BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Are Fossil Fuel Interests Bankrolling The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement?

Following
This article is more than 7 years old.

When the Three Amigos met in Ontario, Canada, they had vowed to collectively produce half of all their electricity from clean power sources. But what the leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico didn’t plan on was that their joint announcement would coincide with the closure of a major nuclear plant in California, which has become the clean energy capital of the world.

It’s ironic and begs the question of why the traditional environmental movement is so vehemently opposed to nuclear energy, especially since it is the only fuel that can burn around the clock without releasing any carbon emissions. While this writer has had good relations among all those along the environmental continuum for 16 years, critics will maintain that it is the fossil fuel interests that have bankrolled some of the legacy groups.

In 1970, a leader of the petroleum industry and the head of the Atlantic Richfield Co. named Robert O. Anderson contributed $200,000 to fund Friends of the Earth, an organization that is strident in its opposition to nuclear energy, citing both safety and cost issues. The topic is part of a book by F. William Engdahl titled Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Orders, says Rod Adams, author of the blog Atomic Insights.

“The discovery moved Anderson up to exhibit number one in my long-running effort to prove that the illogically tight linkage between ‘environmental groups’ and ‘antinuclear groups’ can be traced directly to the need for the oil and gas industry to discourage the use of nuclear energy,” writes Adams.

He goes on to say that oil and gas marketers are savvy and realize that transparent donations would be viewed with a jaundiced eye by journalists and others. By surreptitiously giving money, Adams says that those in the fossil fuel sector could establish proxies to do their fighting for them. Why?

The oil industry had long-been concerned that “atomic fission” could replace oil, or at a minimum, significantly undercut its price. Fission occurs when an atom is split into two parts and it results in the generation of electricity from a nuclear power plant. 

Skeptics have long expressed concern over the use of such technology for warfare. Adams says that the fossil fuel industry has also glommed on to this argument as a matter of convenience.

“Oil would be worth a lot less if more of the world’s energy needs were provided by atomic fission,” Adams writes. “If oil was worth less, it would make no economic sense to press it out of shale rocks in North Dakota, drill for it deep under the Gulf of Mexico, or try to extract it from the challenging environment of the Arctic Ocean.”

How does all this bear on today’s nuclear energy market? As for the United States, it gets about 19 percent of its electric generation from nuclear energy, which represents about 62 percent of its carbon-free power. In Canada, nuclear power is second only to hydropower as the biggest fuel used to generate electricity while in Mexico, it represents 18 percent of its electricity.

Importantly, clean energy supplies as a total of the global electricity generation portfolio have been on the decline for two decades, according to Environmental Progress, which also says that a primary reason for this is because of the threats to nuclear generation: Germany has plans to nix its whole nuclear portfolio, as does Sweden, and in the United States, smaller nuclear units that compete on the open market can’t go head-to-head with cheap natural gas. True, wind and solar are growing, the think tank says, but not enough to make up for lost nuclear.

And that’s just the tip: In the United States, Environmental Progress says that 13 nuclear plants are at risk of closure over the next two years. Moreover, half of all such plants here could be shut down over the next 15 years. “If that happens, the resulting higher carbon emissions will wipe out 43 percent of the EPA’s planned Clean Power Plan reductions,” says Michael Shellenberger, president of the Berkeley, Calif.-based think tank.

Already, Entergy Corp., Exelon Corp. and Dominion Resources have retired smaller nuclear units that are unable to compete with natural gas on the open market. Exelon has said it might close two more in New York State unless the state approves subsidies. And late last month, Pacific Gas & Electric said it would retire a bigger base-load plant while Edison International’s San Onofre facility closed in 2013 after a persistent radiation leak.

All told, Shellenberger says that nuclear generation worldwide has fallen by 7 percent since 1995 to where it now provides 11 percent of the globe’s electricity. Meanwhile, wind and solar global installations have grown by 3.7 percent during that same time — not enough to replace the carbon-free contributions.

But is this not the free market at work? According to Shellenberger, the anti-nuclear forces have successfully targeted nuclear energy and given it a black eye. But with a better understanding of it — and its role in providing cleaner, affordable and carbon-free electricity — it is not too late to reshape the discussion.

If nuclear energy were part of states' renewable portfolio mandates, it could better compete, he says. And if it were subsidized at the same rates as wind and solar energy, it would do even better.

Shellenberger has also said that the deal to close the last remaining nuclear plant in California benefits the Natural Resources Defense Council, which holds $7.7 million in four separate renewable energy private equity funds. In other words, if 8 percent of the nuclear-produced electricity is taken off the California market, then it provides a good business opportunity for those who develop wind and solar power — especially their investors. The environmental group and its supporters counter that it is perfectly logical for green organizations to invest in the type of ventures they want to promote.

To be sure, there are those who argue that the nuclear energy sector is already heavily subsidized. The Union of Concerned Scientists released a report in February 2011 saying that the industry gets all sorts of federal goodies ranging from storing nuclear waste to loan guarantees to uranium mining.

These subsidies not only enabled the nation’s existing reactors to be built in the first place, but have also supported their operation for decades,” says Doug Koplow, with the union. 

“Moreover, nuclear power brings with it important economic, waste disposal, safety, and security risks unique among low-carbon energy sources,” he adds. “Shifting these risks and their associated costs onto the public is the major goal of the new subsidies sought by the industry.”

The argument over subsidies is a red herring. Government has long been involved in all aspects of the energy sector -- from research and development to giving tax credits to get projects up-and-going. If society has placed a premium on carbon-free sources of power, then providing an incentive to generate or buy such fuels is not extraordinary.

That, of course, is the premise behind the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan to cut carbon pollution by 32 percent by 2030, from 2005 levels. It’s also the purpose of the agreement just reached among the United States, Canada and Mexico. Are those goals possible without nuclear energy?

The question then circles back to the original one posed: why are the legacy environmental groups dead set against nuclear energy? Scholars such as Rod Adams and Michael Shellenberger will say to follow the money.

But this writer will give more credence to the organizations' deeply-held beliefs, which have merit but which also have flaws. Many in the modern environmental movement, however, have changed with the times, including James Hansen at the Columbia University Earth Institute who has bred public awareness about climate change.

To that end, Hansen and other high profile climate scientists are hitting the lecture circuit and publishing their views to express that higher percentages of nuclear energy are essential to combating climate change. They, in turn, are asking their environmental brethren to embrace this position — and to quit viewing nuclear energy from the perspective of 1979 when the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island occurred.

Despite the setbacks, this country is moving forward with nuclear projects built by Southern Co., Scana Corp. and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Nevertheless, long-held, deeply-entrenched anti-nuke positions won't easily shift. For the technology to advance in the developed world, it must surpass expectations in the developing world that has major programs underway.