Key role for nuclear energy in global biodiversity conservation

Modern society uses massive amounts of energy. Usage rises as population and affluence increase, and energy production and use often have an impact on biodiversity or natural areas. To avoid a business-as-usual dependence on coal, oil, and gas over the coming decades, society must map out a future energy mix that incorporates alternative sources. This exercise can lead to radically different opinions on what a sustainable energy portfolio might entail, so an objective assessment of the relative costs and benefits of different energy sources is required. We evaluated the land use, emissions, climate, and cost implications of 3 published but divergent storylines for future energy production, none of which was optimal for all environmental and economic indicators. Using multicriteria decision-making analysis, we ranked 7 major electricity-generation sources (coal, gas, nuclear, biomass, hydro, wind, and solar) based on costs and benefits and tested the sensitivity of the rankings to biases stemming from contrasting philosophical ideals. Irrespective of weightings, nuclear and wind energy had the highest benefit-to-cost ratio. Although the environmental movement has historically rejected the nuclear energy option, new-generation reactor technologies that fully recycle waste and incorporate passive safety systems might resolve their concerns and ought to be more widely understood. Because there is no perfect energy source however, conservation professionals ultimately need to take an evidence-based approach to consider carefully the integrated effects of energy mixes on biodiversity conservation. Trade-offs and compromises are inevitable and require advocating energy mixes that minimize net environmental damage. Society cannot afford to risk wholesale failure to address energy-related biodiversity impacts because of preconceived notions and ideals. Un Papel Clave para la Energía Nuclear en la Conservación de la Biodiversidad Global La sociedad moderna usa cantidades masivas de energía y el uso de éstas incrementa conforme la población y la riqueza aumentan. La producción de energías y su uso continuamente han tenido un impacto sobre la biodiversidad o las áreas naturales. Para evitar la normalidad con la que se depende del carbón, el petróleo y el gas en las próximas décadas, la sociedad debe encontrar una futura mezcla de energías que incorpore fuentes alternativas. Este ejercicio puede llevar a opiniones radicalmente diferentes sobre lo que un portafolio de energías sustentables puede implicar, así que se requiera de una evaluación objetiva de los costos y beneficios relativos de las diferentes fuentes de energía. Evaluamos el uso de suelo, emisiones, clima e implicaciones de costo de tres líneas argumentales publicadas pero divergentes sobre el futuro de la producción de energía, ninguna de las cuales fue óptima para todos los indicadores ambientales y económicos. Al usar un análisis de toma de decisiones con criterios múltiples, ordenamos a siete fuentes generadoras de electricidad (carbón, gas, nuclear, biomasa, hidrológica, eólica y solar) con base en costos y beneficios y evaluamos la sensibilidad de las clasificaciones a sesgos originados de ideales filosóficos contrastantes. Sin importar las ponderaciones, la energía nuclear y la eólica tuvieron la relación costo-beneficio más alta. Aunque el movimiento ambiental históricamente ha rechazado la opción de la energía nuclear, la tecnología de reactores de nueva generación que reciclan completamente los desechos e incorporan sistemas pasivos de seguridad puede resolver las preocupaciones ambientalistas y debería ser entendido con mayor profundidad. Ya que no existen fuentes de energía perfectas, los profesionales de la conservación necesitan tener un enfoque basado en evidencias para considerar cuidadosamente los efectos integrados de la mezcla de energías sobre la conservación de la biodiversidad. Las compensaciones y los acuerdos mutuos son inevitables y requieren abogar por las mezclas de energía que minimicen el daño ambiental neto. La sociedad no puede permitirse el riesgo de un fracaso total en la señalización de impactos sobre la biodiversidad relacionados con la energía por causa de ideales y nociones preconcebidas. Over the last few centuries, civilization has become a vast and ceaselessly expanding consumer of energy, delivered primarily by fossil fuels (>80%)—coal, oil, and natural gas. The latest compiled data from 2011 show that approximately 550 exajoules (1 EJ = 1018 J) of primary energy were consumed by the global economy in that year (IEA 2013). Yet given the mounting threat of greenhouse gas-induced climate change and the chronic health impacts and energy-security problems associated with a reliance on burning fossil fuels, it is imperative that we seek substitute forms of energy supply in coming decades (Kharecha Nicholson 2012). If this energy future is to be relatively benign to nature, the costs and benefits of all competing energy forms will need to be carefully traded-off (Blees 2008). We argue that conservation professionals have a key role to play in this policy arena. For the least direct harm to biodiversity, the best energy options are those that use the least amount of land and fresh water (in production or mining), minimize pollution (e.g., carbon dioxide, aerosols, heavy metals, and toxic chemicals), restrict habitat fragmentation, and have a low risk of accidents that have large and lasting regional impacts