now merely wishful thinking and does not reflect a realistic understanding of the way that emissions released create future warming, which he calls "Global Warming in the Pipeline" and describes in the linked paper.

The only realistic approach is to take true climate analysis that is informed by knowledge of the warming "forcing" effects and to use that to drive decisions about policy options. If we can possibly use the next several years to define and commence more effective policies and courses of action, then there is a modicum of a chance that we can still save the future for our young people. If this isn't a bomb of an alarm, it would be hard to say what else would be, especially because the IPCC has made it very clear that major ecosystems, starting with coral reefs and then, therefore, all marine life, will be threatened with substantial (90%) collapse by 1.5°C and with 100% by 2°C.

Unfortunately, climate science is complicated and most people don't have a good understanding of the "human-made forcings that are driving Earth's climate away from the relatively stable climate of the Holocene (approximately the past 10,000 years.)" Even if they could grasp the implications about climate science from the graphs that Dr. Hansen and his team provide, very few are even reading Hansen's work. These graphs are very scary but clearly they are not being used as the basis for policy discussions by either politicians, government agencies (like the EPA), or by leading environmental groups and that is likely the primary reason why many people are still arguing about renewables versus nuclear power, thinking they have a certain luxury of time, rather than saying "Renewables and nuclear, YES!"

For his part, Dr. Hansen doesn't make it as easy as he could for those with less expertise in climate science. He spends a lot of effort discussing two major climate forcings: greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols (fine airborne particles), which in fact have opposing forcings. But then goes into detail on many other related forcings. This level of detail may provide a more scientifically accurate picture of what is going on but it makes for much sparser readership. Clearly, there are many different kinds of feedback loops, including how the aerosols impact cloud formation, albedo effects and also the way the ocean absorbs a considerable amount of the warming that is happening to our climate. It's important that he understands these effects but it takes considerable sifting work to get to the point that what it all adds up to is that there is much more warming that has occurred than what we are actually now experiencing, so in fact, the effect of warming will be accelerate and we're now seeing this.

Even for those of us who finding climate science fascinating, this 14-page paper is incredibly dense and gets relatively badly bogged down with details on things like cloud forcings, albedo changes, reviewing differences between expected temperatures and real world measurements, catching up with a 40-year old mystery having to do with the last glacial maximum and describing the impacts of an "experiment" that occurred when the International Maritime Organization limited sulfur content in ship fuel and the variability introduced by El Nino and La Nina events. The bottom line of quite extensive discussion that few will wade through, is that global warming is now accelerating. This is very important but definitely buried. The key graphic of the whole paper depicts this acceleration.

On page 7, we finally get to the implications of global warming acceleration. As shown in the above graph, were the warming happening at a steady rate, we'd be on the green dotted line. Instead, we are veering off into the yellow zone of accelerated warming, which means that we'll "exceed the 1.5°C mark within the next few months and reach a level far above 1.5C by May 2024."

Hansen, while recognizing that there could be some up and down based upon El Nino and La Nina effects, believes that the baked in energy imbalance already "in the pipeline" means that it does not serve anybody's interests to "wait a decade to declare that the 1.5°C limit has been breached." In summary, Hansen argues that, "unless purposeful actions are taken to reduce our present extraordinary planetary energy imbalance," the 2°C global warming limit will also be breached.

By its very nature of having a delayed, baked-in response, human-made climate change makes this an intergenerational issue. What we have done in the past is already having consequences but what we do today and going forward will mostly impact the next generation for better or worse.

To his credit, Hansen dives yet again into Climate Policy, unlike most other scientists. This has been long been a huge source of frustration for him and you can almost see him stomping on his own hat, in his anger and impatience with the political processes that have thwarted action. First he reviews just what makes solving cilmate extra hard, starting with the fact that the principal source of GHGs is fossil fuels, which are in his words "extremely beneficial to humanity." They have raised starndards of living worldwide and still provide 80% of the world's energy. "Fossil fuels are readily available, so the world will not give up their benefits without equal or better alternatives." Because of this conundrum, we are near a point of no return, where extreme consequences can spiral out of humanity's control.

