France’s Nuclear Mistake: Politics over Science, Again

The closure of the Indian Point Nuclear Plant in New York was fundamentally misguided because it removed over 2,000 megawatts of stable, zero-carbon electricity from the region's grid, at a time when urgent climate action required the expansion—not reduction—of clean energy sources. Before it was shut down, Indian Point reliably produced approximately 25% of New York City's electricity, enough to power roughly two million homes without emitting greenhouse gases. Its forced retirement directly resulted in increased reliance on fossil fuels, primarily natural gas plants, causing around four million additional metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. This is equivalent to adding approximately 870,000 gasoline-powered cars to the roads annually. Crucially, Indian Point had an impeccable safety record, with no serious accidents or safety violations throughout its decades-long operating history, and it maintained rigorous, highly effective waste management protocols.

France, historically a global nuclear energy leader, is now repeating exactly the same catastrophic mistake. The premature closure of fully functional nuclear reactors such as Fessenheim represents a dramatic reversal of France’s remarkable nuclear legacy, which for decades stood as a shining example of successful decarbonization. France’s early and decisive embrace of nuclear energy in the 1970s through the 1990s, under left-wing and progressive governments, dramatically reduced the country's reliance on fossil fuels and substantially lowered its greenhouse gas emissions. This nuclear-driven energy policy was rightly a source of national pride, positioning France as a global leader in climate mitigation. However, recent centrist administrations—particularly those led by François Hollande and Emmanuel Macron—have undermined this legacy by seeking to appease anti-nuclear factions, including Greens within their coalitions, who promote scientifically unfounded fears about nuclear safety and waste. These ideological concessions not only compromise decades of climate progress but also severely diminish France's international credibility as a leader in responsible climate policy, turning a once pioneering decarbonization success story into a troubling cautionary tale.

France currently relies heavily on second-generation pressurized water reactors (PWRs), built primarily between 1977 and 1997. Initially designed with operating lives of 30 to 40 years, these reactors have consistently shown that, with proper maintenance and modernization, their lifespans can safely and reliably extend to 50 or even 60 years. France’s Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) recently acknowledged this, approving ten-year life extensions beyond the original 40-year marks for several of these Gen II reactors, provided certain investments in modernization and safety upgrades are made.

Simply put, there is no immediate technical necessity compelling France to shut down its Gen II reactors. Électricité de France (EDF), the national utility operating these reactors, has expressed the clear desire and capability to safely operate many of them well into the 2040s or even the 2050s. Yet despite these realities, France is moving forward with reactor closures.

The recent closure of the Fessenheim plant illustrates this dynamic vividly. As France’s oldest commercial reactor, Fessenheim was not shut down in 2020 because it failed safety inspections or was becoming inefficient. Instead, President Emmanuel Macron closed it as a concession to anti-nuclear factions within his political coalition and the influential Greens, mirroring New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s decision to shut down Indian Point for similar ideological reasons. Both closures sacrificed proven, clean baseload power generation at the altar of short-term political gains and symbolic "green" victories.

Macron initially committed in 2018 to reducing nuclear’s share of France’s electricity from roughly 75% down to 50% by 2035. Though this target was later softened due to the harsh realities of energy demand and climate imperatives, the political damage was done. This policy stance triggered a chain reaction of negative effects: it froze or outright canceled essential reactor life-extension projects, delayed critical maintenance, starved EDF of necessary funding, and created instability that worsened energy shortages during the 2021–2022 winter and the subsequent energy crisis following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

These premature nuclear closures significantly increase carbon emissions. For example, the closure of Indian Point’s two reactors removed 2,000 megawatts (MW) of continuous carbon-free power, equivalent to nearly 25% of New York City's electricity demand. In their absence, fossil-fuel plants increased their output, resulting in approximately 4 million additional metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, equivalent to the emissions of roughly 870,000 cars on the road.

Similarly, Germany’s aggressive closure of its nuclear fleet has had even more severe environmental consequences. Between 2011 and 2023, Germany closed all its nuclear plants, eliminating approximately 8,100 MW of clean power. The result was increased dependence on coal, especially lignite (brown coal), one of the dirtiest fossil fuels available. This policy shift added roughly 36 million metric tons of CO2 annually, a staggering increase roughly equivalent to the emissions produced by 7.8 million passenger vehicles each year.

These numbers starkly illustrate the unscientific, environmentally destructive outcomes of ideologically driven nuclear shutdowns. Despite claims of environmental stewardship, progressive and so-called "green" factions around the world have undermined genuine climate action through their anti-nuclear stance. Rather than reducing emissions, these closures significantly exacerbate the very climate crisis they claim to combat.