on natural areas (e.g., oil spills, dam-burst floods, radioactive fallout). Yet the indirect effects of energy production are also critical. Conservation-friendly energy sources must also be cost-effective, reliable, and accessible relative to more environmentally damaging methods if they are to displace them. We reviewed the links between energy supply and biodiversity conservation, considered the potential and problems of some of the most widely touted nonfossil-fuel alternatives (renewable and nuclear), and devised a basic framework that can be used to rank and balance energy options objectively. Our goal was not to be overly prescriptive; rather, we sought to show why and how conservation scientists could engage most effectively in the energy-policy debate and so yield the best outcomes for global biodiversity. Conservation biologists readily acknowledge that 2 of the principal drivers of terrestrial biodiversity extinctions are habitat degradation and loss—mainly via agricultural expansion, logging, urbanization, and pollution (Brook et al. 2008). Climate disruption, and its synergies with other extinction drivers, will also continue to worsen over centuries and so strongly influence future species distributions (Bellard et al. 2012). Thus, it follows that anything humanity can do to mitigate climate warming, energy-related pollution, and land-use changes that negatively affect species will ultimately benefit biodiversity. Given that energy production from fossil fuels—for electricity, transportation, and industrial processes—is the principal source of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions, biodiversity conservation is intrinsically intertwined with how we source our energy (Wiens et al. 2011). Cutting emissions is, however, only one aspect of the complex relationship between energy and biodiversity. For example, hydroelectricity dams are largely emissions-free after construction, but they can wreak havoc on local biodiversity through flooding and by obstructing migration (Dudgeon 2006). Globally, around 60% of the world's rivers were considered regulated in 2001; over 40,000 large dams (>100 have walls higher than 150 m) and their resulting reservoirs cover 500,000 km2 (McAllister et al. 2001). Other renewable energy sources are also land hungry (Wiens et al. 2011). Biofuels and wind energy in particular require land area per unit energy produced similar to hydroelectric dams (photovoltaic solar requires about 9 times less area per unit energy) (Supporting Information) (Pimentel Nicholson 2012). all energy options be to on a and a of as in so as to of fossil fuels of the key for biodiversity as the of mitigation and land and for sustainable in developing and of infrastructure in the world to the pragmatic on the of all of nonfossil-fuel energy technologies will have to be on a The alternative energy we those or nuclear power to replace the of reliance on fossil only 2 different plausible Our goal was not to particular energy rather, we used to that conservation biologists objective to rank all the or a particular over given energy source requires an alternative and the of its environmental and a conservation professionals also need to consider carefully the energy sources they will in terms of how species they are to In other conservation professionals be what be for the of global energy supply in terms of biodiversity (e.g., how climate will and how more land area will be and what is their for failure to those (Brook & 2012). we afford to play with biodiversity because of preconceived notions and notions of a energy supply a assessment of risk (i.e., a of how we are to avoid a BAU scenario and its are the of we to society why it and biodiversity. as our has from how human biodiversity to one to more to the implications of its and what we can do to restrict so must we our of world energy of to the relative impacts of of energy supply and storage from power the human will use about million of energy over or This is to the energy in a of of natural about or about of if the storage capacity for electricity from renewables is a over high The of the is to of the to the world's in on of one for storage are and in the additional of emissions (e.g., burning of approximately of carbon the and land use (e.g., for to the massive to wind or solar fuels have supplied most of energy demand the Yet with the mounting problems of climate pollution, and we the need for a of the world's energy We have a of the and potential our energy while the growing need for in the developing the options nuclear power and based on systems with fuel and substantial largely for a principal for our nuclear power has an in the environmental the energy has it will not only mitigate climate it will also avoid use of natural and agricultural for and energy generation and thus to their environmental by land and for biodiversity conservation. on an objective and of our sustainable energy we have to the evidence-based that nuclear energy is a for biodiversity conservation (and society in and that other alternatives to fossil fuels be to the (in terms of biodiversity and climate as as or them. We that nuclear a to an and a because it a to the global energy and that rank the major biodiversity the nuclear power needs to be considered renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar in sustainable energy mix for the and are by and have no energy-related have been peer-reviewed but not The is not responsible for the or of supplied by the than be to the for the