Dr. Hansen has been a first-hand witness to humanity's failure to act over the last 35 years or so and his exasperation with that and his desperation to communicate to those in power about our increasingly limited options is abundantly clear. He's been advising governments around the world on possible approaches with little of the urgent response that is warranted. He delves into some of these details but then finally hones on in the three actions that are required to successfully address climate and achieve the bright future we desire for our children.

The first is a near-global carbon tax or fee. It is the sine qua non required to address the "tragedy of the commons" problem" wherein fossil fuels waste products can be dumpted in the atmosphere for free. There can be a range of approaches, yet something that penalizes those dumping GHGs is required to be enacted globally. A corollary to a carbon fee is a "clean energy portfolio standard," with government policies that are far more supportive of nuclear power.

The second major policy requirement, is the need for the West to cooperate with and support the clean energy needs of emerging and developing nations. There are economic imbalances with developed nations having caused the past emissions but emerging nations increasingly being the driver of future emissions:

The clear need is to replace the world’s huge fossil fuel energy system with clean energies,
which likely would include a combination of “renewables” and nuclear power. Even if the
renewables provide most of the energy, engineering and economic analyses indicate that
global nuclear power probably needs to increase by a factor of 2-4 to provide baseload power
to complement intermittent renewable energy, especially given growing demands of China,
India and other emerging economies. The scale of China’s energy needs makes it feasible to drive down the costs of renewables and nuclear power below the cost of fossil fuels.

Lastly, Dr. Hansen proposes that "a multitude of actions are required within less than a decade to reduce and even reverse Earth’s energy imbalance for the sake of minimizing the enormous ongoing geoengineering of the planet; specifically, we will need to cool the planet to avoid consequences for young people that all people would find unconscionable."

References:

"A Miracle Will Occur" is Not Sensible Climate Policy, by James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Columbia University, Earth Insitute's Climate Science & Solutions, December 7, 2023.

Columbia University, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Newsletter, "Groundhog Day. Another Gobsmackingly Bananas Month. What’s Up?, sent on January 4, 2024 from the same team.

"Dire Warnings from Dr. Hansen and Team, by Valerie Gardner, Nucleation Capital, Dec. 22, 2023.

August 27, 2023

Pronuclear Advocates & Allies

About the Pronuclear Climate Movement

Pronuclear climate advocacy has been around for only about a decade but it has grown rapidly. It consists mostly of young people who understand the urgency of the climate crisis and recognize that nuclear energy is a way to help us transition away from fossil fuels. They believe we should protect existing nuclear plants providing large amounts of clean energy and build more. They have worked to save plants slated for premature closure, like Diablo Canyon in California and Palisades in Michigan. And they continue to work to save existing nuclear plants around the world, reform clean energy policies that exclude nuclear and favor renewables and educate the public about the benefits of nuclear. This is a reflection of growing support for nuclear power in general and a recognition that the goal of the climate movement is to prioritize retirenent of fossil fuel plants—whose massive volume of waste emissions is forcing the warming of our planet—not shut nuclear, whose waste hurts no one and is actually a valuable future energy resource.

The pronuclear movement consists of mostly smaller, independent groups that do grassroots organizing around a theme, such as working to prevent the closure of a local nuclear power plant. Fortunately, many of these groups are interconnected yielding suprisingly effective coordination when it matters. Many also have broader goals, such as the Climate Coalition, which aims to strengthen the climate movement overall by uniting climate activists of all stripes in support of an "all-of-the-above" nuclear-inclusive approach to clean energy. These groups can use your help.

