Comments from Signatories2019-02-14T07:56:36+00:00

This is the organization I’ve been looking for!

Supporter of Nuclear with solar panels on my roof.

Together we can do this!

I’m more than ready to put my shoulder to the wheel and include this in my current efforts. I hope we can include the energy and national security implications of nuclear power and climate change in this, as well.

There is no “silver bullet” for solving climate change. It’s made of uranium, plutonium or thorium.

We have begun withdrawing from our sword fight competition of “political opinion” and media reaction. Instead, we are refocusing on documenting factual analysis of data concerning nuclear technology, Yucca Mountain and the feasibility analysis of a commercially viable reprocessing energy center which might include wind, solar, and the new (SMR) Small Modular Reactor technology. This is the type of information necessary in order to provide the grassroots public with the material they need for a “RE-BRANDED” knowledge of nuclear technology.

This is the the greatest challenge humanity has faced– we must face it together.

While my own personal interest is in nuclear power (I am not involved in the nuclear energy industry), I am an all-hands-on-deck proponent to zero-emissions generation. That fact that you specifically include nuclear by name in the manifesto makes this a big win. I tried engaging the Climate Mobilization to include nuclear, but they have limited their inclusion to “existing power plants,” with an eventual goal of phasing it out completely. This was a deal breaker. We all need to work together.

All pathways to decarbonization that are scientifically proven are good choices.

While my own personal interest is in nuclear power (I am not involved in the nuclear energy industry), I am an all-hands-on-deck proponent to zero-emissions generation. That fact that you specifically include nuclear by name in the manifesto makes this a big win. I tried engaging the Climate Mobilization to include nuclear, but they have limited their inclusion to “existing power plants,” with an eventual goal of phasing it out completely. This was a deal breaker. We all need to work together.

I think your initiative and website are terrific and badly needed. Your collection of sources is impressive.

I overcame objections to nuclear largely as a result of the aftermath of the loss of coolant accident at Fukushima.  At the time I was working in my first professional position in the R&D department at a PV manufacturer and integrator in Tucson, and my colleagues were vehemently anti-nuclear. When this nuclear meltdown, which had been getting the lion’s-share of news coverage at the time, failed to result in a news-worthy level of fatalities or environmental damage, it really made me question whether the media’s portrayal of this issue was accurate at all. Journalists like George Monbiot and Mark Lynas were very convincing that society needed to re-consider Nuclear. Then I started reading atomic insights, the breakthrough institute and the energy collective regularly, books like ‘Abundant Energy’ about the integral fast reactor project, video presentations from TEAC and on and on and on. The internet provides so much access to information, twitter is a great learning tool as well which I use most lately.

If I had one strong opinion to share about the way nuclear power is most commonly advocated for it would be this:

Advocating for nuclear on the sole basis of need is not nearly as effectual in most cases as advocating for it on the basis that it is highly desirable.

What I mean by this is nuclear advocates usually form arguments on the basis that nuclear is ultimately needed, that the problem will be unsolvable without it.

While I agree that nuclear is almost certainly needed for timely emissions reduction, I believe the reasons this type of argumentation are not as effectual as possible are:

1. For many people, being told that something cannot be done (a world powered by RE) results in a heightened ambition for them to prove the opposite whether rational or not.

2. It implies that nuclear would have to be begrudgingly accepted on the basis of need, and that if we didn’t need it we would choose something else.

3. It doesn’t communicate appeal or enthusiasm for the technology, that it is a better and more desirable solution for certain functional roles.

4. The argumentation is often approval-seeking on the part of the person/group advocating for nuclear.

I believe a more effectual way of advocacy is non-divisive enthusiasm about the ways in which nuclear fission power is a more desirable and more technologically advanced and environmentally benign means of playing a certain role in our energy supply system than anything else available now. We should emphasize that nuclear science will always be essential in our society  to provide nuclear medicine and power for space exploration, and that extending this scientific work to power generating reactors can be done with very low risk and yield very large benefits. Nuclear should be a preferred solution in the same way that renewable energy technologies are.

