Why it's so hard to decide whether nuclear power is a good idea for the climate

After more than a decade working in electric power planning, Richard Carlson has come to the conclusion that nuclear is the "most religious form of energy."

In a rational world, you'd think it would be easy for what we might call the High Church of the Nuclear Climate Solution to sit down with the Radiant Opponents of the Expensive Atom, look at a few spreadsheets and settle the argument.

Carlson says no.

"Those who believe in it, believe in it 100 per cent," he said on the phone recently. "And those who oppose it, oppose it 100 per cent. There's very little room for nuanced conversation with regard to nuclear energy."

Several experts I spoke to said the strong views on each side would make nuclear power a divisive issue at COP27, the upcoming United Nations conference on climate change beginning on Sunday in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt.

Some Canadian environmental think-tanks have not taken a position on an issue that seems too polarizing.

At a moment when the world — and many Canadians — are sharply divided over whether nuclear power is an essential ingredient for solving climate change, Carlson, director of energy policy at Pollution Probe, counts himself as an agnostic, buffeted from both sides.

As Canadian governments pour another billion dollars into developing a new kind of nuclear reactor — and spend millions more refurbishing existing plants — how hard could it be to sort out the answer of whether that investment is worthwhile or a waste? More difficult than you might think.

Listening to people on different sides of the debate and talking to smart people who study the data, it becomes apparent that a simple cost-benefit analysis is not simple at all. It's like going down a rabbit hole, said one person who tried. In fact, there are those who say that insisting on a clear answer when none is available might just leave us paralyzed, dependent on coal and oil forever.

If you are looking for strong arguments to help you come to a conclusion, there is no shortage.

In the United States, James Hansen, former director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is a champion of nuclear power who seems to have an answer for every question. In Canada, John Gorman, head of the Canadian Nuclear Association, has brought his communications skills burnished promoting the solar power industry to the pro-nuclear argument.

"It is a real necessary tool if we are going to hit our targets and keep our global warming below 1.5 degrees," Gorman told the CBC's Laura Lynch on the radio program What on Earth.

Listening only to Hansen and Gorman may leave you convinced. But on every issue, nuclear opponents offer contending arguments, complaining, for example, that the long development time for the new reactors leaves us dependent on coal, oil and gas, playing into the hands of the fossil fuel industry.

"New nuclear energy builds will cost much more than renewable builds with storage," said Susan O'Donnell, a nuclear opponent who teaches at the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton, as she and Gorman went head to head on CBC Radio's The Current with Matt Galloway.