How to Support the Pronuclear Climate Movement

For those who want to support nuclear power in addition to (or in lieu of) investing in next-generation technologies through Nucleation Capital, we provide the following recommendations:

Stop Supporting Anti-Nuclear Organization: Stop sending donations to the Sierra Club, NRDC, 350.org, Friends of the Earth, League of Conservation Voters, or Greenpeace. These large NGOs remain staunchly anti-nuclear and that is primarily what is dividing the climate movement.
Urge your NGO to Prioritize Climate: If you have been a member or supporter of an anti-nuclear environmental group, let them know you don't support their anti-nuclear positions—which are contrary to their supposed efforts to solve climate—and won't support them until they acknowledge the value of nuclear energy for combating carbon emissions.
Actively Support Pronuclear Groups: Throw your support behind one or more of the pronuclear nonprofits that are working hard to save existing power plants and to advocate for nuclear power. We have curated the following lists to help you find organizations or individuals to support.

Nucleation's Top 5 Pronuclear Organizations

1. CALIFORNIANS FOR GREEN NUCLEAR POWER

Californians for Green Nuclear Power, led by Dr. Gene Nelson, has been a driving force for political accountability and responsible energy decision-making in California. Shedding light on sweetheart backroom political deals being cut by Governor Jerry Brown that were contrary to the public interest, CGNP filed suits and/or petitioned to become a party to CPUC and FERC proceedings. CGNP's work as an intervenor has been instrumental in helping to save Diablo Canyon. CGNP's in depth research continues to pose obstacles to efforts to overturn the California legislature's extension approval are being filed. (Donations can be mailed to CGNP at 1375 East Grand Ave Ste 103 #523, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420-2421.)

2. MOTHERS FOR NUCLEAR

Mothers for Nuclear was created on Earth Day 2016 by the power team of San Luis Obispo-based Heather Hoff and Kristin Zaitz, two moms to better represent the voices of women and mothers in support of Diablo Canyon and nuclear energy in general. Coordination with Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Save Clean Energy and many other groups enabled Governor Newsom to respond to strong public pressure to save Diablo Canyon when appealing to the California Legislature. Progressive women remain predominantly opposed to nuclear power, but Mothers for Nuclear have begun to rebuild the social norm of women being pronuclear. (Donations can be made online. EIN: 81-3349003)

3. GENERATION ATOMIC

Generation Atomic was created by Eric Meyers to represent the voices of younger generations and empower them to express support for nuclear in every type of venue and forum where discussions of how solve climate change is happening. The group creates fun, engaging, public actions in an effort to safeguard our future by championing the cause for nuclear energy. Not only do they use research, communication and relationship-building to advocate for nuclear, their actions typically involve dancing, singing, inflatable costumes and humor to inspire, empower and engage youth and defang anti-nuclear wrath. Operatic nuclear arias, anyone? (Donations can be made online. EIN: 81-4500446)

4. THORIUM ENERGY ALLIANCE

Thorium Energy Alliance was started in 2006 by John Kutsch to bring together scientists and energy experts who believe that thorium should be recognized as a high-value nuclear fuel and not treated as waste. Thorium is far more abundant and less radioactive than uranium, yet was rejected early on in the development of nuclear fuel. This despite evidence that the use of thorium is feasible and can be highly cost-effective. TEA works to raise awareness about thorium and hosts conferences, posts videos and serves as a central organizing and educational entity for many nuclear advocates, which history was beautifully captured in the Frankie Fenton documentary film "Atomic Hope." (Donations of cash or cars can be made online.)

5. CLIMATE COALITION

Climate Coalition was founded in 2016 by Valerie Gardner and a group of technology-oriented climate activists who recognized how much stronger the climate movement would be if climate advocates were not fighting amongst themselves. Unfortunately, activists who support renewables often ardently oppose nuclear power and vice versa. Climate Coalition views this internecine conflict as the primary reason why global effort to transition to 100% clean energy systems are delayed everywhere. So long as this fighting continues, demand for and investment in fossil fuels will remain strong. Join Climate Coalition to show your support of unity against carbon emissions.

MORE PRONUCLEAR GROUPS

There are many other worthy groups, so we've listed more of them below, followed by influencers, authors, podcasters and artists (alphabetically)

THINK TANKS & EXPERT NON-PROFITS (Alphabetical listing)

Anthropocene Institute, founded by Carl Page, bringing a pro-technology perspective and working to connect engineers, entrepreneurs, investors, institutions and thought-leaders to solve the world's greatest challenges. Helping to expand awareness of solid state nuclear activity and its potential to solve energy issues.

