The Power of Renewables: Their Climate Promise and Transition Limitations

Introduction

Climate change has made the clean energy transition a race against time, with millions of lives and trillions of dollars at stake. In response, nations around the world are pledging net-zero emissions and investing heavily in renewable energy. Yet a deep divide persists within the environmental movement: a “renewables-only” orthodoxy insists that wind, solar, and batteries alone can carry us to a carbon-free future – casting other solutions, especially nuclear power, as unnecessary or even dangerous. Earthrise Accord (EA) rejects this false choice. We believe every form of clean energy must be deployed in the roles that best fit its transition potential – its ability to decarbonize specific sectors of energy use. This inclusive approach is not about favoring one technology over another; it’s about leveraging all viable tools to phase out fossil fuels as quickly and completely as possible.

In this essay, we examine the promise and the limitations of renewable energy in the fight against climate change. We celebrate how sources like solar, wind, and hydro have grown and improved – but we also confront the hard truths about their scalability, reliability, land use, and ecological impacts. In doing so, we highlight why excluding firm, always-on clean energy like nuclear power is a grave mistake that can actually backfire on climate goals. Unlike the “renewables-only” dogma that has taken hold in some circles, EA advocates an all-of-the-above strategy: use renewables abundantly and use nuclear where it excels, along with emerging solutions like clean hydrogen for the sectors that electricity can’t easily reach. The evidence – from global case studies to authoritative scientific analyses – makes one conclusion clear: we need every zero-carbon tool available. The hour is too late, and the stakes too high, for ideological purity tests. Only by embracing all clean energy solutions can we achieve deep decarbonization in time and build an energy-abundant, just future.

The Promise of Renewable Energy

Renewable power from the sun, wind, and water has transformed the global energy landscape in recent decades. Solar and wind in particular have seen explosive growth and remarkable cost reductions. Every time global solar capacity doubles, the price of solar electricity drops by roughly 33% – a testament to fast-improving technology and economies of scale. In many regions, solar and wind are now the cheapest sources of new power generation. These resources are inexhaustible and produce no greenhouse gases at the point of use. They empower countries to generate energy independently and reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels. For example, Pakistan has recently embarked on a “solar revolution” to tackle chronic power shortages. In the first half of 2024 alone, Pakistan imported 13 GW of Chinese-made solar panels – an amount equal to almost one-third of its total power capacity. This grassroots solar boom is bringing affordable electricity to factories and homes, creating jobs, and lowering carbon emissions. Indeed, Pakistan’s power-sector CO₂ output dropped over the last two years as solar adoption displaced coal and gas generation. Such success stories showcase the compelling promise of renewables: they can provide cheap, clean power and spur sustainable development, even in emerging economies.

Yet the Pakistan story also foreshadows some limitations. The country’s embrace of solar was, in part, a desperate response to fossil fuel scarcity. When Russia’s war in Ukraine upended global gas markets, shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG) bound for Pakistan were rerouted to wealthier European buyers, leaving Pakistan starved for fuel. The ensuing power outages and blackouts underscored the vulnerability of any energy system lacking reliable supply. Solar power helped Pakistan begin to leapfrog past this dependency – converting its abundant sunlight into energy security – but solar alone could not keep the lights on 24/7. The sun still sets each night, and winter or monsoon clouds still curtail PV output for days or weeks. Pakistan’s experience encapsulates a broader truth: renewables work best in tandem with other solutions. They excel at providing daytime and seasonal energy, but without storage or backup generation, they cannot (yet) fully replace the around-the-clock firmness of fossil fuels.

Solar Power: Sunshine, Storage, and Scale

Solar photovoltaics (PV) have become the poster child of the clean energy age. From California to Karachi, solar panels now adorn rooftops and span desert vistas, delivering emissions-free electricity. The scalability of solar is extraordinary – from tiny home systems to giant 1,000+ MW solar farms – and its popularity is well-earned. Cheap, modular, and quick to deploy, solar is often the first choice for expanding clean power. As noted, countries like Pakistan have harnessed solar to bring power to people swiftly, bypassing the slow buildout of centralized grids. In sun-drenched regions, modern PV panels produce power at a cost that undercuts even existing coal plants. Solar can also democratize energy production; families and businesses can generate their own electricity and even feed excess back to the grid, fostering local resiliency.

