Carbon-Free Nuclear Energy and the Union of Concerned Scientists

InfluenceWatch received an error report regarding the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and their stance on nuclear energy. While UCS has never been listed in the InfluenceWatch profile for Opposition to Nuclear Energy, it has historically opposed peaceful use of nuclear energy. However, in recent years, UCS has adopted a more nuanced position, acknowledging the value of low-carbon electricity provided by existing nuclear power plants.

Despite this, UCS still raises "serious" safety issues and claims that nuclear plants operate on thin margins. These assertions are questionable, as nuclear power has proven to be among the safest and most carbon-free energy sources available. UCS's economic argument against nuclear energy relies on comparing the price of "energy when it wants to" with "energy when you want it to," which is a flawed comparison.

The UCS policy page on "Renewable Energy" is also misleading, claiming that wind and solar energy have little or no pollution and are unlimited resources. In reality, weather-dependent energy systems require vast amounts of land and kill a disproportionate share of wildlife.

The Union of Concerned Scientists' stance on nuclear energy appears to be influenced by a desire to block its use without explicitly admitting to it. While UCS acknowledges the value of low-carbon electricity provided by existing nuclear power plants, it continues to overstate the benefits of weather-dependent power and understate the costs of nuclear energy. This raises questions about the group's sincerity and motivations. 

Some of the confusion is caused because the UCS has been careful to obscure the degree to which it does or does not oppose carbon-free nuclear energy.

I'm a member and .... Please see the website for all white papers on nuclear energy: they support safe operation of nuclear plants and non-proliferation.

For a good chunk of its early history the UCS repeatedly promoted the closure of civilian nuclear energy facilities.

The history of the UCS repeatedly promoting the closure of nuclear energy facilities makes it fair to argue the group has opposed nuclear power.

On the economic front, the UCS statement also asserts that nuclear plants "Operate on very thin margins as they compete with cheaper electricity from gas and renewable energy."

A March 2021 analysis posted on the U.S. Department of Energy's web page concluded that "Nuclear energy produces more electricity on less land than any other clean-air source."

Why does the Union of Concerned Scientists severely overstate the benefits of weather-dependent power while understating the costs? Why does it do the opposite with nuclear energy, a reliable and functionally limitless carbon-free power source with a comparatively tiny environmental footprint?

https://capitalresearch.org/article/carbon-free-nuclear-energy-and-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/