The Breakthrough Institute, Ted Nordhaus leads this global research think tank that identifies and promotes technological solutions and policies to environmental and human development challenges.

Campaign for a Green Nuclear Deal, Madison Hilly founded this group to serve as a nationwide advocate articulating a vision for nuclear power as the industrial heart of sustainable and enduring American prosperity that creates dignified, high-wage jobs, revives American industrial capability, and re-establishes the U.S. as the global leader of this critical technology.

Clean Air Task Force, led by Armond Cohen, analyzes and advocates for the technologies and policies needed to get to a zero-emissions, high-energy planet at an affordable cost, so the energy needs of all people are met efficiently without damaging the air we breathe or the atmosphere.

ClearPath, Rich Powell heads up this a center-right think tank whose mission is to develop and advance conservative policies that accelerate clean energy innovation and climate solutions.

Climate Protection & Restoration Initiative, Dr. James Hansen, Donn J. Viviani and other climate and legal experts, have sued the US EPA to demand its proactive enforcement of the Clean Air Act as already permitted by the existing statute against emitters of carbon dioxide pollution.

Doctors for Nuclear Energy, Dr. Chris Keefer leads an international, volunteer group of doctors that see nuclear energy as an irreplaceable part of the just transition to a low-carbon future.

ecoAmerica, founded and run by Bob Perkowitz, ecoAmerica moves society toward climate solutions by inspiring and empowering trusted national institutions and their millions of stakeholders in local communities across America to visibly act and advocate, with a commitment to Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.

Emergency Reactor, Zion Lights, a former Greenpeace activist, grew disenchanted with Greenpeace because of its antinuclear stance and founded this European-based group to provides accurate nuclear education and counterpoint to antinuclear myths.

Energy Communities Alliance (ECA) is the only non-profit, membership organization of local governments adjacent to or impacted by U.S. Department of Energy activities. We bring together local government officials to share information, establish policy positions, and promote community interests to address an increasingly complex set of constituent, environmental, regulatory, and economic development needs.

Energy Impact Center, Bret Kugelmass founded this group to offer strategic direction through a "first principles" analysis of global energy systems and focusing on areas of highest impact, through research, impactful communications and kick-starting real projects. Also, Bret is host and creator of the Titans of Nuclear Podcast.

Fastest Path to Zero, Dr. Todd Allen leads an interdisciplinary team of experts, including University of Michigan faculty, staff, and students, working to support communities as they plan and pursue ambitious climate goals, offering a variety of assessment, siting, reporting, and big data analytic tools combined with a passion for human-centered design and engagement, to help communities transform their energy systems while adapting to a changing climate.

Good Energy Collective, Dr. Jessica Lovering, Suzy Hobbs Baker, Dr. Rachel Slaybaugh launched this group to rethink nuclear policies from the ground up, in order to enable nuclear energy to help humanity reach ambitious climate goals. Using modern, socially-grounded and equitable approaches based upon progressive, democratic values, Good Energy Collective develops practical approaches to bring nuclear implementation and not just technology into the 21st century.

The Long Now, Stewart Brand founded this organization to foster long-term thinking to make mankind into a better ancestor and preserve possibilities for future generations, by imagining what our needs will be over a 10,000 year timescale, rather than just in the here and now.

Nuclear Alternative Project. Puerto Rico has been an energy deficient country since Hurricane Maria struck a few years back. In response, the Department of Energy has granted the Nuclear Alternative Project the responsibility of preparing Puerto Rico to possibly build advanced nuclear reactors, as an alternative energy option for Puerto Rico. Unlike wind and solar, nuclear power plants hold up well in hurricanes, which show no sign of abating especially as climate gets worse.

Nuclear Innovation Alliance, Judi Greenwald leads this donor-funded think tank and industry-adjacent team that aims to bring economically competitive zero-carbon energy to the world by supporting entrepreneurialism and accelerated innovation through policy analysis, research and education.