For all its benefits, solar energy comes with inherent constraints – chiefly its intermittency and land requirements. By nature, PV output varies with the sun’s cycles: it surges at midday, drops to zero at night, and fluctuates with weather. This intermittency means solar-heavy grids must either overbuild capacity with large safety margins or invest in significant energy storage to cover dark and cloudy periods. Both strategies carry costs and challenges. A vivid example occurred in Europe during the winter of 2022–2023: even as record amounts of solar were installed, a dark, cold winter (combined with low winds) forced many EU countries to fall back on coal and gas to meet demand. When a “dunkelflaute” (a dark wind lull) struck the U.K. in March 2021 – 11 straight days of low wind and limited sun – the shortfall in renewable generation was met by firing gas power plants to 73% of the nation’s electricity output. Analysts calculated that to ride out that single 11-day lull on batteries alone would have required over 10,000 of the world’s largest battery systems (occupying an area the size of a major city). This highlights the massive storage challenge of a 100% renewables system. Solar can over-generate on a bright summer afternoon, but storing that surplus for a week-long winter storm is far more daunting. It is often cheaper and easier to maintain some always-available power sources than to build a solar+battery fleet oversized by orders of magnitude.

Land use is another consideration. Solar farms are land-intensive, and scaling them up raises questions about siting and ecological impact. While rooftop solar makes use of existing structures, utility-scale PV installations can cover vast areas to deliver equivalent energy to a single firm-power plant. Studies show that a fully renewable electricity system would occupy vastly more land – with attendant impacts on landscapes and habitats – compared to one that includes compact, high-energy-density sources like nuclear. For example, one analysis found that meeting a large country’s energy needs with 100% wind and solar would require hundreds of square miles of generation area, versus a few square miles for an equivalent nuclear fleet. In densely populated or biodiverse regions, such large land footprints can trigger public resistance and difficult trade-offs. Solar development must also grapple with supply-chain ethics: today, China dominates solar panel manufacturing, sometimes using coal-based electricity and reportedly even forced labor in parts of the supply chain. While solar PV remains absolutely vital for decarbonization, these realities temper the notion that we can simply plaster the planet with panels without other consequences. Solar’s promise is enormous – but so are the integration challenges once it becomes a dominant source.

Wind Energy: Harnessing Breezes and Weathering Lulls

Alongside solar, wind power has become a workhorse of clean electricity. Modern wind turbines – now often towering over 100 meters tall – can each generate 2–5 MW on land, and up to 15 MW or more for the largest offshore units. Harvesting energy from moving air, wind farms produce gigawatt-hours at costs competitive with or lower than fossil fuels across much of the world. In 2023, wind and solar together saved European consumers an estimated €100 billion in energy costs by reducing the need for expensive imported gas. Wind has particular strengths: turbines often generate at night (complementing solar’s daytime peak), and in some regions the windiest seasons are winter and spring – providing critical energy when solar is weakest. Offshore wind, in areas like the North Sea, taps into steadier and stronger wind resources that can deliver power at very high capacity factors. As a clean energy source, wind power has a proven track record of displacing huge amounts of coal power and cutting emissions.

However, wind energy is ultimately at the mercy of the weather. It shares the intermittency challenge of solar – arguably to an even greater degree, since wind output can swing more unexpectedly over short periods. Grid operators have a saying: “When the wind stops blowing, something else has to fill the gap.” During Britain’s notorious 2021 wind drought, that “something else” was largely natural gas. In early March 2021, the U.K. experienced its longest low-wind spell in over a decade, a true Dunkelflaute. For more than a week, wind farms produced at under 20% of capacity, at times dropping near zero. The country kept the lights on by ramping gas-fired plants up to tens of gigawatts, briefly pushing fossil generation to nearly three-quarters of the electricity mix. Coal plants were even brought out of retirement to assist. Such events are rare but foreseeable – and must be planned for in any high-wind grid. Solutions include maintaining dispatchable (on-demand) generators, building massive energy storage, overbuilding wind and transmission to draw power from elsewhere, or reducing demand. Each comes with costs. Notably, researchers found that balancing a prolonged wind lull with batteries would require astronomical storage capacity (on the order of thousands of grid-scale batteries) and vast investments. In practice, countries reliant on wind today typically rely on gas plants or hydropower as the immediate balancers.

Wind power also faces land and community constraints. Turbines need suitable windy sites, which in populated areas can invite “not-in-my-backyard” opposition due to visual impacts, noise, or concerns about bird and bat mortality. (Though wind turbines do kill birds, studies show these impacts are orders of magnitude smaller than other human-caused bird deaths, like those from buildings and cats. Still, local wildlife impacts should be mitigated through careful siting and technology improvements such as bird-safe turbine designs.) Onshore wind farms require expansive areas – not for the turbines themselves, which have a modest footprint, but for the spacing between them to avoid wind shadowing. Farmland can coexist with wind (turbines are often scattered through crop or grazing land), but pristine wilderness might not be ideal. Offshore wind largely avoids land use conflicts, but it is more expensive and can face opposition from coastal communities and industries (fishing, shipping) if not planned inclusively. Transmission infrastructure is another sticking point: delivering wind power from breezy plains or distant offshore arrays to cities demands new high-voltage power lines, which again can encounter local resistance.