Nuclear reactors take up much less land, require much less mining, produce much less waste, have longer infrastructural replacement cycles, require less but more highly regulated and higher paying labor, have lower dependence on low-regulated foreign labor, lower dependence on foreign commodities, and are much more highly regulated for environmental impact throughout their lifecycle than alternative means of meeting baseload energy demand, an energy demand profile that will always exist and will only grow. And in all likelihood nuclear reactors  will be a much lower cost means of meeting baseload energy demand in the longterm than anything else.

The last part (cost) is perhaps the most important but also the most misunderstood point. Securing funding for new plants in the west and preserving existing plants will be an uphill battle that will require government action. Without government-secured deployment markets for new reactors in western countries, we will not be able to gain any economies of scale on the high upfront cost of licensing the new designs, training construction staffs, and developing supply chains for construction. Without market reforms, carbon taxation, or subsidies we will not be able to preserve our existing nuclear fleet for its useful life.

Innovation in nuclear reactor design can allow for cost reduction that is unlike the cost reduction potential with any other non-fusion energy source based on my understanding. This is because the innovation in nuclear fission can provide both the highest levels of material use reduction (unmatched % power and energy density improvement potential, unmatched fuel efficiency improvement potential), and the highest levels of systems complexity and regulatory overhead reduction. I say this based on the power density and fuel efficiency improvements touted as possible with designs such as the IMSR from Terrestrial Energy, as well as the obviation of operating and safety systems complexities and redundancies that it and other advanced reactors look able to achieve. The interview with Per Peterson linked below is very thought-provoking regarding this topic: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/bret-kugelmass/why-not-nuclear/e/52918114

But aside from nuclear I research solutions for emissions reduction in transport, heat, the use of CCS, agricultural impacts, vertical farming, desalination, energy poverty, mining reserves markets and impacts, and of course solar and wind technologies. I’d be happy to contribute.

Climate Coalition perfectly states the problem, the arguments, and the solutions to humanity’s greatest challenge.

I travel in many diverse climate change circles and will be on the lookout for places where the climate coalition can gain traction and/or enter into creative dialogue. As I move through “Trump Country” I will also send people your way who are leaning toward being nuclear inclusive but don’t know how to actualize that. If/when the Climate Coalition puts out a brochure, bumper sticker, postcard, or some other item with your website address on it, I can imagine passing them on to people who raise the nuclear question within a wider discussion of solutions. I love the way your “things to know” page places “Being Nuclear Inclusive” within an array of essential points rather than making it a first, immediate, and only point of contention.

I’m looking forward to being involved and engaged in the many challenges that lie ahead to make a meaningful difference in the reduction of fossil fuel consumption globally.

I’ve been involved in solar PV technology for about 8 years. PV was my concentration in graduate school and then I went on to continue work with PV in compliance, R&D, product development, and now on the business end of deploying PV with a small commercial installer in the Bay Area.

At first I didn’t even consider nuclear power probably as I was quite infatuated with wind turbines and PV. It wasn’t until I learned more and gained and appreciation for the scale of global energy demand and the basics of fission and radiation that my perception on energy issues changed completely.

Solar can actually pair well with Nuclear in summer peaking regions based on my understanding. Thinking about and researching energy related issues is a favorite past-time of mine, and hopefully I will be doing some more formal research soon.

I’d be happy to contribute to your group to build more support etc. I think it’s a great idea, its silly that RE and Nuclear are considered opposing technologies. They can definitely be complementary and in all likelihood will have to be. I am very confident that in this age of social media we can proliferate knowledge about this issue and change public perceptions. I see the tide somewhat turning already.

I wish to join as an individual, focusing on spurring climate change awareness and initiatives among individuals in their 20s/30s.

We need to drawdown carbon and prepare for coming climate impacts already built into the system. Transformation of our energy and transportation systems are keys to turning around climate change.

I’m intrigued by your strategy and message to the world. I’d like to join . . .