• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Archives
  • Links

Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

Atomic Show #215 – Armond Cohen, CATF, describes need for nuclear

June 5, 2014 By Rod Adams

Armond Cohen is the Executive Director of the Clean Air Task Force. We spoke in January 2008 on episode #78 of the Atomic Show. At that time, Armond and his organization did not take a position on nuclear energy.

On March 28 of this year, I heard Armond give a talk at the commemoration of 35 years since the Three Mile Island accident. During that talk Cohen clearly stated that his organization had carefully evaluated all available options and scenarios and had come to the conclusion that nuclear energy would play an important role in any successful effort to decarbonise the global energy supply system.

CATF acknowledges that there are also important roles for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and, possibly, carbon capture and storage, but without help from nuclear energy, efforts were not going to succeed.

He agreed to my request for an interview. We spoke on June 5, 2014.

Just in case you have not heard of the Clean Air Task Force, here is a quote from their page titled “What Others Are Saying About CATF.”

Sue Tierney, Managing Principal, Analysis Group, Inc., Boston

Among the many nonprofit organizations dedicated to addressing atmospheric pollution, the Clean Air Task Force distinguishes itself by navigating the complex terrain with technically rich analyses, intellectually rigorous assessments, and compelling and brave arguments. CATF is willing to dig deep for answers on cutting edge issues, and then address policy issues from factually grounded positions. It is a precious resource with impact significantly larger than its small size.

Related Posts

  • Armond Cohen: Looks at Lovins's claims with questioning analysis
http://s3.amazonaws.com/AtomicShowFiles/atomic_20140605_215.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 59:00 — 27.1MB)

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | RSS

Filed Under: Atomic politics, Climate change, Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Communications, Podcast, Politics of Nuclear Energy

Avatar

About Rod Adams

Rod Adams is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience, now serving as a Managing Partner at Nucleation Capital, an emerging climate-focused fund. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial discussion and analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology and policies for several decades. He is the founder of Atomic Insights and host and producer of The Atomic Show Podcast.

Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. AvatarJames Greenidge says

    June 5, 2014 at 7:33 PM

    Good interview!

    Re: “CATF acknowledges that there are also important roles for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and, possibly, carbon capture and storage, but without help from nuclear energy, efforts were not going to succeed.”

    Maybe it’s me splitting hairs, but there’s something kind of begrudging about nukes in this statement and the interview. Is CATF implying that if efficiency and windmills and algae alone could make their clear air goal then we can do without nuclear? How would CATF feel if it summed up that nuclear was more deployable and proven than “carbon capture” and “renewable”? How hearty would the endorsement be? I really didn’t hear any hard nuclear endorsements, just mostly reluctant “nuke could play parts” and “nukes would be helpfuls,” not any enthused “we want to do nukes!” I liked Rod hitting square at 22:45 and the guy halting for a lame PC reply (to me). That was telling. I don’t know, but they just don’t sound like they’re exactly hopping up and down for nuclear as high as they are for windmills and solar to me. It all sounds like echoes of the current green-committed nil-nuke administration. Maybe it’s just me. Not every hardcore green can be a Ben Heard I guess.

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

    • AvatarAndrew Benson says

      June 17, 2014 at 1:49 PM

      “Is CATF implying that if efficiency and windmills and algae alone could make their clear air goal then we can do without nuclear?”

      No, Armond explicitly said that he believes we cannot do it without nuclear. Perhaps you had trouble following the distinctions between the different kinds of feasibility he talked about:

      – Feasibility: He does believe it would be technically feasible to decarbonize without nuclear (in other words the technology, science, and engineer exists or is sufficiently close to final development and deployment). To be clear, he believes that a no-nuclear decarbonization would require large amounts of carbon capture and sequestration of fossil fuel emissions, because 100% renewables would be technically infeasible.

      -Economics: He does NOT believe it would be economically feasible to decarbonize without nuclear, because nuclear avoids, addresses, or overcomes many of the issues inherent to intermittent, low density renewables. He believes an electricity grid consisting of mostly nuclear power (or also fossil fuels with carbon capture) could enable renewables to participate with a share of 20% to 30% cost-effectively, or maybe 40 or 50% renewables with more technical innovation.

      – Politics: He does NOT believe renewables alone can be built fast enough to address the climate problem, given the numerous squabbles about renewable development such as Cape Wind. He also believes the cost of a renewables-only approach would make decarbonizing politically infeasible. (Obviously, nuclear has its own share of political issues to address as well).

      So in other words, Armond Cohen believes a no-nuclear decarbonization strategy is technically feasible, but not economically or politically feasible. I believe that’s a pretty ringing endorsement of nuclear power, even though it comes from a place of begrudging acceptance. I say we need MORE begrudging supporters of nuclear power!

      If we are to flip any opponents of nuclear power to our side, we can’t expect that they will become nuclear cheerleaders overnight. If they see us harassing converts to our side as not being sufficiently enthusiastic, the emotional side of their brain will absolutely reject any logic we present to them. They would rather stay with their environmentalist friends than join a unwelcoming bunch of engineers, scientists, and techno-nerds.

  2. AvatarEd Leaver says

    June 7, 2014 at 3:15 AM

    James:
    Did we listen to the same interview?

  3. AvatarMitch says

    June 7, 2014 at 7:34 AM

    One thing I like about Ben Heard is he doesn’t hem and haw but comes straight right out with what he believes in!

    • AvatarActindeAge says

      June 16, 2014 at 8:52 AM

      I don’t know of another nuclear advocate here in South Australia who works quite as hard as Ben does.

Primary Sidebar

Search Atomic Insights

Follow Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

Atomic Show #291 – Kalev Kallemets, Fermi Energia

Preliminary lessons available to be learned from Feb 2021 extended cold spell

South Texas Project Unit 1 tripped at 0537 on Feb 15, 2021

Atomic Show #290 – Myrto Tripathi, Voices of Nuclear

Change is in the wind: Commencing a new phase as a Venture Capitalist

  • Home
  • About Atomic Insights
  • Atomic Show
  • Contact
  • Links

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2021 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy