Nuclear Humanism The Case for Atomic Power

Reading Time: 60 minutes Part ONE: Introduction

1. Environmental Leaders Switch to Supporting Nuclear Electricity Generation

2. The Data is Clear - Non-Nuclear 100% 'Wind Water & Solar’ power “simply won't work”

3. Accurate Trustworthy Data: A) Energy & Electricity consumption; B) Green House Gas Emissions 4. Intermittency & Storage: one of the Achilles heel of Wind Water & Solar (WWS) power generation

5. No choice : Nuclear Power must be in the mix for plans that add-up' in short, medium, & long terms

Part TWO: Science Informs Politics

6. Scientists support Nuclear energy to help achieve IPCC under 2-degree Decarbonisation Targets 7. We need a shared Pro-Arithmetic Ethical Plan that ‘Adds Up' 8. There are no short-cuts around Political Engagement

Part THREE: 100% Wind Water & Solar power is “nonsensical” in spite of “capturing the public imagination”

9. Wind Water and Solar power can’t produce enough energy to cover embedded construction energy 10. It’s not about Wind Water and Solar ~vs~ Fossil ~vs~ Nuclear it’s about which mix makes sense 11. Failed Lawsuits : Climate & Power-Grid experts judge Non-Nuclear study “riddled with errors”

12. Zero Carbon Britain ‘scenario’ for a Non-Nuclear 100% WWS and the UK Green New Deal

13. Wind Water and Solar all need vast areas of Land & Sea to Build and Grow Infrastructure

14. Electric Vehicles : Increase in Minerals, Mining & Fossil Fuel

15. Externalities Limiting non-Nuclear 100% Wind Water and Solar

16. Energy Feudalism, Extractivism, Exploiting the Global South : Renewable Energy = Fossil Fuel+

Part FOUR: Nuclear Power : Answering Objections

17. Nuclear Power is completely renewable

18. SOLVED: Radioactive for 300,000 years 'Wast Storage Problem’ reduced to 300 years

19. Recycle Generation Ill Nuclear ‘Waste’ & Warheads as Fuel for new Generation IV Reactors 20. How much Un-Recyclable Nuclear 'Waste' is there? And what does ‘Half Life’ mean?

21. Background Terrestrial Radiation Is it dangerous?

22. Chernobyl: Europe’s Largest Wildlife Refuge

23. Fukushima : Radiation less than a Banana and below detectable levels

24. Nuclear Weapons Proliferation risks not increased by Nuclear Power technology

Part FIVE: CONCLUSION - A Call For Immediate POLICTICAL ACTION NOW!

25. Harmony a ‘plan that adds -up' for future Electricity Generation : 75% Renewable plus 25% Nuclear 26. Energy supply is most efficiently configured as state owned ‘Natural Monopoly'

27. It is just as nonsensical to say we have run out of Kilograms as to say we have run out of Money 28. Global cooperation - achieving Harmony

29. Progressive Political Support NOW : 75% Wind Water Solar plus 25% Nuclear Electricity Generation

Part ONE: Introduction

This discussion paper is an urgent call for political actors, parties and their networks in the UK to establish a robust long-term statutory framework to create the Ultimate Power Couple“ 1 a Pro-Nuclear electricity generation partnership with Wind Water & Solar renewable energy in recognition that it is the physical world, of science, maths and engineering that determines what is politically possible, 2 not the other way round.

When the physical evidence presented here below is honestly and dispassionately analysed, it very strongly suggests that non-Nuclear 100% Wind Water & Solar (WWS) electricity generation systems “simply won't work” not even close to the 50+ fold increase needed to displace Big Fossil's 85% global energy supply dominance.

This means GLOBALLY there's an URGENT need for governments to explicitly support industrial partnerships between the Nuclear & the WWS energy sectors. Especially rich and developed countries, who have historically dominated fossil energy resources usually by force leading to their huge infrastructure, industrial and wealth advantages, must now re-dress these imbalances by aiming to: a) domestically create tens of thousands of new jobs building infrastructure; b) globally expand their technology exports c) freely share energy generation IP (Intellectual Property) rights; and d) ensure the private sector engages in immediate and ongoing action to realise and sustain these outcomes.

THE NEW IMAGE OF NUCLEAR

OOLYYD

ey A

IK NAIWAAOW

One of the defining inequalities in the world today is that between the electricity rich and the electricity poor. Electricity is the world’s most important and fastest-growing form of energy. However, global electricity generation still accounts for between only 9% to 15% (depending on data source) of global energy consumption. 3 4 Poverty, women’s rights, climate change indeed, most of the world’s most pressing challenges can be explained by answering one question: can you turn on your lights, if you're lucky enough to have them? While electricity availability doesn’t guarantee wealth, its absence almost always means poverty. Darkness kills human potential. Electricity nourishes it. 5

In the battle to replace Big Fossil, there are many compelling equality benefits that an ‘Ultimate Power Couple’ partnership between the Nuclear and Wind, Water & Solar (WWS) electricity generation sectors could yield, for example:-

1.Eliminate millions of unnecessary deaths, disease and dramatically shortened life spans from respiratory and related diseases, and injuries caused by a) breathing emissions from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) which have an 85% share of global energy demand, and b) breathing smoke from bio-fuels' 8% share, used to cook and keep warm by burning wood, dung and grass; 6

Percentage of population using solid fuels as the main cooking fuel pict: The share of households by region who rely on wood, crop residues, dung, charcoal, or coal as the main cooking fuel. The burning of solid fuels in households for cooking and heating can lead to very low indoor air quality, and illness or mortality from pneumonia, stroke, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lung cancer.

80% 2010

60% ® Africa 77.00% @Southeast Asia @ Southeast Asia 61.00% @ Western Pacific 46.00% @Western Pacific

40% @ World 41.00% eWorld @ Eastern Mediterranean 35.00% i@Eastern Mediterranean @ Americas 14.00% @ Europe 7.00%

20% @ High-income 0.10% oe Americas urope 0% ee eh ligh-income 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Source: Solid fuel use for cooking by region - Bonjour et al. (2013) CC BY

D> 1990 Qa 2010 CHART DATA SOURCES &2i@07

2.Connect electricity to 12% of humans - nearly a billion people - now off grid. More than half the 1 billion people in the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) 7 live on less than a dollar a day. Women in LDCs have a one in 16 chance of dying in childbirth, compared to one in 3,500 in Europe; LDCs are among the groups of countries most affected by climate change, while they contribute least to it. Many LDCs are also small islands whose very survival is threatened by rising sea levels; 8

Number of people without access to electricity

1.4 billion 1.2 billion

1 billion World

800 million

600 million

Least developed countries: UN classification

400 million

200 million

0 Euro area 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2016

Source: OWID based on World Bank, Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) and UNWPP OurWorldInData.org/energy-production-and-changing-energy-sources * CC BY

3.Increase electricity supply to 3 billion people on the planet today who are using less energy than the equivalent electricity needed to run by an average refrigerator.

Energy use per capita

Annual average per capita energy consumption is measured in kilowatt-hours per person per year.

40,000 kWh

United Kingdom 30,000 kWh

World 10,000 kWh

Least developed countries: UN

Ce ee enna. |-1s11i(er-1116) a

0 kWh 1971 1980 1990 2000 2010 2014

Source: International Energy Agency (IEA) via The World Bank OurWorldInData.org/energy-production-and-changing-energy-sources/ » CC BY

Few would argue with these aims, but they cannot be realised by the Wind, Water & Solar power sectors alone, which will struggle to grow from their current supply of circa 2% of global energy demand, because they:-

1.Can’t produce enough net electricity to cover the energy embedded in their own construction; causing

2.Orders of magnitude increases in mining & industrial-scale “extractivism’ 9 activities “renewable energy does nothing to remake exploitative relationships with the earth” compared to Nuclear power; causing

3.Huge increases in fossil fuel burning to power material processing and infrastructure build-out, eroding health, wellbeing and life spans; causing

4.Mass_industrialisation of nature accelerating the already rapidly degrading and impoverished local communities 10 and the natural environments people rely on rather than embracing gargantuan projects; plus

5.Countless unborn generations will be denied access to essential non-fuel fossils resources if early 21st

Century humans are foolish enough to chase the 100% renewables unicorn, by greedily burning all remaining finite and irreplaceable coal, gas and oil reserves, which we're already half way through. 11

JUST ONE DAY OUT OF THE YEAR Sie ices Mensa ce

RAS y —— ao nn

Externalities enjoyed in the developed world, such as the historical infrastructure advantages, all won largely on the back of Big Fossil's toxic persistent exponentially expanding (from 1940 to 1970) deadly emissions over the last few hundred years, must not be ignored or made invisible in our deliberations and actions. Do we deny much of the rest of the global population access to abundant energy because some of us now enjoying these infrastructure advantages have adopted a false “austerity” rhetoric? But in defence of what? When Nuclear power can provide for every human beings' needs more equally and reduce energy access inequality more efficiently by every metric we care to apply? Ignoring such day to day / historical advantage is, | argue, both anti-scientific and thus immoral so | reject it in favour of Nuclear power as quickly as possible for the many not the few. | call this just being fair.

Arguments over global warming don't reduce the weight of these conclusions. Even if you think climate change doesn't exist at all, the above aims and conclusions remain just as urgent and just as firm. Being “agnostic” about Anthropic Global Warming, or a “believer” in CO2, methane from cow farts, fluffy stratospheric clouds, or the “tooth fairy’ can only add, but never subtract moral & scientific weight of the conclusion that:

Humanity URGENTLY needs to Electrify 1 billion people now off-grid, Electrify Transport, Electrify domestic Heat & industrial process Heat and Maximise Energy Efficiencies in EVERYTHING ceNOW!

