Mark Z Jacobson

Is an Stanford academic who ideologically insists that we can solve climate change with just 100% renewables, in contrast to well-established scientific bodies such as IPCC, IEA etc. In this, Jacobson is one of the most influential voices that seeks to deny a role for nuclear power and, as a result, is putting our entire world at risk. Jacobson is widely known to block any person who dares to raise the issue of nuclear energy with him on social media.

Jacobson has even formed a non-science advocacy group with celebrity board members like Mark Ruffalo, Leonardo DiCaprio and Van Jones, supported by weighty politicians like Bernie Sanders, that have embraced Jacobson’s ideological mix and push it blindly. Sanders that also wanted to phase out all US low-carbon nuclear.

Jacobson is a Senior Fellow at the Precourt Institute for Energy, which was founded by Jay Precourt, an oil and gas magnate and board member of Halliburton, the oil and gas services firm. The board of the Institute is a who’s who of oil, gas, and renewables investors.

For example, around the world, politicians and renewables advocates seeking to close nuclear plants justify their actions by claiming Jacobson’s work proves that nuclear plants are not needed as an alternative to fossil fuels. Even though that everywhere in the world nuclear plants are closed, fossil fuels are burned instead.

Jacobson also sued the lead scientists on a peer-reviewed study refuting and challenging some of Jacobson’s many erroneous assumptions, rather than publish a peer-reviewed paper in defense of his work. However, Jacobson lost that law suit badly and was forced to pay the legal costs of the scientists [1].

Jacobson’s “7 major problems with nuclear energy” #

1. Claim: Long Time Lag Between Planning and Operation #

Mark Z Jacobson qoute:
The time lag between planning and operation of a nuclear reactor includes the times to identify a site, obtain a site permit, purchase or lease the land, obtain a construction permit, obtain financing and insurance for construction, install transmission, negotiate a power purchase agreement, obtain permits, build the plant, connect it to transmission, and obtain a final operating license. The planning-to-operation (PTO) times of all nuclear plants ever built have been 10-19 years or more.

Response:

Jacobson considers not just the time to build nuclear, wind og soler, but the time to plan and get approval for a plant. While that is true, it is also largely a political. The anti-nuclear lobby creates significant delays in the planning approval process and then after cites it as a flaw of nuclear energy [2].

Jacobson cherry picks Olkiluoto 3, Hinkley Point C, Vogtle, Haiyang and Taishan NPP’s as examples. But fails to mention these are First Of A Kind designs never previously built; EPRs & AP1000s. The actual mean time to build the NPPs in our current fleet is around 7.5 years, with a handful built in just 3 years [3].

Jacobson also fails context. Solar, wind and hydro to require approval and planning.

2. Claim: Cost #

Mark Z Jacobson qoute:
The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for a new nuclear plant in 2018, based on Lazard, is $151 (112 to 189)/MWh. This compares with $43 (29 to 56)/MWh for onshore wind and $41 (36 to 46)/MWh for utility-scale solar PV from the same source.

This nuclear LCOE is an underestimate for several reasons. First, Lazard assumes a construction time for nuclear of 5.75 years. However, the Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors, though will take at least 8.5 to 9 years to finish construction. This additional delay alone results in an estimated LCOE for nuclear of about $172 (128 to 215)/MWh, or a cost 2.3 to 7.4 times that of an onshore wind farm (or utility PV farm).

Response:

The source Jacobson uses is the American investment bank Lazard, it have large wind and solar energy investments and are not a peer-reviewed scientific body [4].

Lazard assumes a very high investment rate of 10% for nuclear power but 0% for wind and solar, which makes the comparison deeply unfair. We know most of the the costs of a nuclear energy is interest and greater risk premium because investors fear opponents will shut down the plant prematurely or harass the project in other ways. Read more about the problems with the Lazard cost estimates.

The energy experts at the International Energy Agency (IEA) finds the global average cost for new nuclear energy is actually lower than for new offshore wind at the same investment rate. Life extension of existing nuclear power plants is also the most inexpensive way to get a ‘new’ one electricity [5]. Hence there are no economic reasons for early closures of nuclear power plants.