Nuclear New York, Dr. Dietmar Detering, Isuru Seneviratne and more, is an independent, non-partisan advocacy organization working towards a prosperous decarbonized future and nature conservation, advocating for the application of nuclear energy to meet the need for reliable, emission-free energy along with well paid meaningful work that underwrites vibrant, healthy, and prosperous communities in New York and beyond.

The Oppenheimer Project, Charles Oppenheimer and family, launched this group in tandem with the release of the film, "Oppenheimer," to use the legacy of J. Robert Oppenheimer to promote thought-leadership, advocate for an expansion of nuclear energy free from the threats of proliferation or weaponization and to invest in the energy transition to carbon-free sources, including nuclear energy.

Radiant Energy Group, a think tank, research organization and corporate advisory founded by Mark Nelson and Richard Ollington, which provides leaders with the data, messaging and broader insights they need to create nuclear-inclusive roadmaps towards decarbonization. Recently published results of their global survey of public attitudes towards nuclear.

Rethinking Nuclear, Richard Steeves and others founded this group to help those taking a fresh look at why we need nuclear power and rethink positions based upon misinformation or misconceptions about the technology that are wrong.

Save Clean Energy, Isabelle Boemeke founded this group to cultivate and amplify the social media-based grassroots movement that she has developed to protect existing clean energy resources, while championing new clean infrastructure.

Stand Up for Nuclear, Paris Ortiz-Wines founded this team to serve as the international hub for global nuclear activism, providing resources, empowering action and helping individuals advocate for the protection and expansion of nuclear energy around the world.

TerraPraxis, Erik Ingersoll and Kirsty Gogan founded this organization to design and promote transformative strategies to address the most significant risks to the energy transition — mapping uncharted decarbonization territory, with a mission to accelerate scalable, innovative and equitable solutions for unsolved areas of the climate and energy challenge. Now focusing on the coal to nuclear transition.

Third Way, Josh Freed heads this national think tank that champions modern center-left ideas on a wide range of critical issues, from energy to agriculture.

WePlanet (previously RePlanet), founded by a group of European youths to broadly save the future and advocate for the prioritization of real, science-based solutions. They bravely tackle a number of big thorny issues, including the need to rethink and deploy advanced technologies for food production, nuclear power and GMOs.

INFLUENCERS, AUTHORS, PODCASTERS, ARTISTS and FILMS

Rod Adams, founder of Atomic Insights, launched in 1995 to engage in exploration and critical discussion of nuclear power and the nuclear industry by one of the partners of Nucleation Capital; and host of The Atomic Show: A long-running companion podcast series featuring Rod's interviews of and conversations with nuclear experts.
Meredith Angwin, wrote the first book explaining in lay terms the perils inherent in our power grid, “Shorting the Grid: The Hidden Fragility of our Electric Grid.” Previously, Angwin inspired and taught a generation of activists how to advocate for nuclear power in "Campaigning for Clean Air."

Mathijs Beckers, is an author and vlogger who runs the Nuclear Humanist YouTube channel. He is the author of "Highway to Dystopia: About spaceship Earth, Climate Change and more" as well as Climate Zero Hour, The Non-Solutions Project, and Science a la Carte. He is raising funds for his latest pronuclear project here.
Isabelle Boemeke, creator of the “Isodope” persona, an uber-stylish futuristic nuclear influencer featured in creative videos accessible by TicTok, Instagram and "X" tweets, which aim to educate the social media generation about nuclear energy. Ms. Boemeke is also the founder of Save Clean Energy, which led an initiative to send a letter to Governor Newsom urging him to save Diablo Canyon, signed by 79 scientific experts. She has also given a powerful pronuclear TED Talk.
Baba Brinkman, a science rapper, poet and performer, with the world's most extensive oeuvre of nuclear rap.
Robert Bryce, author, journalist and host of the Power Hungry Podcast, wrote "A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations," and produced the documentary Juice: How Electricity Explains the World. Bryce just released a new, 5-part documentary series called Juice: Power, Politics & the Grid, available for free on YouTube.