Natasha Thoday 12 13

Brighton, S eptember 2019

1. Environmental leaders switch to supporting Nuclear Electricity Generation

Many now acknowledge their previous opposition to Nuclear power was irrational. 14 People such as Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore, Friends of the Earth founder Bishop Hugh Montefiore, Whole Earth Catalog founder Stewart Brand, WWF J ared Diamond, and academics such as Tim Flanery, J ohn Holdren, James Kunstler, Bill McKibben and James Lovelock, together with author Gwyneth Cravens, journalist Mark Lynas, historian Richard Rhodes and activist Michael Shellenberger one of the world's leading pro- nuclear environmentalists & atomic humanist movement founder, 15 have all decided that Nuclear power is consistent with environmental values. 16 17 In contrast, people who switch to supporting Nuclear power seldom if ever switch back to not supporting it.

Climatologist Dr J ames Hansen said: "Can renewable energies provide all of society's energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy."

* ENERGY INDEPENPENcE * PRESERVE RAINFORESTS * SUSTAINABILITY . * GREEN JOBS

* LIVABLE CITIES

' RENEWABLES

* CLEAN WATER, AIR

WHAT VE 17's

A BIG HOAX AND we CReAle A BeTTerR. WORLD FoR NoTHING ?

—= Ta a,

2. The Data is Clear - Non-Nuclear 100% 'Wind Water Solar’ (WWS) “simply won't work”

Global warming is very likely being caused by humans emitting greenhouse gases. 18 There is a high degree of confidence amongst climate scientists, and the general scientific community, that the dominant cause of observed global warming has been humans burning ever more Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emitting coal, gas, & oil over the last several hundred years. “There was 99% scientific consensus in 2011 that humans are causing global warming.” 19

The world’s climate is a chaotic system. Even after decades of intense study and billions in research funding, scientists have barely begun to comprehend all its workings. Even if global climate change factors other than CO2 turn out (following new analysis and evidence being robust enough to withstand the cut and thrust of scientific peer review to change today’s consensus) to be equally or more significant 20 then we should preserve fossil coal, gas & oil reserves for future generations in any case, not selfishly burn them all now: about 13% of total petroleum products consumed in 2017 were for non-combustion but vital non-fuel uses.

Big Fossil now accounts for more than 85% of global energy consumption and rising (in 2018 by 2.3% - its fastest pace in ten years - with only 30% of that increase due to renewables and nuclear). 21 Only about 2% of global energy consumption is accounted for by Wind & Solar, with 2% by Nuclear power and 3% hydroelectric. Apart from traditional bio-mass 8%, per unit of energy generated, burning fossil coal, oil and gas kills and disables tens of thousands times more than all other energy sources combined, with Nuclear power having the lowest mortality and injury rate of all, close to zero (details below).

For this reason alone, the immediate and rapid expansion of Nuclear powered electrification is essential to building an ethically just global energy system.

Schematic of a Nuclear Power Plant

Containment building

Electricity

ie ae secondaryleep Generator RY f Pressurizing 7 system

ae es

cS

Control

A OTR JH BBRRElei cout eed e ~ -

§ ata VVater

& : E 2 :

¢ Re

Heat

Meanwhile humanity faces largely unavoidable -Deep Adaptation” 22 to global warming induced social & environmental chaos.

To address this emergency, multiple decarbonisation studies show that financial, social, and environmental costs spiral out of control as Wind Water Solar (WWS) penetrates into (models projecting the future make-up of) electricity grids above circa 75% and that Nuclear Power generated electricity is the 'least-worst' choice for

Remember: global electricity generation accounts for only 9% to 15% of global energy consumption.

The cost escalation seen in studies of non-Nuclear 'scenarios' (models with aggressive carbon constraints) is mostly due to low energy density WWS renewable electricity generation's extra build-out demands -— like the huge numbers of plants themselves, and their distribution & storage infrastructure, cumulatively far exceeding global supplies of the construction materials & minerals needed, with their embedded extraction, mining & refining fossil fuel energy which becomes necessary in future ‘scenarios’ that rely exclusively on variable renewable electricity generating technologies. 31

1000 = = ‘E 800 = Ss 600 2) > ® @ 400 O ® Hydro c 5 200 ® Nuclear ©O A Coal M Wind 3 Solar 100 200 300 400 500 @ Natural Gas Combined Cycle Mass of Steel (MT/MW)

Materials needed to install various energy systems

Wind Water & Solar renewables require many times the amount of steel and concrete to build generating plants than thermal sources, such as Nuclear, coal & gas. 32 Solar and Wind farms require between 400 and 750 times more land than nuclear and natural gas plants. 33

But even if raw materials and their embedded fossil fuel extraction energy were not a limit, electricity grid instability problems arise, such as increasing risks of power-cuts with too little fossil or Nuclear base-load and dispatchable capacity. 34

The underlying problem is that WWS electricity generating technologies are too unreliable and energy-dilute on their own. Modern civilization has evolved as a direct expression of (high energy density) fossil fuels. The

inevitable (and desirable) move to new energy arrangements involving an increase in renewable (low energy density) sources will require society to undergo profound spatial restructuring of our energy systems. 35

Below we explore the impacts this will demand, and why and how the Nuclear and WWS sectors must abandon historical antagonisms and work together in partnership to urgently decarbonise human energy use.