Jacobson also refers to the cost of the Fukushima clean-up.

Mark Z Jacobson qoute:
Next, the LCOE does not include the cost of the major nuclear meltdowns in history. For example, the estimated cost to clean up the damage from three Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear reactor core meltdowns was $460 to $640 billion. This is $1.2 billion, or 10 to 18.5 percent of the capital cost, of every nuclear reactor worldwide.

Response:

Jacobson completely fails to address the fact that this cleanup was not scientifically necessary but purely a political decision [6]. The radiation levels immediately after the accident reached around 2.74 microsieverts per hour and then decreased according to Fukushima prefecture’s data [7]. The exclusion zone in Fukushima is 20 km and is divided into 3 parts. The inner part is only a few kilometers, where radiation levels are not higher than the natural background radiation in Stockholm [8]. Many places in the world have higher natural background radiation.

Unless Jacobson advocates for an expensive and costly mishandling, this example is not relevant.

3. Claim: Weapons Proliferation Risk #

Mark Z Jacobson qoute:
The growth of nuclear energy has historically increased the ability of nations to obtain or harvest plutonium or enrich uranium to manufacture nuclear weapons. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognizes this fact. They concluded in the Executive Summary of their 2014 report on energy, with “robust evidence and high agreement” that nuclear weapons proliferation concern is a barrier and risk to the increasing development of nuclear energy:

Response:

As Jacobson correctly points out the IPCC identify proliferation as a concern with nuclear energy. However the IPCC do find that “Nuclear energy could make an increasing contribution to low-carbon energy supply” and consistently refer to “low-GHG energy supply technologies such as renewable energy (RE), nuclear power, and CCS”, and nuclear energy is a significant part of representative pathways in their Special Report on staying below 1.5C. [9]. Fact that will debunk most of Jacobsons 100% RE claims.

Jacobson fails to point to the historical data, that shows no correlation between the number of countries with nuclear power and the number of countries with nuclear weapons [10]. The belief that there is nuclear power leads to nuclear weapons is wrong. Countries get nuclear weapons firstly and directly.

Jacobson goes on to claim that a country could “harvest plutonium from uranium fuel rods for use in nuclear weapons”. But fails the fact that to do so, the reactors would be shutting it down for refuelling every few weeks. That would dramatically compromise its energy-producing capacity factor and and the activity which this requires would be obvious to inspectors [11].

And jacobson fails to differentiate between low enrichment uranium used in civilian power reactors, and high enrichment uranium. Low enrichment uranium (under 20% U-235) is not used in nuclear weapons, as Jacobson no doubt knows, so his failure to note this distinction should be counted as a deceptive argument.

Lastly Jacobson claims that “Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) may increase this risk further.” Apart from the risk being practically non-existent to start with, some SMR designs such as Terrestrial Energy’s have a sealed reactor core which does not give access to nuclear fuel material, either as fresh uranium or as spent fuel [12].

4. Claim: Meltdown Risk #

Mark Z Jacobson qoute:
To date, 1.5% of all nuclear power plants ever built have melted down to some degree.
Meltdowns have been either catastrophic (Chernobyl, Russia in 1986; three reactors at Fukushima Dai-ichi, Japan in 2011) or damaging (Three-Mile Island, Pennsylvania in 1979; Saint-Laurent France in 1980).

Response:

Chernobyl is the only accident which caused any deaths to date, fewer than 50 people. The number is expected to rise to around 200 [13]. It was based on a flawed RBMK reactor design only build in the former Soviet Union. It lacked containment building and combined graphite moderation with water cooling, which made it flammable and unstable. It cannot happen with other designs

The other “catastrophic” meltdowns Jacobson cites caused no deaths at the time; a non-death toll which is not expected to rise [14, 15].

Jacobson again fails context. Then we compare all the energy sources in deaths they cause per unit of electricity over the entire life cycle. Nuclear energy cost as few deaths as wind and solar [16]. That includes the accident Jacobson mentions above.

Jacobson’s own “100% Wind Water and Sun” plans depend heavily on hydroelectric dams. But hydropower involving the worst ever energy accidents in history. The Banqiao Dam Failure in China in 1979 killed approximately 26,000 to 240,000 people [17].

