Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change | James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley | The Guardian
Skip to main contentSkip to navigation
Close dialogue1/1
Next image
Previous image
Toggle caption
Print subscriptions
Newsletters
Sign in
US
US edition
UK edition
Australia edition
Europe edition
International edition
The Guardian - Back to home
The Guardian
News
Opinion
Sport
Culture
Lifestyle
Show more
Hide expanded menu
News
View all News
US news
US politics
World Cup 2026
World news
Climate crisis
Middle East
Ukraine
US immigration
Business
Environment
Tech
Science
Newsletters
The Filter
Wellness
Opinion
View all Opinion
The Guardian view
Columnists
Letters
Opinion videos
Cartoons
Sport
View all Sport
World Cup 2026
Soccer
NFL
Tennis
MLB
MLS
NBA
WNBA
NHL
F1
Golf
Culture
View all Culture
Film
Books
Music
Art & design
TV & radio
Stage
Classical
Games
Lifestyle
View all Lifestyle
The Filter
Wellness
Fashion
Food
Recipes
Love & sex
Home & garden
Health & fitness
Family
Travel
Money
Search input
google-search
Search
Support us
Print subscriptions
Newsletters
Download the app
Search jobs
Digital Archive
Guardian Licensing
Live events
About Us
The Guardian app
Video
Podcasts
Pictures
Inside the Guardian
Guardian Weekly
Crosswords
Wordiply
Corrections
Tips
Search input
google-search
Search
Search jobs
Digital Archive
Guardian Licensing
Live events
About Us
US news
US politics
World Cup 2026
World
Climate crisis
Middle East
Ukraine
US immigration
Business
Environment
Tech
Science
Newsletters
The Filter
Wellness
‘A build rate of 61 new reactors per year could entirely replace current fossil fuel electricity generation by 2050.’ Photograph: Tracey Nearmy/AAPimage
View image in fullscreen
‘A build rate of 61 new reactors per year could entirely replace current fossil fuel electricity generation by 2050.’ Photograph: Tracey Nearmy/AAPimage
Nuclear power
This article is more than 10 years oldNuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change
This article is more than 10 years old
James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley
To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not prejudice. Alongside renewables, Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them
Thu 3 Dec 2015 08.00 ESTLast modified on Wed 25 Aug 2021 09.57 EDT
Share
All four of us have dedicated our scientific careers to understand the processes and impacts of climate change, variously studying ocean systems, tropical cyclones, ice sheets and ecosystems as well as impacts on human societies. We have used both climate models and geological records of past climates to better understand lessons from warmer periods in the Earth’s history and investigate future scenarios.
We have become so concerned about humanity’s slow response to this challenge that we have decided we must clearly set out what we see as the only viable path forward. As scientists we do not take advocacy positions lightly, but we believe the magnitude of climate change now presents an unprecedented moral challenge that compels us to speak out.
To avoid the worst effects of climate change, including continued sea level rise, the total loss of Arctic sea ice and devastating effects on human societies and natural ecosystems alike, rapid global decarbonisation is needed. The voluntary measures put on the table at Paris by over 100 nations are a welcome step, but unless there are strong measures to reduce emissions beyond 2030, global emissions would remain at a high level, practically guaranteeing that young people inherit a climate running out of their control. A new and intensified approach is clearly needed.
Everyone agrees that the most urgent component of decarbonisation is a move towards clean energy, and clean electricity in particular. We need affordable, abundant clean energy, but there is no particular reason why we should favour renewable energy over other forms of abundant energy. Indeed, cutting down forests for bioenergy and damming rivers for hydropower – both commonly counted as renewable energy sources – can have terrible environmental consequences.
Nuclear power, particularly next-generation nuclear power with a closed fuel cycle (where spent fuel is reprocessed), is uniquely scalable, and environmentally advantageous. Over the past 50 years, nuclear power stations – by offsetting fossil fuel combustion – have avoided the emission of an estimated 60bn tonnes of carbon dioxide. Nuclear energy can power whole civilisations, and produce waste streams that are trivial compared to the waste produced by fossil fuel combustion. There are technical means to dispose of this small amount of waste safely. However, nuclear does pose unique safety and proliferation concerns that must be addressed with strong and binding international standards and safeguards. Most importantly for climate, nuclear produces no CO2 during power generation.
To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not on prejudice. The climate system cares about greenhouse gas emissions – not about whether energy comes from renewable power or abundant nuclear power. Some have argued that it is feasible to meet all of our energy needs with renewables. The 100% renewable scenarios downplay or ignore the intermittency issue by making unrealistic technical assumptions, and can contain high levels of biomass and hydroelectric power at the expense of true sustainability. Large amounts of nuclear power would make it much easier for solar and wind to close the energy gap.
The climate issue is too important for us to delude ourselves with wishful thinking. Throwing tools such as nuclear out of the box constrains humanity’s options and makes climate mitigation more likely to fail. We urge an all-of-the-above approach that includes increased investment in renewables combined with an accelerated deployment of new nuclear reactors.
For example, a build rate of 61 new reactors per year could entirely replace current fossil fuel electricity generation by 2050. Accounting for increased global electricity demand driven by population growth and development in poorer countries, which would add another 54 reactors per year, this makes a total requirement of 115 reactors per year to 2050 to entirely decarbonise the global electricity system in this illustrative scenario. We know that this is technically achievable because France and Sweden were able to ramp up nuclear power to high levels in just 15-20 years.
Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them. We are hopeful in the knowledge that, together with renewables, nuclear can help bridge the ‘emissions gap’ that bedevils the Paris climate negotiations. The future of our planet and our descendants depends on basing decisions on facts, and letting go of long-held biases when it comes to nuclear power.
Explore more on these topics
Nuclear power
Climate crisis
Energy
Renewable energy
Greenhouse gas emissions
Climate science
comment
Share
Reuse this content
Comments (…)Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion
Most viewed
Most viewed
US news
US politics
World Cup 2026
World
Climate crisis
Middle East
Ukraine
US immigration
Business
Environment
Tech
Science
Newsletters
The Filter
Wellness
News
Opinion
Sport
Culture
Lifestyle
Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morningSign up for our email
About us
Help
Complaints & corrections
Contact us
Tip us off
SecureDrop
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Tax strategy
Terms & conditions
All topics
All writers
Newsletters
Digital newspaper archive
Bluesky
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Threads
TikTok
YouTube
Advertise with us
Guardian Labs
Search jobs
Work with us
Accessibility settings
Back to top
© 2026 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. (dcr)