3. Accurate Trustworthy Data A) Total global primary Energy & Electricity consumption by Sector

In 2017 Wind, Solar & Geothermal accounted for under 2% ; Hydropower roughly 3%; Traditional bio-mass about 7%; Nuclear circa 2%. All the rest was Big Fossil 85% 36 according to senior academics and scientists at the University of Oxford based Global Change Data Lab (GDCL). 37

Global primary energy consumption Spal Abele Global primary energy consumption, measured in terawatt-hours (TWh) per year. Here ‘other renewables’ are renewable a technologies not including solar, wind, hydropower and traditional biofuels.

Other renewables

Solar 140,000 TWh Wind 2017 Nuclear 120,000 TWh @ Other renewables 586.17 TWh Natural gas ® Solar 442.62 TWh ®@ Wind 1,122.75 TWh 100,000 TWh @ Nuclear 2,635.56 TWh Hydropower 4,059.87 TWh 80,000 TWh @ Natural gas 36,703.97 TWh Crude oil @ Crude oil 53,752.28 TWh 60,000 TWh @ Coal 43,397.14 TWh @ Traditional biofuels 10,895.32 TWh Total 153,595.66 TWh 40,000 TWh ee Coal 20,000 TWh Traditional biofuels OTWh 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2017 Source: Vaclav Smil (2017) and BP Statistical Review of World Energy CC BY

Relative CHART DATA SOURCES z <

According to BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy data, Wind, Water and Solar together accounted for only 9.4% of total energy consumption in 2017. 38

Total Global electricity consumption (in 2014) accounted for only about 14% of primary energy consumption, 39 40 with Nuclear electricity consumption accounting for only 11% (down from a high of 18% in 1996).

GDCL also report UK electricity consumption (in 2015) accounts for circa 16% of overall primary energy used. 41 42 Since 2000, UK energy usage has decreased by 20-25%, but globally from 1970 to 2014, average consumption increased by approximately 45%, whilst 12% of the world's 7.7 billion population are still without electricity.

Non-Nuclear lobbyists, such as REN21 (a global 100% WWS industrial members networking association aiming to shape the energy debate) 43 agree closely with GDCL data, reporting global primary energy consumption in 2016 thus: Wind, Solar, Geothermal, & Ocean power 1.7%; Biomass & Biofuels 5%; and Hydropower 3.7%. Traditional bio-mass 7.8%; Nuclear 2.2%; and Big Fossil accounting for 79.5%. 44

B) Green House Gas Emissions by Sector

Carbon emissions climbed by 2% in 2018, faster than any year since 2011 caused by the demand for energy easily outstripping the rapid rollout of renewable energy, 45 of which only 9% to 15% of global energy consumption is consumed as electricity (See above).

The figure below shows the relative fraction of man-made greenhouse gases coming from each of eight categories of sources, as estimated by the Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research version 4.2, Fast Track 2010 Project. 46 These values are intended to provide a snapshot of global annual greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2000. The top panel shows the sum over all anthropogenic greenhouse gases, weighted by their global warming potential over the next 100 years. This consists of 72% carbon dioxide, 20% methane, 5% nitrous oxide and 3% all other gases. Lower panels show the comparable information for each of these three primary greenhouse gases, with the same colouring of sectors as used in the top chart. 47 United States Environmental Protection Agency gives similar results. 48

Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector

Industrial Electric power stations processes 15.9% i 25.6%

Transportation fuels

13.2% Waste disposal

and treatment 3.6%

3 Residential, 7.5% commercial, &

Land use and other sources

biomass burning 12:1% Fossil fuel retrieval,

10.5% processing, and

j i 10) 34.1% 40.8% 62.5% 20.9% 4.7% 3.4% 10) 8.9% 34.5% Tae 17.3% 4. 14.0% 16.5% 15.1% 6.1% Carbon Dioxide Methane Nitrous Oxide (72% of total) (20% of total) (5% of total)

The chart below shows total greenhouse gas emissions in 2014 (measured in their carbon-dioxide equivalent values i.e. including nitrous oxide and methane) based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data. 49 Agriculture 10%, forestry 2%, and land use 10% (AFOLU) are responsible for about one-quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions, and yield a similar result to that of the Fast Track 2010 Project data (above). 50

Greenhouse gas emissions by sector Our World Breakdown of total greenhouse gas emissions by sector, measured in tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalents (CO,e). Carbon dioxide equivalents measures the total greenhouse gas potential of the full combination of gases, weighted by their relative warming impacts.