The damaging trend of premature nuclear closures in France predates François Hollande, tracing back notably to the shifting political landscape of the early 2000s, when mainstream political parties increasingly sought alliances with environmentalist groups, many of whom held anti-nuclear positions. However, Hollande significantly accelerated this harmful trajectory with politically motivated promises to reduce nuclear energy’s share of the French electricity grid. Emmanuel Macron, despite his initial reputation as pragmatic and technocratic, further entrenched this trend by closing plants such as Fessenheim—not due to any technical or safety failures, but explicitly as a concession to ideological anti-nuclear factions within his coalition. Macron’s recent attempt to reverse course with the France 2030 plan, proposing the construction of six new EPR-2 reactors, is an overdue acknowledgment of nuclear energy’s necessity, but it cannot swiftly undo the extensive harm inflicted by years of political capitulation. Like former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, whose decision to close Indian Point was transparently aimed at winning short-term political favor from anti-nuclear groups, Macron’s initial concessions were rooted in political calculations rather than scientific reality or climate necessity.

France’s current predicament thus mirrors the profound failure seen in New York’s Indian Point closure—but on an even more troubling scale, given France’s historical prominence in nuclear energy. The closure of these reactors is unmistakably driven by ideology rather than safety or engineering. French politicians, by yielding to scientifically unfounded anti-nuclear anxieties and the political pressures of Green factions, have severely jeopardized their nation’s energy security, stability, and independence. These closures weaken the French grid's resilience, especially during times of geopolitical instability and energy market volatility, as exemplified vividly by Europe's energy crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Furthermore, these politically motivated decisions represent a significant retreat from the very decarbonization strategies that once placed France at the forefront of climate leadership globally, reversing decades of progress that should rightly have remained a source of national pride.

As the international community searches desperately for reliable, evidence-based solutions to the worsening climate crisis, France’s recent nuclear policy missteps serve as a stark cautionary tale. The ideological rejection of proven zero-carbon nuclear power by influential segments of progressive politics worldwide is demonstrably harmful—not just ineffective, but actively destructive to the global climate fight. Choosing political symbolism over scientific evidence compromises energy security, reverses decarbonization gains, and critically undermines international climate leadership at precisely the moment when decisive action is most urgently required. France, once a beacon of climate pragmatism and nuclear success, now risks becoming a symbol of how misguided politics can dangerously sabotage humanity’s collective efforts against climate catastrophe.

Afterword: Counting the Human Cost of Political Nuclear Closures

When political decisions prioritize ideology over science, the resulting harm extends far beyond abstract environmental concerns—it directly translates into lost human lives. Prematurely shutting down reliable nuclear power plants forces increased dependence on fossil fuels, leading to substantial spikes in carbon dioxide emissions and deadly air pollution.

The closure of New York’s Indian Point Nuclear Plant, for example, eliminated approximately 2,000 megawatts of continuous, clean electricity—roughly 25% of New York City's electricity demand, enough to reliably power about two million homes. To compensate, fossil fuel plants, primarily fueled by natural gas, drastically increased output, generating roughly four million additional metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year. To illustrate the severity of this increase: it is equivalent to building and operating nearly five large coal-fired power plants annually.

In their landmark study, climate scientist James Hansen and co-author Pushker Kharecha quantified the lethal consequences of nuclear power plant closures. They found that nuclear energy had historically prevented approximately 1.8 million deaths globally by reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Moreover, their research concluded that every gigawatt-year of nuclear electricity replaced by fossil fuels directly results in hundreds of additional premature deaths from air pollution annually. Applying this data conservatively, the emissions from Indian Point's unnecessary closure directly correlate with thousands of additional premature deaths over the years these reactors could have continued to operate.

Germany provides an even more disturbing case: its recent closure of roughly 8,100 megawatts of nuclear capacity has caused emissions to surge by approximately 36 million metric tons of CO₂ per year. According to Hansen and Kharecha's calculations, such an increase corresponds to tens of thousands of preventable deaths due to worsened air quality and pollution-related diseases.

Importantly, acknowledging this reality does not require one to accept human-caused climate change as a premise—it is a straightforward and measurable fact that burning fossil fuels releases pollutants directly harmful to human health. Thus, the supposedly "green" political forces driving these nuclear shutdowns are causing precisely the environmental and human catastrophes they claim to oppose. Decisions that masquerade as environmentally responsible have tragically resulted in increased pollution, compromised public health, and, ultimately, thousands of avoidable deaths. This outcome represents a profound betrayal of both environmental and humanitarian principles.