Gwyneth Cravens, author of "Power to Save the World: The Truth about Nuclear Energy."

Jack Devanney, author of the Substack: Gordion Knot News, dedicated to solving the twin problems of energy poverty and global warming.

Frankie Fenton, produced the documentary, Atomic Hope, which follows the birth, pains and growth of the pronuclear movement.

Joshua Goldstein and Staffan Qvist, wrote "A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change and the Rest Can Follow." This book was picked up and made into a powerful documentary by Oliver Stone, called Nuclear Now: Time to Look Again, in 2023.

Dr. Robert Hargraves, author of "Thorium, Energy Cheaper than Coal" and prolific tweeter
Heather Hoff, a co-founder of Mothers for Nuclear, is known to show up to official meetings to speak extremely articulately on behalf of saving nuclear power plants, with her young child in tow.

Dr. Chris Keefer, articulate Canadian nuclear advocate, founder of Doctors for Nuclear Energy and the Decouple podcast, focused on the challenge of decoupling energy production from carbon emissions.

D.J. LeClear, The Rad Guy, posts extensively with easy to understand explanations about nuclear power, radiation and waste issues.
Zion Lights, Everything is Light, has an engaging Substack covering her learning process about nuclear energy.

Gene Nelson, Californians for Green Nuclear Energy: Prolific researcher and author of detailed legal analyses, legal briefs and published OpEds submitted on behalf of CGNP as an intervenor in California CPUC actions revealing and critiquing efforts by those seeking to replace clean nuclear energy with dirty coal or gas, of the nefarious going on's—often behind "closed doors" or hidden in data reporting euphemisms—which have enabled efforts by PacifiCorp and others to sell coal power to California without it being acknowledged as such by CAISO.
Mark Nelson, Radiant Energy Group: Founder and preferred nuclear advocate in debates on nuclear energy, as well as a key influencer and consultant providing a range of strategic services to improve communications and engage key stakeholders.

Richard Ollington, Radiant Energy Group: Articulate nuclear influencer and researcher providing a range of strategic services including unique types of data collection, to provide data-driven reports and pronuclear communication strategies for business and policy leaders.

Carl Page, Anthropocene Institute: Articulate nuclear advocate, philanthropist and investor bringing a pro-technology perspective and working to connect engineers, entrepreneurs, investors, institutions and thought-leaders to solve the world's greatest challenges, including support for development of low energy nuclear reactors (LENR).
Emmet Penney, Nuclear Barbarians: Articulate nuclear author and podcaster interviewing a range of nuclear experts about the industry, its successes and challenges.

Staffan Qvist and Joshua Goldstein co-wrote "A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change and the Rest Can Follow." This book was picked up and made into a powerful documentary by Oliver Stone, called Nuclear Now: Time to Look Again, in 2023.

Dave Schumacher, produced The New Fire, a wonderful documentary about next-generation nuclear and some of the founders who have launched ventures)
Isuru Seneviratne, co-founder of Nuclear New York, is a data guru who has developed expertise in presenting energy data in a clear and compelling way that helps bring attention to the energy faux pas of those entrusted to do the right thing, specifically NYISO.
Oliver Stone, produced Nuclear Now: Time to Look Again, a 2023 documentary, based upon the Joshua Goldstein book, "A Bright Future."
Robert Stone, produced the highly influential 2013 documentary, Pandora’s Promise, arguably the first pronuclear documentary ever produced, which has subsequently inspired the pronuclear movement.

Nick Touran, Ph.D, P.E., What is Nuclear?: A technical blog that aims to enlighten the public about the capabilities of nuclear energy so that society may embrace it as an improvement in many aspects over current energy sources. Answers many common questions and concerns about nuclear power.

Dan Yurman, Neutron Bytes: Publishes posts and provides resources and references regarding advanced nuclear projects, expert resources and published literature about nuclearpower, and advocacy groups.

