Letter to Nuclear Energy Institute about carbon dioxide, fossil fuels, and nuclear power

Letter To Nuclear Energy Institute

www.nei.org Dated August 4, 2021 Ms Maria Korsnick President: NEI Dear Ms Korsnick, We, the undersigned, are a group of professionals mainly in scientific fields. We are collectively all interested in advancing nuclear power for the good of mankind, and for the benefit of our mutual environment. We have all been active for many years in promoting good sense and good science. Unfortunately there is far too little of that type of sensible activity in Society generally.

We come from a variety of countries around the world, and for some time we have exchanged our collective opinions and experiences to arrive at our common understanding.

We are also all interested in another field, which is that of Climate Change. Again we feel that our common goal is for the good of mankind, and we wish to ensure benefit to our environment, which without doubt is extremely important.

Our countries and our backgrounds mean that we collectively can speak with some authority about a variety of countries, including advanced developed world countries and the many developing countries at various stages of advancement globally. This is extremely important. Far too many people freely use the term: 'Think globally and act locally,' but in reality they don't think globally. Many in fact think very locally and then carry out actions globally in somebody else's backyard, frequently in somebody else's country.

Let us state clearly at this point that we do not believe that anthropogenic CO2 is causing damaging Global Warming, or consequent Climate Change.

Now let us return to nuclear power.

We believe that nuclear power is applicable to many countries in the world; ranging from the traditional nuclear countries to a spectrum of countries at various stages of development.

In fact with modern advancements in the field of Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology the reality of the advantages of nuclear power has opened up nuclear to a significant range of countries who previously thought that nuclear power was beyond their reach. They should not be prevented from attaining nuclear power status.

However for decades now, nuclear power has suffered as a result of a whole spectrum of politics.

This ranges from government-level politics to the street-level politics of anti-nuclear 1

demonstrators! Sadly, very few people in the entire spectrum have much real knowledge or understanding of nuclear power. Contributing to this situation is the reality that various activist groups have deliberately spread incorrect disinformation to intentionally confuse Society. Much of this activist activity has introduced a real fear factor which scares citizens and governments alike.

The result has been that the public debate concerning nuclear power has not been honest.

The issue of Climate Change being linked to anthropogenic CO2 is the same. It too has been distorted for political gain. The resulting dishonest public discussion has led to wild claims such as: sea level rising many metres in a few years; major Antarctic ice melting; and a host of other silly claims which scare the public into making foolish decisions.

Another contributing factor has been that most serious scientists are reluctant to become involved in public confrontation, and are also unskilled at doing so when they are drawn into it.

Some scientists and engineers have been personally threatened, and others have lost their jobs or have experienced funding cuts for speaking out in public. These actions go against the very concept of freedom of expression and it is a very unfortunate trend to witness in this modern age.

The nuclear power fraternity has been globally very poor in public discourse, and in presentation to political and business leaders. Part of this state of affairs is undoubtedly due to the fact that nuclear science is difficult and so it is not easy to convert complex nuclear technology issues into layman's language, so that non-scientific decision-makers can understand it.

By default, nuclear technology has been losing out due to the absence of effective public debate.

The reality of this type of public debate is that it must not only be accurate and understandable, but it must also, at times, be prepared to: fight Fire with Fire.

A confrontation with vociferous activists will undoubtedly be lost if the pro-nuclear spokesperson is merely quiet and gentle, even if completely accurate. This indicates that an array of much more skillful techniques needs to be used for such encounters.

A factor of great importance is that at all times we must be scientifically and technologically accurate. That aspect is non-negotiable, not only as a matter of principle but also because any slight inaccuracy, even if inadvertent, can then be exploited to the detriment of the credibility of nuclear technology. Here we are faced with an obvious challenge. In converting a complex nuclear technology explanation into layman's language it is frequently necessary that certain corners have to be cut and simplifications introduced. We have, over years, discovered that this is rather hard work. But simplifications for public consumption must be defendable in the event that they are challenged.

We wish to repeat that the scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is causing Climate Change is plain and simply inadequate, to non-existent. We agree that there has been some slight Global Warming over the last 150 years, but we disagree that it can be blamed on industrial CO2. A far more compelling cause of the observed Global Warming is a link between the magnetic activity 2

of the Sun and the magnetic screening of the Earth, which leads to the observed temperature changes far more accurately than does any CO2 connection.

We have noticed that some pro-nuclear advocacy coming from the NEI has included the observation that nuclear power produces no CO2. We agree that this is true, except for some desperate anti-nuclear sentiment which mentions the CO2 produced during uranium mining, but conveniently omits to include the mining aspects in renewable energies.

What worries us is linking nuclear power to a reduction in Global Warming or to the avoidance of Climate Change, because ‘it produces no CO2.‘ That is false.