In short, wind energy is an indispensable piece of the clean energy puzzle, richly endowed in many countries and increasingly cost-effective. But like solar, it cannot shoulder the entire load alone without major backup provisions. Weather patterns can create multi-day or seasonal lulls in wind output that mirror the sun’s nightly disappearance. An all-wind-and-solar grid would thus require either enormous overcapacity (to generate surplus in good conditions and store it) or flexible zero-carbon backup to ride through the calms. As we’ll see, it’s far more practical to include some always-available clean sources in the mix than to rely exclusively on intermittent ones. Wind’s promise is real and significant – yet its limitations remind us that diversity in energy sources equals resilience.

Hydropower: Renewable Workhorse with Ecological Costs

Hydropower is the unsung giant of renewable energy. For over a century, dams have been built on rivers worldwide to harness gravitational energy from flowing water. Today, hydropower still provides about 16% of global electricity – by far the largest share of any renewable source. It offers something solar and wind do not: inherent storage and round-the-clock reliability. A large hydroelectric dam acts like a giant battery, accumulating water in a reservoir that can be released to generate power on demand. This flexibility makes hydro an excellent partner to intermittent renewables; dam operators can hold back water when solar/wind are abundant and ramp up generation when the sun sets or winds calm. Countries blessed with ample rivers (e.g. Canada, Brazil, Norway) have achieved very high renewable electricity fractions largely thanks to hydro’s steady output. In western Canada, for instance, British Columbia has long taken pride in meeting virtually all its electricity needs with hydro from the province’s many rivers. Hydropower also offers one of the highest energy returns on land area among renewables – a large reservoir can fuel gigawatts of generation and even provide recreation and water supply benefits.

However, hydropower’s green image masks significant environmental and social downsides. Damming rivers fundamentally alters ecosystems: reservoirs flood vast areas of land (often forested or inhabited valleys), while downstream river flow is curtailed and controlled. Aquatic species, especially migratory fish like salmon, are devastated by large dams that block their passage and change water temperatures and sediment patterns. Indigenous and local communities have frequently borne the brunt of these impacts. Around the world, dam projects have displaced millions of people and flooded ancestral lands, usually with inadequate compensation. In British Columbia’s case, many First Nations saw their traditional territories inundated by hydro dams that export power to distant cities. The Squamish Nation, for example, has expressed deep concern over how BC Hydro’s dams have harmed salmon runs – a cultural and subsistence cornerstone – by incidents like sudden flow changes that stranded and killed thousands of fish. As one Squamish leader put it, these projects often proceeded “in a manner that [does not recognize] the value of Indigenous ways in protecting our lands and waters”. In short, large-scale hydro has a legacy of ecosystem devastation and human rights issues that modern renewable planners must reckon with.

Ironically, hydropower’s firm output is now being used to support flashy new climate technologies – sometimes to the continued exclusion of other clean options. In British Columbia (which, as noted, has effectively banned nuclear power since 2010), the only way to power energy-intensive projects like direct air carbon capture (DAC) is to plug into the provincial hydro grid. Indeed, Occidental Petroleum is building a high-profile DAC facility on Squamish Nation land that will suck CO₂ from the air and convert it to fuels – all powered by BC’s “clean” hydroelectricity. The project touts its carbon-free energy source as a model of green innovation. Yet from the Squamish perspective, that hydro power is not without a carbon and environmental price: it’s the same dam electricity that has already scarred their rivers and fish populations. In effect, one can cleanse the atmosphere with DAC while failing to cleanse the legacy of environmental injustice associated with the power supply. This paradox highlights a key point: renewable is not automatically synonymous with benign. Hydropower is renewable and often low-carbon – but it is not free of trade-offs. And looking ahead, climate change itself is making some hydro systems less reliable (e.g. worsening droughts have reduced dam outputs in North America, including B.C.).

The lessons for the clean transition are that diversity and honesty matter. Hydropower will remain a crucial clean resource where available, and upgrading existing dams or adding pumped-storage capabilities can provide invaluable grid storage. But new mega-dams should be approached with extreme caution given their irreversible impacts. We must also avoid romanticizing any single solution: even venerable hydropower has its limits and downsides. A truly sustainable energy future means minimizing ecological harm and respecting communities – which entails using a mix of resources and being clear-eyed about each one’s footprint.