in Data

50 billion t

Utner sources

Waste

Industry AO billion t - = pene Residential & : commercial } ~as 2010 Forestry —a ® Other sources 267.61 milliont Agriculture

30 billion t : International bunkers 1.08 billion t Land use sources @ Waste 1.45 billiont Hl Industry 3.47 billiont ——

so bill ®@ Residential & commercial 3.74 billion t

iliont i Forestry 1.18 billion t © Agriculture 5.08 billiont @ Land use sources 5.54 billiont Energy

10 billion t @ Transport 5.54 billion t

@ Energy 23.24 billiont Total 50.58 billiont Ot 1991 1995 2000 2005 2010 Source: UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) CC BY

= Change country Relative CHART DATA SOURCES s <

Germany's experiment closing its Nuclear electricity plants has not reduced its carbon emissions, which are set to rise, as are other pollutants. 51 Compared to France it produces ten times the emissions at twice the end user price per unit of energy because France receives 75% of its electricity from nuclear. Same in California. Strong evidence its nearly impossible to replace fossil without Nuclear. 52

All decarbonisation 'plans' whatever % Nuclear or 100% WWS electricity generation will require a rapid and massive expansion of electricity storage and distribution technologies to have any chance of decarbonizing big fossil's 85% and rising domination of the yet to be electrified energy sector.

4. Intermittency & Storage: one of the Achilles heel of Wind Water & Solar (WWS) power generation

Grid-scale energy efficient power storage is required for WWS to work as a mature non-parasitic electricity generating technology. 53 54 When there's no sun or wind, intermittent WWS renewables (low energy density) must be backed-up by on-demand dispatchable electricity generation or storage (high energy density). 55

Hydro provided 2.64% of global energy 56 with pumped storage generating 16.4% of the world’s electricity in 2016, but it has very limited potential to expand 57 and has the highest death rate of all renewables (1,400 deaths/million GWhr). 58 Geography and politics prevents further expansion in the UK beyond circa 2% of its electricity generating capacity. 59

Battery storage will always be far too expensive environmentally and financially. 60 61 No digital-like ‘Moore's law' 10x gains exist for batteries to take over any time soon. If batteries scaled like digital tech, a battery the size of a book, costing tuppence, could power a jetliner to Australia. But that only happens in comic books. 62 The maximum theoretical energy in a kilogram of the best battery chemicals is 15x less than that in a kilogram of oil. And it takes the energy-equivalent of 100 barrels of oil to fabricate enough batteries to store the energy- equivalent of a single barrel of oil. 63

Geothermal energy capacity is insignificant in the UK 64 and globally only 83GW. 65

5. No choice : Nuclear Power Must be in the mix for 'plans that add-up' in short, medium, & long terms The UK has 15 Nuclear reactors generating about 21% of its electricity in 2019 but almost half of this capacity is to be retired by 2025. 66 In the short term, to avoid power cuts with this reduced base-load Nuclear, the only

choices available to UK grid engineers, when there's no sun or wind to replace this lost Nuclear capacity is going to be some combination of on-demand dispatchable fossil gas, coal & oil.

Extending life

Hunterston B Key

Capacity 890,000kW . Advanced Reactors 2 fof: Fpreele) (=e M g-t- [elke] g In operation 1976

Scheduled to close 2023 wy Pressured water reactor

+f - >. Torness f »s Capacity 1.21 millionkW

Reactors 2 In operation 1988 Scheduled to close 2023

-| Heysham 1 | : | Reactors 2 Hartlepool

In operation 1983 a Capacity: 1.19 millionkW Scheduled to close 2019 \w Reactors 2

In operation 1983

Heysham 2 Scheduled to close 2019 Reactors 2 ==

In operation 1988

Scheduled to close 2023 . Sizewell propose to build Capacity: 1.19 millionkW

Combined capacity two new nuclear

2.37 millionkW Reactors 1

plants at Hinkley In operation 1983

Point and two Scheduled to close 2035 at Sizewell :

Hinkley Point B

Capacity: 870,0O0OO0kW Reactors 2 Dungeness B

In operation 1976 Capacity: 1.04 millionkW L

Scheduled to close 2023 | Reactors 2 In operation 1983

Scheduled to close 2018

Source: EDF Energy

The global fleet of Generation 3 water and gas cooled Nuclear reactor power plants are not prefect, but renewables could not even exist now nor can they scale up much in the future without increases in embedded high energy density fossil fuels.

In 1966 the California Sierra Club’s Board of Directors (the prototype global environmental pressure group) voted nine-to-one to support the building of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant to replace fossil fuels. “Nuclear power is one of the chief long-term hopes for conservation” argued Sierra Club President Will Siri.

