The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1.5 C report presented a stark warning to humankind last fall—that we must take swift action to cut carbon emissions over the next few decades or face an environmental catastrophe that future generations will struggle to adapt to. Though the report was covered widely, one aspect of it didn’t receive as much attention—how we can achieve zero emissions on that timescale. In their scenarios, the IPCC identified four pathways to give us our best chances to cut carbon in time to limit the worst climate effects. The common thread between these scenarios? Each has a substantial role for the use of nuclear energy. The IPCC prescribes between a two to six times increase in the amount of nuclear energy (around 440 large reactors). Climate scientist Dr. James Hansen is on the record saying, “We need to decrease carbon emissions by several percent a year. I don’t see how we can do that without the help of nuclear power.” Would building nuclear as fast as necessary be possible with the slow speeds the industry had been building reactors as of late? It’s hard to say for certain. At their peak, France, Sweden, and Ontario were able to phase out fossil fuels in their electricity sectors in less than 15 years using a combination of large nuclear plants and hydro. There appears to be a better option than conventional large plants: advanced nuclear reactors. Designs from companies like NuScale Power and Terrestrial Energy are made to be manufactured in factories at a rate of around 100 per year, shipped to where they are needed, and have smaller outputs so they can be dropped into the footprints of retiring fossil plants. Concerns regarding nuclear waste have been a common objection to using nuclear power. This is understandable, considering the legacy of nuclear weapons waste we’re still working to clean up today. However, commercial nuclear power is a different story. All the spent nuclear fuel in the US could all fit on a single football field, and none of it has harmed anyone. Scientists and engineers are confident in our ability to safely store and/or eventually recycle spent nuclear fuel. Meanwhile, every year that we don’t use nuclear exacerbates climate and air quality issues. We mustn’t let our concerns of a hypothetical accident thousands of years in the future guarantee a very real public health and climate impacts of burning fossil fuels. Replacing fossil plants directly with advanced nuclear would help keep good paying jobs in communities while cleaning up our energy system at a rate that has never been seen before. Both of these designs and others are currently in the regulatory approval process in US and Canada, but with new nuclear construction effectively illegal in our state, we are limiting our options to best contribute to the broader effort on climate change, and putting ourselves at an economic disadvantage to other states. We need as much clean energy as we can get right now and we shouldn’t try to fight climate change with one hand tied behind our back. Will you write or co-sponsor legislation to lift the nuclear ban in our state? Or at least limit the ban to reactors larger than 300MW? Thank you for your consideration.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1.5 C report presented a stark warning to humankind last fall—that we must take swift action to cut carbon emissions over the next few decades or face an environmental catastrophe that future generations will struggle to adapt to. Though the report was covered widely, one aspect of it didn’t receive as much attention—how we can achieve zero emissions on that timescale. In their scenarios, the IPCC identified four pathways to give us our best chances to cut carbon in time to limit the worst climate effects. The common thread between these scenarios? Each has a substantial role for the use of nuclear energy. The IPCC prescribes between a two to six times increase in the amount of nuclear energy (around 440 large reactors). Climate scientist Dr. James Hansen is on the record saying, “We need to decrease carbon emissions by several percent a year. I don’t see how we can do that without the help of nuclear power.” Would building nuclear as fast as necessary be possible with the slow speeds the industry had been building reactors as of late? It’s hard to say for certain. At their peak, France, Sweden, and Ontario were able to phase out fossil fuels in their electricity sectors in less than 15 years using a combination of large nuclear plants and hydro. There appears to be a better option than conventional large plants: advanced nuclear reactors. Designs from companies like NuScale Power and Terrestrial Energy are made to be manufactured in factories at a rate of around 100 per year, shipped to where they are needed, and have smaller outputs so they can be dropped into the footprints of retiring fossil plants. Concerns regarding nuclear waste have been a common objection to using nuclear power. This is understandable, considering the legacy of nuclear weapons waste we’re still working to clean up today. However, commercial nuclear power is a different story. All the spent nuclear fuel in the US could all fit on a single football field, and none of it has harmed anyone. Scientists and engineers are confident in our ability to safely store and/or eventually recycle spent nuclear fuel. Meanwhile, every year that we don’t use nuclear exacerbates climate and air quality issues. We mustn’t let our concerns of a hypothetical accident thousands of years in the future guarantee a very real public health and climate impacts of burning fossil fuels. Replacing fossil plants directly with advanced nuclear would help keep good paying jobs in communities while cleaning up our energy system at a rate that has never been seen before. Both of these designs and others are currently in the regulatory approval process in US and Canada, but with new nuclear construction effectively illegal in our state, we are limiting our options to best contribute to the broader effort on climate change, and putting ourselves at an economic disadvantage to other states. We need as much clean energy as we can get right now and we shouldn’t try to fight climate change with one hand tied behind our back. Will you write or co-sponsor legislation to lift the nuclear ban in our state? Or at least limit the ban to reactors larger than 300MW? Thank you for your consideration.