Jacobson go on to new nuclear designs.

Mark Z Jacobson qoute:
The nuclear industry has proposed new reactor designs that they suggest are safer. However, these designs are generally untested, and there is no guarantee that the reactors will be designed, built and operated correctly or that a natural disaster or act of terrorism, such as an airplane flown into a reactor, will not cause the reactor to fail, resulting in a major disaster.

Response:

As for “an airplane flown into a reactor”. The containment buildings surrounding nuclear reactors are specially designed and tested to withstand such events [18]. Additionally, modern generation III/III+ nuclear plants have double containment buildings for added.

Amongst reactors of the types generally used elsewhere several survived the fourth most violent earthquake to hit the planet in more than a century that records have been kept. Of the four reactors, world-wide, which have suffered melt-downs, including 3 classified as the most severe – level 7 – accidents, none killed anybody.

Even if the lessons learned from Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima had produced absolutely no improvements in the safety of reactor designs since the 1960s, then TMI and Fukushima reactors were designed. Nuclear energy would still be remarkably safe.

Claiming as Jacobson seems to be doing that improvements to reactor design are untested suggests an ignorance of engineering principles on which far more than just nuclear safety depends.

5. Claim: Mining Lung Cancer Risk #

Mark Z Jacobson qoute:
Uranium mining causes lung cancer in large numbers of miners because uranium mines contain natural radon gas, some of whose decay products are carcinogenic.

Response:

The largest single deposit of Uranium in the world is the Olympic Dam in Australia [19], which is primarily a copper mine, so whatever hazards are associated with its uranium mining are also associated with its mining of copper, which is widely used in the electrical industry and is a major component of wind turbines. The mine also produces silver which is used in solar panel production.

Mark Z Jacobson qoute:
Clean, renewable energy does not have this risk because (a) it does not require the continuous mining of any material, only one-time mining to produce the energy generators; and (b) the mining does not carry the same lung cancer risk that uranium mining does.

Response:

That is false. As noted above, mining some of the materials for renewable sources may carry the same lung cancer risk because they are mined alongside uranium. Renewables do not only require one-time mining: wind turbines and solar panels have finite lives (20 and 30 years respectively, according to the Lazards report Jacobson cites earlier) and whilst the copper in wind turbines is probably recycled, solar PV panels are currently not recycled and so they require fresh materials.

There are many examples. Here is someone

Production of rare earth metals such as the neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium and terbium used in wind turbines and electric vehicle motors results in severe environmental pollution such as in Baotou in Inner Mongolia [20].
Some of the Cobalt used in electric vehicle batteries is produced by child labour in conditions in which fatal accidents are common and desperately poor miners frequently clash with the security personnel of large mining firms [21]
Reports indicate that members of China’s Uighur minority are forced to work in factories in Xinjiang province which supply solar panels to the rest of the world [22, 23].

By Jacobson’s logic the response to these problems should be to shut down not only nuclear energy but wind and solar, electric vehicles, miroelectronics, and much more.

Jacobson does not mention the fact that open-pit uranium mining is not economically viable in most locations. The In Situ Leach (ISL) method is commonly employed, where holes are drilled into the uranium deposit and a solvent is used to extract it. As a result, there are minimal surface disturbances and no tailings or leftover residues from the ore.

As of 2019, over 57% of the world’s uranium production was already conducted using this method, and today the figure is closer to 65% because it is also the most cost-effective way to produce uranium. Therefore, the global pollution issue from uranium mining is not solved entirely, but it is significantly limited [24].

6. Claim: Carbon-Equivalent Emissions and Air Pollution #

Mark Z Jacobson qoute:
There is no such thing as a zero- or close-to-zero emission nuclear power plant. Even existing plants emit due to the continuous mining and refining of uranium needed for the plant. Emissions from new nuclear are 78 to 178 g-CO2/kWh, not close to 0. Of this, 64 to 102 g-CO2/kWh over 100 years are emissions from the background grid while consumers wait 10 to 19 years for nuclear to come online or be refurbished, relative to 2 to 5 years for wind or solar.