In response, the sole dissenter, David Brower quit and started a new group, Friends of the Earth (FOE). “There's no more important issue in my life,” said Brower, than to “see that Friends of the Earth does everything it can, here and abroad, to stop the nuclear experiment.” The founding donor of FOE was oilman Robert Anderson, owner of Atlantic Richfield. He gave FOE the equivalent of $500,000 in 2019 dollars. “What was David Brower doing accepting money from an oilman?” his biographer wondered. The answer is that he was developing the environmental movement’s strategy of promoting renewables as a way to greenwash the killing of nuclear plants and the expanded use of fossil fuels. Big fossil has been exploiting and directly financing and organising anti-nuclear propaganda using environmental groups like FOE and Greenpeace as smoke screens ever since. 67

FOSSIL FUEL

ilo SAYS We DON'T PROMOTE KENEWABLE ENERGY ?/

QA piop.B¢ TR, -ONTENT WASSERNNA sw bastoins tase coat KUNE eM

This means that in the short to medium term, non-Nuclear 100% WWS 'plans' to displace Big Fossil's grip on the worlds electricity grids, and indeed expand those grids, must accept that however well intentioned, their decarbonisation goals will stall and reverse, due to both the physical and the propaganda / funding reasons discussed above, whilst waiting for long anticipated but yet-to-emerge technologies such as: Smart-Grids (online micro load management hardware, to match local demand-intermittency in every building, with continent- wide grid generation-intermittency); 68 69 Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion; 70 Mass Thermal Storage (in every building); Mass Carbon Capture (to enable fossil & bio-fuel carbon neutrality); 71 72 73 Power to Methane; 74 Synthfuel; 75 Graphene Super Capacitors; 76 77 Nuclear Fusion (lack of funding means its always 30 years away); and the mythical Hydrogen / Fuel Cell economy (ditto). 78 79 80

In particular, to become large scale industrial process in the real world, energy storage technologies such as Power to Methane, Synthfuel, and Hydrogen, all depend (if we don't care about CO2 emissions) on either fossil fuels, or if we are serious about reducing Anthropic Global Warming, then massive expansions of existing (high energy density) Nuclear power technology, as these chemical synthesis processes require lots of (high energy density) heat 81 which (low energy density) WWS power is poorly suited to supply. 82 83 84

The figure below based on the 1972 book 'Limits to Growth' shows that even without Nuclear power and abundant fossil fuels humanity is already facing collapse. 85 The 2019 line is drawn based on where the world economy seems to be now, rather than on precisely where the base model would put the year 2019. “There have been many amazing coincidences over the past 4 billion years that have allowed life to continue to evolve on this planet. More of these coincidences may be ahead. We also know that humans lived through past ice ages. They likely can live through other kinds of adversity, including worldwide economic collapse.” 86

At the urgent pace now required to decarbonise, the only technically and politically possible way is for WWS electricity generation to work in partnership with tried and tested Nuclear Powered electricity generation. 87 Only by working together can Nuclear and WWS retire fossil fuels from the energy business, so that humanity can earn itself a break from impending climate chaos, being caused by well known Limits to Growth with the required response of Deep Adaptation and instead concentrate on ushering in all these wonderfully promising, but yet-to-emerge technologies.

As we shall explore more fully below, increasing Nuclear power build-out (high energy density) would also significantly offset Wind Water & Solar power's (low energy density) impossible to achieve land, mineral, environmental, and embedded extraction and construction fossil fuel energy demands.

The message is clear: we i.e. the Wind Water Solar & Nuclear industrial sectors on behalf of humanity need to urgently decarbonize over three quarters 85% and rising of global energy use by a combination of Electrifying the 12% of humanity now off grid, Electrifying Transport, Electrifying Heat (domestic & industrial process) and Maximising Efficiencies in EVERYTHING.

Part TWO: Science Informs Politics 6. Scientists support Nuclear energy to help achieve IPCC under 2-degree Decarbonisation Targets

Surveys show with a high degree of confidence that the general scientific community, including most prominent climate scientists who've expressed a public opinion, believes both:-

1. Global warming's dominant cause is human greenhouse gas emissions (mostly carbon dioxide) meaning we face “deep adaptation” 88 89 to climate induced global chaos; and

2. Nuclear power must be part of human response because it:- a) Generates the least greenhouse gas emissions; and b) Has the least overall financial, environmental, and social costs of all; 90 and

c) Is the only present-day low-carbon technology with the demonstrated ability to scale-up to meet many, if not all, the energy demands of modern economies far into the future with an inexhaustible supply of uranium and other metals needed to build nuclear reactors dissolved in seawater (see below). 91 92

A 2015 PEW survey of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science 93 94 found 87% of scientists believe global warming is being driven, at least in part, by human activity, with 65% saying they favour building more Nuclear power plants, or at the very least, feel that it should be on the table as an available emissions- mitigation option.