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1.5 C report presented a stark warning to humankind last fall—that we must take swift action to cut carbon emissions over the next few decades or face an environmental catastrophe that future generations will struggle to adapt to. Though the report was covered widely, one aspect of it didn’t receive as much attention—how we can achieve zero emissions on that timescale. In their scenarios, the IPCC identified four pathways to give us our best chances to cut carbon in time to limit the worst climate effects. The common thread between these scenarios? Each has a substantial role for the use of nuclear energy. The IPCC prescribes between a two to six times increase in the amount of nuclear energy (around 440 large reactors). Climate scientist Dr. James Hansen is on the record saying, “We need to decrease carbon emissions by several percent a year. I don’t see how we can do that without the help of nuclear power.” Would building nuclear as fast as necessary be possible with the slow speeds the industry had been building reactors as of late? It’s hard to say for certain. At their peak, France, Sweden, and Ontario were able to phase out fossil fuels in their electricity sectors in less than 15 years using a combination of large nuclear plants and hydro. There appears to be a better option than conventional large plants: advanced nuclear reactors. Designs from companies like NuScale Power and Terrestrial Energy are made to be manufactured in factories at a rate of around 100 per year, shipped to where they are needed, and have smaller outputs so they can be dropped into the footprints of retiring fossil plants. Concerns regarding nuclear waste have been a common objection to using nuclear power. This is understandable, considering the legacy of nuclear weapons waste we’re still working to clean up today. However, commercial nuclear power is a different story. All the spent nuclear fuel in the US could all fit on a single football field, and none of it has harmed anyone. Scientists and engineers are confident in our ability to safely store and/or eventually recycle spent nuclear fuel. Meanwhile, every year that we don’t use nuclear exacerbates climate and air quality issues. We mustn’t let our concerns of a hypothetical accident thousands of years in the future guarantee a very real public health and climate impacts of burning fossil fuels. Replacing fossil plants directly with advanced nuclear would help keep good paying jobs in communities while cleaning up our energy system at a rate that has never been seen before. Both of these designs and others are currently in the regulatory approval process in US and Canada, but with new nuclear construction effectively illegal in our state, we are limiting our options to best contribute to the broader effort on climate change, and putting ourselves at an economic disadvantage to other states. We need as much clean energy as we can get right now and we shouldn’t try to fight climate change with one hand tied behind our back. Will you write or co-sponsor legislation to lift the nuclear ban in our state? Or at least limit the ban to reactors larger than 300MW? Thank you for your consideration.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1.5 C report presented a stark warning to humankind last fall—that we must take swift action to cut carbon emissions over the next few decades or face an environmental catastrophe that future generations will struggle to adapt to. Though the report was covered widely, one aspect of it didn’t receive as much attention—how we can achieve zero emissions on that timescale. In their scenarios, the IPCC identified four pathways to give us our best chances to cut carbon in time to limit the worst climate effects. The common thread between these scenarios? Each has a substantial role for the use of nuclear energy. The IPCC prescribes between a two to six times increase in the amount of nuclear energy (around 440 large reactors). Climate scientist Dr. James Hansen is on the record saying, “We need to decrease carbon emissions by several percent a year. I don’t see how we can do that without the help of nuclear power.” Would building nuclear as fast as necessary be possible with the slow speeds the industry had been building reactors as of late? It’s hard to say for certain. At their peak, France, Sweden, and Ontario were able to phase out fossil fuels in their electricity sectors in less than 15 years using a combination of large nuclear plants and hydro. There appears to be a better option than conventional large plants: advanced nuclear reactors. Designs from companies like NuScale Power and Terrestrial Energy are made to be manufactured in factories at a rate of around 100 per year, shipped to where they are needed, and have smaller outputs so they can be dropped into the footprints of retiring fossil plants. Concerns regarding nuclear waste have been a common objection to using nuclear power. This is understandable, considering the legacy of nuclear weapons waste we’re still working to clean up today. However, commercial nuclear power is a different story. All the spent nuclear fuel in the US could all fit on a single football field, and none of it has harmed anyone. Scientists and engineers are confident in our ability to safely store and/or eventually recycle spent nuclear fuel. Meanwhile, every year that we don’t use nuclear exacerbates climate and air quality issues. We mustn’t let our concerns of a hypothetical accident thousands of years in the future guarantee a very real public health and climate impacts of burning fossil fuels. Replacing fossil plants directly with advanced nuclear would help keep good paying jobs in communities while cleaning up our energy system at a rate that has never been seen before. Both of these designs and others are currently in the regulatory approval process in US and Canada, but with new nuclear construction effectively illegal in our state, we are limiting our options to best contribute to the broader effort on climate change, and putting ourselves at an economic disadvantage to other states. We need as much clean energy as we can get right now and we shouldn’t try to fight climate change with one hand tied behind our back. Will you write or co-sponsor legislation to lift the nuclear ban in our state? Or at least limit the ban to reactors larger than 300MW? Thank you for your consideration.