[Note: This Nuclear Advocacy page is a work in process and is neither comprehensive or completely up to date. Not included in this list are industry professional organizations, such as ANS, NEI, Nuclear Matters, World Nuclear Association, Women in Nuclear or North American Young Generation in Nuclear. If you have suggestions or corrections, please use the comment box to provide that information and we will endeavor to post it.]

Updated: April 25, 2025

Published by Valerie Gardner in Brilliant thinkers, Climate change, Climate policy, Energy abundance, Environmental support for nuclear, Fission, International support for nuclear, Investor activity, NEWS, Nuclear-inclusive energy policy, Nucleation communications, Philanthropic support for nuclear, Pro-nuclear campaign, Solving climate, Solving nuclear waste, Women in Nuclear, Zero emission energy

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.

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

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)
4^th 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.]

Published by Valerie Gardner in Climate change, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Environmental support for nuclear, Government support, International support for nuclear, Investor activity, NEWS, Nucleation communications, Philanthropic support for nuclear, Politicians supporting nuclear, Pro-nuclear campaign, Solving climate, US technological leadership, Women in Nuclear

February 8, 2021

Bill Gates’ Green Premium

Bill Gates discusses what he calls the Green Premium, which is the extra costs that it takes for us to transition all the way to clean energy, from dirty energy that doesn't pay for the pollution that it causes. The concept is important because while there are cheap types of clean energy, such as solar and wind, they don't get us all the way, since they are intermittent. The Green Premium speaks to the types of investments that we have to make to develop the technologies that can address not just converting our grid but also industry, transportation, agriculture, buildings and everything, everywhere. The "last mile" is the hardest and most expensive parts of the project.

Looking at the costs of the Green Premium for addressing all facets of the transition to clean energy, points to where we need to innovate and invest in better options for reducing the total Green Premium. That is what advanced nuclear ventures are doing: they are competing with that Green Premium as it exists for decarbonizing more broadly across all aspects of our economy and enabling us to transition at a much lower average cost.

Read more at "A Green Premium: Where we should spend money on climate innovation," an article printed in Time Magazine, which is an essay adapted from Bill Gates' book "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster."

Published by Nucleation Capital in Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate policy, Energy abundance, Environmental support for nuclear, Fossil fuels, Future of Energy, LINKS, Nuclear competitiveness, Nuclear R&D, Philanthropic support for nuclear, Solving climate, Zero emission energy

October 7, 2019

Philanthropy’s Critical Nuclear Moment

Philanthropy’s potential role in the science and development of nuclear power is significantly constrained, both by the overlap with impact investors and the traditionally dominant role played by government, especially abroad. Yet, the urgency of the need to address climate with technical solutions demands more of those with the ability to donate. So, it may not surprise many, that there are now dozens of funders, grantees and other nonprofit organizations working in the pro-nculear space, who are committed to the mission of ensuring that nuclear thrives and succeeds in helping to decarbonize the planet.

Inside Philanthropy reporters interviewed more than a dozen of these individuals who share the belief that the fate of the Earth is dependent upon mankind's ability to support the continued deployment of safe and abundant nuclear, since, according to the IPCC and numerous key scientists, like James Hansen, it will be impossible to decarbonize the entire global economy with it within the appropriate time frame.

Among those interviewed included Armond Cohen, executive director and co-found of the non-profit Clean Air Task Force and Rachel Pritzker, president and founder of the Pritzker Innovation Fund, one of the earliest and best-known funders in the space, who sees nuclear a piece of a larger puzzle.

Sam Mar, VP at Arnold Ventures, noted that most philanthropic funding has gone to organizations supporting other types of zero-emission energy and that nuclear groups are significantly underfunded as a technology and industry group. This view was confirmed by Matthew Nisbet, who published a research paper analyzing climate funding and who found that no grants at all were focused on promoting nuclear energy but rather, if there were grants, they were used for opposing nuclear energy.

So the question is, if philanthropists do want to support nuclear power, how can they do it? According to Larry Kramer, president of the Hewlett Foundation, funders should be "helping to finish off the research and development on fourth-generation reactors, then helping develop poicies to implement and figure out where there is the support for siting new designs.