7. We need a shared Pro-Arithmetic Ethical Plan that ‘Adds Up'

The late Sir David MacKay, polymath, author of the influential book 'Without Hot Air and head-hunted UK government climate change advisor, appealed to his readers Please don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to be pro-Nuclear. I'm just pro-arithmetic. The one ethical position | wish to push is -we should have a plan that adds up’.” 95 96 97

Despite being well intentioned, well-financed and well-organised, unfortunately non-Nuclear 100% renewable WWS 'plans' do NOT ‘add up', becoming 'An Exercise in Magical Thinking’ 98 with objections to nuclear eventually boiling down to a handful of arguments that are well-meaning but often ignore basic facts. 99

They start with a hidden in plain sight contradiction: on the one hand accepting and urgently wanting to act on the scientific consensus that anthropic global warming is real; but then disregarding the same scientific consensus that humanity needs Nuclear power's unique balance of advantages / disadvantages to meet global decarbonisation goals to avoid climate induced social chaos and breakdown.

Such inconsistency is obscured and sustained by inflating ‘Nuclear radiation contamination’ fears way beyond what the data supports. 100 This leads people to believe the pollution risks are too great even to consider Nuclear. But if its 'true' that 'radioactive Nuclear power 'waste' is dangerous for -millions“ of years' 101 102 (its not) then creating more can not make the 'problem' worse: we're ‘stuck with it' anyway (we're not) and since humans already barely have enough time or resources to prevent -an inevitable near term social collapse due to climate change“ 103 we may as well decarbonise as quickly as possible with Nuclear's help.

These issues and objections are explored further below, in particular the Nuclear ‘waste’ problem which has now been solved by ‘burning’ it in new reactors i.e. recovering all its otherwise wasted energy rendering it 'safe as background in 300 years’.

8. There are no short-cuts around Political Engagement

Risk perception is an intrinsic, biologically rooted, inescapable part of how the human animal behaves. We need to accept this and use what we know about the way humans respond to risk in order to help ourselves make better, healthier choices. We need to bring the risk perception factors out of the subconscious shadows and use them as practical tools to allow our rational thinking to have more influence in the policy making process. 104

When people express their hatred of Nuclear, stoked up by media -# it scares, it airs” stories, they usually argue about: the dangers from radiation leaks; the risk of weapons proliferation; the Nuclear waste problem; and that Nuclear power is too expensive; and in any case - we just don't need it! - but none of these objections have solid scientific or political backing (as we shall explore more below). If they did, countries around the world (like USA, UK, France, Finland, Russia, China, India, South Korea, UAE) would not continue to build new Nuclear power plants to supply their growing need for energy.

Policy decisions based on fears rather than facts can lead to decisions that feel good (e.g. no Nuclear) but increase the overall risk to the population (more deaths and health risks from burning fossil fuels and climate risks from greenhouse gas emissions). 105

ScrENCE v5 Puatic OPINION Aa Ss 4 ARE YOU Crazy? \

-¥> | polls Stow 79% | 23 | OF PEOPLE SAY j

Z | Fl Tp q irs FLAT! as ™_ =~ a _ TELUNG US HAS |

java ve CLAN! ae

Dar

72 Peprpico-tniversal Ucliel

|

In contrast China has a ‘go global’ policy of exporting Nuclear technology. 106 But China has seen a four fold increase in energy consumption per capita since the 1980s and is now the largest importer of oil, coal, and natural gas in the world, which its uses to manufacture exported goods to countries that are decreasing energy consumption per capita.

Bright Green Environmentalists differ from the mainstream ‘Back-to-Nature’' romantic ideal of modern environmentalism, arguing that humans should protect nature by actively perusing technology to "decouple" anthropogenic impacts from the natural world. 107 Eco-Modernists 108 “affirm one long-standing environmental ideal, that humanity must shrink its impacts on the environment to make more room for nature ... Urbanization, agricultural intensification, Nuclear power, aquaculture, and desalination are all processes with a demonstrated potential to reduce human demands on the environment, allowing more room for non-human species. S uburbanization, low-yield farming, and many forms of renewable energy production, in contrast, generally require more land and resources and leave less room for nature. 109

Below we explore the “numerous shortcomings” in 'plans' put forward by 'non-Nuclear 100% WWS' renewable energy lobbyists in particular how they quietly enable their 'scenarios' to gobble up vast tracts of land, mineral resources, and fossil fuels.

Part THREE: 100% Wind Water & Solar power is —-nonsensical” in spite of -eapturing the public imagination”

9. Wind Water and Solar power can’t produce enough energy to cover its own embedded construction energy

Water, Wind & Solar installations represent a net energy loss and cannot power their own paradigm shift alone. In 2011 Google says it invested over $850 million in the renewable energy sector, so are highly motivated to reduce their huge energy bills. 110 They concluded in 2014 after 4 years of effort that renewable energy -simply won't work" according to the scientists who led the research programme. 111 112 The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to ‘balance the budget' of what was consumed in their construction.