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1.5 C report presented a stark warning to humankind last fall—that we must take swift action to cut carbon emissions over the next few decades or face an environmental catastrophe that future generations will struggle to adapt to. Though the report was covered widely, one aspect of it didn’t receive as much attention—how we can achieve zero emissions on that timescale. In their scenarios, the IPCC identified four pathways to give us our best chances to cut carbon in time to limit the worst climate effects. The common thread between these scenarios? Each has a substantial role for the use of nuclear energy. The IPCC prescribes between a two to six times increase in the amount of nuclear energy (around 440 large reactors). Climate scientist Dr. James Hansen is on the record saying, “We need to decrease carbon emissions by several percent a year. I don’t see how we can do that without the help of nuclear power.” Would building nuclear as fast as necessary be possible with the slow speeds the industry had been building reactors as of late? It’s hard to say for certain. At their peak, France, Sweden, and Ontario were able to phase out fossil fuels in their electricity sectors in less than 15 years using a combination of large nuclear plants and hydro. There appears to be a better option than conventional large plants: advanced nuclear reactors. Designs from companies like NuScale Power and Terrestrial Energy are made to be manufactured in factories at a rate of around 100 per year, shipped to where they are needed, and have smaller outputs so they can be dropped into the footprints of retiring fossil plants. Concerns regarding nuclear waste have been a common objection to using nuclear power. This is understandable, considering the legacy of nuclear weapons waste we’re still working to clean up today. However, commercial nuclear power is a different story. All the spent nuclear fuel in the US could all fit on a single football field, and none of it has harmed anyone. Scientists and engineers are confident in our ability to safely store and/or eventually recycle spent nuclear fuel. Meanwhile, every year that we don’t use nuclear exacerbates climate and air quality issues. We mustn’t let our concerns of a hypothetical accident thousands of years in the future guarantee a very real public health and climate impacts of burning fossil fuels. Replacing fossil plants directly with advanced nuclear would help keep good paying jobs in communities while cleaning up our energy system at a rate that has never been seen before. Both of these designs and others are currently in the regulatory approval process in US and Canada, but with new nuclear construction effectively illegal in our state, we are limiting our options to best contribute to the broader effort on climate change, and putting ourselves at an economic disadvantage to other states. We need as much clean energy as we can get right now and we shouldn’t try to fight climate change with one hand tied behind our back. Will you write or co-sponsor legislation to lift the nuclear ban in our state? Or at least limit the ban to reactors larger than 300MW? Thank you for your consideration.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1.5 C report presented a stark warning to humankind last fall—that we must take swift action to cut carbon emissions over the next few decades or face an environmental catastrophe that future generations will struggle to adapt to. Though the report was covered widely, one aspect of it didn’t receive as much attention—how we can achieve zero emissions on that timescale. In their scenarios, the IPCC identified four pathways to give us our best chances to cut carbon in time to limit the worst climate effects. The common thread between these scenarios? Each has a substantial role for the use of nuclear energy. The IPCC prescribes between a two to six times increase in the amount of nuclear energy (around 440 large reactors). Climate scientist Dr. James Hansen is on the record saying, “We need to decrease carbon emissions by several percent a year. I don’t see how we can do that without the help of nuclear power.” Would building nuclear as fast as necessary be possible with the slow speeds the industry had been building reactors as of late? It’s hard to say for certain. At their peak, France, Sweden, and Ontario were able to phase out fossil fuels in their electricity sectors in less than 15 years using a combination of large nuclear plants and hydro. There appears to be a better option than conventional large plants: advanced nuclear reactors. Designs from companies like NuScale Power and Terrestrial Energy are made to be manufactured in factories at a rate of around 100 per year, shipped to where they are needed, and have smaller outputs so they can be dropped into the footprints of retiring fossil plants. Concerns regarding nuclear waste have been a common objection to using nuclear power. This is understandable, considering the legacy of nuclear weapons waste we’re still working to clean up today. However, commercial nuclear power is a different story. All the spent nuclear fuel in the US could all fit on a single football field, and none of it has harmed anyone. Scientists and engineers are confident in our ability to safely store and/or eventually recycle spent nuclear fuel. Meanwhile, every year that we don’t use nuclear exacerbates climate and air quality issues. We mustn’t let our concerns of a hypothetical accident thousands of years in the future guarantee a very real public health and climate impacts of burning fossil fuels. Replacing fossil plants directly with advanced nuclear would help keep good paying jobs in communities while cleaning up our energy system at a rate that has never been seen before. Both of these designs and others are currently in the regulatory approval process in US and Canada, but with new nuclear construction effectively illegal in our state, we are limiting our options to best contribute to the broader effort on climate change, and putting ourselves at an economic disadvantage to other states. We need as much clean energy as we can get right now and we shouldn’t try to fight climate change with one hand tied behind our back. Will you write or co-sponsor legislation to lift the nuclear ban in our state? Or at least limit the ban to reactors larger than 300MW? Thank you for your consideration.