Response:

Jacobson fails to mention his own 100% VE plan is based on untested and not yet feasible technologies such as storage. In 26 OECD countries, natural gas – a fossil fuel – is the main balance/backup for renewable energy [25]. This significantly increases greenhouse gas emissions from renewable energy [26].

A wind farm with a capacity factor of 30% backed up by a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine would add 30% of the emissions of the wind farm for the electricity it produces to 70% of the emissions of the CCGT for the amount of electrical energy it produces.

Nuclear energy on the other hand, is a proven technology. It has been operating in the world since 1954 and has contributed to the largest CO2 reductions in the world.

Mark Z Jacobson qoute:
In addition, all nuclear plants emit 4.4 g-CO2e/kWh from the water vapor and heat they release. This contrasts with solar panels and wind turbines, which reduce heat or water vapor fluxes to the air by about 2.2 g-CO2e/kWh for a net difference from this factor alone of 6.6 g-CO2e/kWh.

Response:

Jacobsons point, is absurd as it can be for two reasons:

The laws of physics tells us that amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined principally by the air temperature and thus the moisture-holding capacity of the air. Water vapor emitted by power stations and other anthropogenic sources does not add significantly to the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere.
It would only apply to nuclear power plants which use wet cooling towers (e.g. left), not to those cooled by river or sea water (e.g. right).

7. Claim: Waste Risk #

Mark Z Jacobson qoute:
Last but not least, consumed fuel rods from nuclear plants are radioactive waste. Most fuel rods are stored at the same site as the reactor that consumed them. This has given rise to hundreds of radioactive waste sites in many countries that must be maintained and funded for at least 200,000 years, far beyond the lifetimes of any nuclear power plant. The more nuclear waste that accumulates, the greater the risk of radioactive leaks, which can damage water supply, crops, animals, and humans.

Reponse:

This is a misunderstanding. Dry cask storage of used fuel on site is an intermediate stage. Final disposal of spent nuclear fuel may be in deep geological repositories, deep boreholes, or recycling in fast neutron spectrum reactors to create more fuel. Spent nuclear fuel is a solid lump of metal, it cannot leak.

There is a scientific consensus that disposal in Deep Geological Repositories is a safe and effective method of dealing with spent nuclear fuel. It is certainly true that the anti-nuclear movement makes much of the lack of facilities for disposing of nuclear waste, whilst simultaneously opposes plans for building such facilities.

Jacobson again fails context. Wind & solar also produce waste.

Solar panels produce hazardous waste containing metals like lead and cadmium, which pose risks to human health and the environment. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), there were an estimated 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste worldwide by the end of 2016. It is projected to reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050. Unlike nuclear waste, solar panel waste is not stored in well-maintained facilities.

Wind also produce waste. Today the blades are getting dumped in landfills. In the US, experts expect more than 720,000 tons of giant wind turbine blades to be disposed of over the next 20 years.

Naturally, work is being done to solve these problems. But to put things context is important.

Jacobsons ”100% Wind Water and Sun” plan will produce a lot more waste than nuclear.

Jacobson’s co2 footprint analysis #

Jacobson published a paper in October 2008 that ranked nuclear energy as worse than coal with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) from an environmental perspective [27]. A result jacobson got by includes the effects of hypothetical nuclear weapons attacks by puts his calculations of the emissions caused by the mushroom clouds in the debit column for nuclear energy [27].

The fact that weapons and power are as related for nuclear as they are for fossil fuel, it is surprising that he did not include the emissions caused by continuing, routine conventional weapons use in the debit column for fossil fuels.

Sources #

Still stuck? How can we help?

Updated on January 31, 2024

About Nuclear Power

About Nuclear Power in Denmark

Opinions on nuclear energy

Danish conditions

Reactor Technology

Price and construction time

Security

Nuclear power fuel

Nuclear waste

Nuclear power vs Nuclear weapons

Nuclear power environmental impact

Nuclear and security of supply

Nuclear application

Decarbonization

Radiation

Physics

Energy and people

Casestudies

Videos about Nuclear

Misinformation by source

Reactor designs

Mark Z Jacobson