A ‘balanced budget’ of WWS plant also includes fossil fuels to manufacture all the parts, and mine and refine raw materials like iron, copper, lithium, cobalt, (more below) and, however abundant, rare earth metal ores, which are not really replaceable, 113 even with modern Reluctance generators that don't need magnets 114 in wind turbines. 115 All must be transported by diesel throughout the production chain. Have you ever seen an electric cargo ship 116 117 118 119 or JCB earth mover? Plus 5-25 years lifetime repeat costs of wind turbine

120 and solar power equipment components, and energy for continuous maintenance like cleaning of solar panels. And recycling issues. 121

at 7 Sieh

This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more WWS renewable power plants, and supporting manufacturing infrastructure, micro-power distribution networks, all with inter-connecting continent-wide smart- grids, 122 simply to produce and deliver the energy required to manufacture and maintain WWS renewable energy facilities, an obvious practical absurdity.

10. It’s not about Wind Water and Solar ~vs~ Fossil ~vs~ Nuclear it’s about which mix makes sense

When all the complexities are properly considered, its clear that no single power generating technology is the best tool for the entire decarbonising job. All factors must be taken into account, such as geography, climate, weather, population density, whole life greenhouse gas emissions, infrastructure, air pollution, land and water impacts, and the evolving face of electricity end-use. Only a diverse and balanced energy mix can succeed, one which works in harmony with the needs of people, the realities of various different environments, and the engineering constraints imposed by physics and maths.

Running entirely counter to this principle, lobbyists pushing visions of 'non-Nuclear 100% WWS' disregard the global need for diversity in the energy system. This makes the task of balancing cost, energy security, and environmental considerations all the more difficult. Such 'voices' seem to dominate energy policy discussion and media attention, but regrettably they make no practical attempt to address all competing factors.

The IPCC partially resists these 'voices' but “Nuclear stigma” is still very active active, for example in the way its unequivocal conclusion that nuclear is needed to meet the 2 degree goals (see page 304) is tucked away in the report’s appendix and thus hardly known by any of the environmentalists who otherwise rely on IPCC for climate science. 123

And in its 2018 Special Report SR15 124 Nuclear generation increases on average 2.5 times by 2050 in the 89 mitigation scenarios considered; 125 and -Limiting warming to 1.5°C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes.“; 126 but then yields biases in favour of these ‘voices’ such as promoting -policy interventions” to -enhance affordability“ for renewables, but never suggest similar -policy interventions” for Nuclear. 127

For example, UK wind farms receive 40 per cent more cash when there's no wind or ‘switched off’ (i.e. curtailment, underlining the urgent need for a massive increase in storage capacity) 128 than supplying the grid, £108 million in 2017. 129 Nuclear Industry Subsidies are analysed here. 130 As we shall explore more below, such arguments miss that energy infrastructure is a 'Natural Monopoly’.

11. Failed Lawsuits : Dozens of Climate & Power-Grid experts judge Non-Nuclear 100% Wind Water and Solar power study “riddled with errors”

Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson 131 is one of the most infamous of the lobbyists 'voices', who's -eutspokenness and solo style ... captured the public imagination“ 132 following a series (2009 - 2018) 133 of controversial studies. In 2011 Jacobson began vigorously promoting non-Nuclear 'Roadmaps' for 139 countries worldwide via campaigning network 100.org 134 135 and The Solutions Project. 136

In 2017 Jacobson filed, then later withdrew a well publicised “unprecedented” lawsuit, demanding $10 million in damages 137 138 against a group of eminent scientists (Clack et al.) for their study 139 140 published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) showing that the ‘Roadmaps' contained -nonsensical“ assumptions, with a -staggering scale of modelling errors, inappropriate methods, and implausible assumptions [...] seriously impeding the move to a cost effective decarbonized energy system.” For example they “overstated by roughly a factor of ten the ability of the United States to increase its hydropower output” and would require “more than 1,500 square meters of land for wind turbines for each American ... a territory nearly twice the size of California” which “render it [Jacobson's 100.org ‘Roadmaps' ] unreliable as a guide about the likely cost, technical reliability, or feasibility of a 100 percent wind, solar, and hydroelectric power system.” 141

The 'Roadmaps' rely on yet-to-emerge mass thermal storage, demand-response smart-grids, 142 and the mythical hydrogen economy, in 'plans' using ridiculously vast tracts of land in order for Jacobson to claim he'd demonstrated U.S. energy (and later globally via 100.org) could be provided exclusively by renewable energy, primarily Wind, Water, and Solar. 143 144

-A project of such epic proportions could be implemented only under the auspices of an authoritarian and totally -green” world government backed up by an equally -green“ populace, and the chances that we will see either at any time in the foreseeable future are zero.“ 145

12. Zero Carbon Britain ‘scenario’ for a Non-Nuclear 100% Wind Water and Solar & the UK Green New Deal

Another of these 'voices' is the 2013 Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) 146 report Zero Carbon Britain (ZCB) 147 with the laudable aim of decarbonising the UK energy needs without Nuclear by