After-Afterword: How Many More Must Die? Rethinking the True Toll of Nuclear Shutdowns

When I asked ChatGPT if Hansen and Kharecha's estimates might be low, here was its response:

Yes, some experts and writers have suggested that Hansen and Kharecha’s estimate of 1.8 million lives saved by nuclear power may be low, although this view is not always framed as a direct critique or extension of their methodology. Rather, it emerges from broader discussions around the hidden toll of fossil fuel air pollution, the underestimation of nuclear displacement effects, and the compounding impacts of premature reactor closures like Indian Point. Here's a breakdown of the argument and relevant literature or lines of reasoning that support the idea that their estimate might be conservative:

1. Air Pollution Mortality Estimates Have Increased Over Time

Since Hansen and Kharecha published their study in 2013, there have been more recent and often higher estimates of deaths caused by air pollution. For instance:

• The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) project has steadily revised upward the estimated number of deaths attributable to fine particulate matter (PM2.5), especially from coal.

• A 2021 study published in Environmental Research by Lelieveld et al. estimated over 8 million deaths per year globally from fossil fuel air pollution—much higher than previous estimates.

• This increase in estimated mortality burden means that any energy source that displaces fossil fuels—especially coal—is likely doing more good than earlier models assumed.

Implication: Hansen and Kharecha’s estimate likely used earlier or more conservative health impact assumptions, especially regarding dose-response functions between pollution and mortality.

2. They Use Conservative Counterfactuals

Hansen and Kharecha assumed that the nuclear electricity generated would have been replaced proportionally by fossil fuels (primarily coal and gas) in its absence. But they intentionally used conservative assumptions:

“Our estimates are based on average emissions from fossil fuels displaced by nuclear power, not marginal emissions.” — Hansen & Kharecha, 2013

This means they understate the actual fossil fuel emissions that would have been required to generate the same electricity, especially during peak demand periods, which are more likely to rely on coal or gas peakers.

Implication: If they had used marginal emissions or modeled more realistic fossil backup behavior, their avoided death estimates would likely be higher.

3. They Did Not Include the Indirect Effects of Early Nuclear Closures

Although their paper includes retrospective analysis of historical nuclear generation, it doesn’t model in detail the cascading health and climate effects of specific premature plant closures—such as Indian Point, Diablo Canyon, or Germany’s nuclear phaseout.

Since those closures often result in surging fossil generation in nearby grids, the local and regional air quality impacts can be significantly higher than average. For instance:

• The Indian Point closure increased gas burn in New York state and neighboring regions.

• Germany’s nuclear phaseout led to increased coal use for nearly a decade despite its renewables expansion.

Implication: If the study had been updated to include closure-specific post hoc modeling (like the 2022 study from Harvard on Germany), the death toll from lost nuclear would likely be higher.

4. Hansen and Kharecha Focus Primarily on Air Pollution, Not Climate Impacts

Their study focuses on mortality due to particulate air pollution, not climate change itself. But the long-term mortality and morbidity effects of climate change—heatwaves, crop failures, vector-borne diseases, displacement—are significant and increasing. Since nuclear avoids CO₂ emissions, it also avoids the cascading health consequences of climate breakdown.

More recent work, including The Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change, has begun to integrate climate-attributable deaths in the tens to hundreds of thousands annually.

Implication: If nuclear’s role in avoiding climate deaths were added, the lives saved would increase beyond 1.8 million.

5. Others Have Argued the Same Point Explicitly

Several scientists, engineers, and public commentators have made versions of the claim that Hansen and Kharecha’s figure is conservative or undercounts nuclear’s benefits:

• Joshua Goldstein, co-author of A Bright Future, frequently cites the 1.8 million figure as a minimum.

• Robert Hargraves and others in the nuclear advocacy space have argued that more realistic modeling of nuclear’s counterfactual would show much higher benefits.

• Some analysts have suggested that adding lifecycle deaths per terawatt-hour (like those from the WHO or UNSCEAR) might offer a more robust way to model the lives saved, and that this method often results in figures 2x or more higher than Hansen & Kharecha’s.

6. Updated Modeling Tools Suggest Greater Avoided Mortality

Tools such as ElectricityMap, NREL’s Cambium model, and EPPA/MARKAL from MIT can now more precisely model real-time marginal emissions, dispatch curves, and population exposure to emissions. These models would almost certainly show higher-than-estimated death tolls from recent nuclear shutdowns (especially if applied to India, China, or fast-growing nations with high fossil baselines).

Conclusion

Yes—there is a compelling case that Hansen and Kharecha’s 1.8 million estimate is likely low. It was a conservative, narrowly focused analysis that did not incorporate:

• Recent data on fossil fuel death rates

• Marginal emission replacement modeling

• Specific impacts of premature nuclear closures

• Indirect climate-related health impacts

It remains a landmark study, but its findings should be seen as a floor, not a ceiling, in estimating the health benefits of nuclear power.

Would you like me to draft a version of this argument as a blog post, memo, or part of your Earthrise materials (e.g., Afterword, briefing, or talking points)?