See Inside Philanthropy: Philanthropy's Critical Nuclear Moment or, if you don't have a subscription, see the reprint of the IP piece at Klean Industries.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate innovation fund, Future of Energy, LINKS, Nuclear innovation, Nuclear R&D, Philanthropic support for nuclear, Reduced ecosystem impacts

August 14, 2019

Cleantech investing rebounds but critical capital gaps remain

Impact Alpha, a news service for "impact" investors, reports on stepped up investment by climate-savvy investors, willing to make long-term bets and data from Cambridge Associates showing a rebound in cleantech returns.

Despite this rosy overview and the addition of a few new climate-focused funds within the last few years, the total venture funding for high-risk, high-impact innovation is well off the 2008 peak. Still, some of the capital being deployed is coming from limited partners with a mission to fight climate change and willingness to be more patient. Some of these are philanthropic donors.

"Everything is moving in the right direction," according to Matthew Nordan, of Prime Impact Fund, a group that raises philanthropic dollars to invest in risky climate ventures that provide "additionality," yet there's still an enormous amount more capital needed, "particularly at the high risk, high impact early innovation stage."

Read Dennis Price's article in ImpactAlpha: "Cleantech venture capital rebounds with smarter, more patient investors."

Published by Nucleation Capital in Asset manager support, Capital reallocation, Climate innovation fund, Corporate decarbonization, Fund sustainability, LINKS, Philanthropic support for nuclear, Venture capital support for nuclear

March 27, 2019

N.E.L.A. reintroduced, Bill Gates “thrilled”

Bill Gates wrote: “I’m thrilled that senators from both sides of the aisle have come together to support advanced nuclear. This is exactly the kind of leadership our country needs to both solve the climate challenge and reassert our leadership in this important industry,” in response to the re-introduction of the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (NELA), submitted on March 27th, 2019 by a group of 15 senators led by Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

NELA, a bipartisan bill that would encourage further development of advanced nuclear energy programs that would help create high-quality jobs, strengthen national security, reduce foreign energy dependence, and promote emissions-free energy, was also introduced to the House in June 2019, by Congresswoman Elaine Luria (VA-02), Denver Riggleman (VA-05), Congressman Conor Lamb (PA-17), and Congressman Rob Wittman (VA-01).

“As an engineer who operated nuclear reactors on aircraft carriers, I know that ensuring a thriving civilian nuclear industry is vital not only for our economy, but for our national security,” Congresswoman Luria said. “Nuclear energy must be part of any solution to transitioning to a clean energy future because nuclear power provides over 55% of our carbon-free energy. That’s why I’m proud to reach across the aisle and introduce this critical bipartisan bill.”

“Yesterday, a bipartisan group of leaders in the US Senate introduced the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, which establishes an ambitious plan to accelerate the development of advanced nuclear reactor technologies,” Bill Gates tweeted. “I can’t overstate how important this is,” he said.

The draft bill was formally introduced to the Senate by Murkowski on behalf of herself and Senators Cory Booker, James Risch, Joe Manchin, Mike Crapo, Lamar Alexander, Sheldon Whitehouse, Cory Gardner, Chris Coons, Dan Sullivan, Tammy Duckworth, Lindsay Graham, Michael Bennet, Shelley Moore Capito, and Rob Portman. It directs the US Secretary of Energy “to establish advanced nuclear goals, provide for a versatile, reactor-based fast neutron source, make available high-assay, low-enriched uranium for research, development, and demonstration of advanced nuclear reactor concepts, and for other purposes”.

Read SightlineU308's "Bill Gates ‘thrilled’ by legislative boost for nuclear" for more on Gate's response and read here for more about the Nuclear Energy Innovation Modernization Act.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Future of Energy, Government support, LINKS, Nuclear competitiveness, Nuclear innovation, Nuclear R&D, Philanthropic support for nuclear, Politicians supporting nuclear, Regulatory reform

Older Posts ›