We appreciate that any non-production of CO2 is being viewed in many quarters as environmentally-friendly. We fully appreciate the political and emotional power of such claims.

We also note that in the EU there have recently been discussions and decisions about nuclear power being able to be labelled as 'green' because it does not produce CO2. In short, we appreciate the environmental and political advantages of projecting the reality that nuclear power produces no CO2. So we are quite happy for the NEI to project that fact, in support of the advantages of nuclear power.

However nuclear power has many other undeniable advantages with respect to; cost, safety, efficiency, and environmental protection over and above CO2. So we do not want to find that public acceptance of nuclear power becomes so dependent on the CO2 issue that if the CO2 issue is removed in the future that it is like a three-legged stool losing one leg. Nuclear power must be seen to be a preferred power source internationally on the basis of its inherent attributes, and the non-production of CO2 must merely be seen as a bonus advantage now.

So we would like to urge the NEI not to link nuclear power to reducing Global Warming or to preventing Climate Change. This is a dangerous path. We fully appreciate that this is a rather delicate balancing act, but it is extremely important. Fully acceptable comments could be ones like: "Nuclear power produces no CO2 and therefore fully complies with various international targets related to the reduction of atmospheric CO2.”

We applaud your initiatives in promoting the rapid expansion of nuclear power around the world.

We believe that the world needs a combination of reactor types ranging from large reactors of over 1000MW in size, to SMR-size reactors in the 100 to 300 MW range, to even smaller nuclear power packs for a variety of functions.

The nuclear fraternity has learnt over the last half-century that the future of the industry lies in international collaboration. Collaboration extends way beyond the technological, and extends into the realm of licensing; inspections; fuel fabrication standards; and much more. It also includes friendly collaboration in the event of nuclear incidents or accidents in which it has been pleasing to see how rapidly nuclear countries have come to each other's aid when nuclear accidents have occurred in the past.

3

As nuclear power spreads to more countries, the need for collaboration will increase. This is going to be most important. One cannot, for example, expect a small country wanting one SMR to develop an entire large-scale regulatory authority before acquiring one 100MW SMR. So the rate of expansion of nuclear power worldwide will be very dependent on a number of factors ranging from the technology; to training; to regulatory; to incident response plans; fuel acquisition and storage; waste handling; and more.

The fact that nuclear power does not produce CO2 will not just be a magic formula which guarantees any country or authority instant access to nuclear power. All of the collaboration factors will present themselves as major ‘go,’ ‘no-go’ gates. So we feel that it is important to emphasize the extent of the nuclear collaboration which now exists in the world, and how this is being harnessed to assist any potential new nuclear countries in becoming part of the world nuclear family.

In passing we would also like to mention that the entire CO2, Global Warming and Climate Change saga which is currently sweeping the world, has been given life and momentum by the same public attitude of believing in largely inaccurate stories propagated by people who have little real understanding of the topic. So the entire CO2 argument itself is highly suspect, and does not actually fit the science in such a compelling manner as many activists claim.

The undersigned group, plus a large group of associates of ours, are all available to assist the NEI in advancing nuclear power worldwide.

We encourage you to expand your public communications and to attempt to intrude into any international forums where you can make an impact. We stand ready to assist.

Kind Regards Primary Author Kelvin Kemm, nuclear physicist and Former Chairman: South African Nuclear Energy Corporation, South Africa - exec@nuclearafrica.co.za www.nuclearafrica.co.za Alternate Communications Author John Shanahan, civil engineer, USA - john.shanahan@allaboutenergy.net www.allaboutenergy.net

4

Co-Authors Name

Role

Country

Adelino de Santi, Jr,

Biologist in Nuclear Industry,

Brazil

Paul Driessen

Energy and Environmental Policy Advisor

USA

Viv Forbes

Geologist, Financial Analyst

Australia

Samuel Furfari

Professor of Energy Policy and Political Science

Belgium

Michel Gay

Energy and Environmental Policy Advisor

France

Michael Hancock

Media Communications Advisor

USA

Howard Hayden

Emeritus Professor of Physics

USA

Vijay Jayaraj

Energy and Environmental Policy Advisor

India

Eric Jelinski

Nuclear, Chemical, and Mechanical Engineer

Canada

Kenneth Kok

Nuclear Engineer

USA

Jay Lehr

Energy and Environmental Policy Advisor

USA

Sebastian Luening

Paleo-Geologist

Germany

José Maldifassi

Nuclear Engineer, Professor of Engineering

Chile

Jeffrey Mahn

Nuclear Engineer

USA

Patrick Moore

Ecologist, CO2 Coalition

Canada

Thomas Wysmuller

Meteorologist

USA

5