Geothermal, Tidal, and Other Niche Renewables

Beyond the “big three” renewables (solar, wind, hydro), there are several other clean energy sources with important roles – albeit generally niche contributions so far. Geothermal energy taps the Earth’s internal heat to produce power or heat buildings. In areas with active geology (think Iceland, Indonesia, parts of the western U.S.), geothermal plants can provide reliable baseload electricity essentially 24/7, emitting almost no carbon. Geothermal is a wonderful resource where it exists: Iceland, for instance, generates about a quarter of its electricity and most of its heating from geothermal steam. The limitation is geography – conventional geothermal requires accessible hot reservoirs, which are not widely distributed. Global geothermal power capacity is only about 17 GW as of 2024 (for comparison, wind and solar each exceed 1,000 GW). Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), which involve drilling deep wells and fracturing hot dry rock to circulate water, could greatly expand geothermal’s reach in the future. But this technology is still in demonstration stages, and it faces challenges (drilling cost, induced seismicity concerns, etc.). Thus, while geothermal should absolutely be pursued in regions with potential, it’s unlikely to become a dominant global energy source in the near term.

Tidal and wave energy likewise offer attractive clean power – the tides and ocean waves are as predictable as the moon’s orbit – but harnessing them has proven technically difficult and costly to date. Some tidal stream turbines (essentially underwater wind turbines) and tidal barrages (dams across estuaries) are in operation (the U.K. and Canada have notable pilot projects), yet the worldwide installed capacity remains only a few hundred megawatts. Marine energy devices must survive the harsh saltwater environment and powerful forces, which has led to many engineering setbacks. Environmental impacts on marine life and coastal ecosystems also need careful evaluation (e.g. turbines might affect fish or tidal flats). Biomass energy (burning plant matter or biofuels) is another renewable category, widely used in some places, but its climate benefits depend on sustainable sourcing and it can compete with food or forests for land. We mention these not to dismiss them – indeed, every renewable resource can contribute to phasing out fossil fuels – but to underscore that their scale is limited compared to global energy demand. They are pieces of the puzzle, not silver bullets.

In summary, the suite of renewable technologies gives us a powerful toolkit to cut a large chunk of carbon emissions, especially in electricity generation. However, the total decarbonization of our energy system – including transportation, industry, and heating – raises demands that current renewables cannot fully meet alone. Intermittency, land use, regional availability, and scalability are real constraints. This is not an argument against renewables at all – it is an argument against exclusive reliance on them. As the next sections discuss, building an affordable, reliable zero-carbon system calls for complementing renewables with other firm, high-energy-density solutions that can fill in the gaps. Chief among those is nuclear power, which offers a path to overcome many of the transition limitations that wind, solar, and others face.

The “Renewables-Only” Trap: Intermittency Meets Fossil Backup

Before diving into nuclear’s role, it’s worth examining what happens in jurisdictions that have tried to go all-in on renewables while excluding nuclear. The results have often been sobering. As Earthrise Accord’s analysis titled “The Renewables-Only Trap” shows, policies that focus solely on intermittent renewables and neglect firm power tend to entrench dependence on fossil fuels rather than eliminate it. The reason is simple: when wind or solar output dips, something must quickly fill the void to keep the lights on. If you’ve prematurely shuttered zero-carbon nuclear plants or refused to build any, the only options left are usually gas- or coal-fired generators. Thus, one often sees a paradoxical outcome: regions proudly adding lots of wind and solar capacity, but then using natural gas as a crutch and sometimes even increasing gas consumption.

For example, in the United States, generous subsidies and mandates spurred a boom in wind and solar over the past two decades (a positive development), but until recently there were no similar supports for nuclear. In competitive electricity markets, nuclear plants that ran continuously were suddenly competing against subsidized wind farms bidding energy at negative prices (since wind operators could still profit via tax credits even when market prices were zero). This distorted market design led to the premature closure of several nuclear reactors – Vermont Yankee, Kewaunee in Wisconsin, and others – which could no longer earn enough revenue to stay afloat. And what filled the gap when those always-on reactors shut down? Largely natural gas, with some increases in coal in certain cases. Emissions spiked. An MIT study found that if more U.S. nuclear plants retire early under current conditions, they will be overwhelmingly replaced by gas, causing power-sector emissions to rise and erasing years of climate progress. In California, a “100% renewables” mindset contributed to the planned closure of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant (now fortunately delayed); in the years after one of its reactors went offline, the state quietly leaned more on gas and imported coal power to meet demand, even as it built more solar farms. Germany offers another cautionary tale: after the 2011 Fukushima accident, Germany doubled down on Energiewende policies to expand wind and solar while politically deciding to phase out nuclear. The result was that even after installing tens of gigawatts of renewables, Germany’s reliance on coal (especially lignite) persisted far longer than it would have if nuclear plants had remained part of the mix. Germany’s emissions stagnated or fell only slowly for much of the 2010s, and electricity prices for consumers became among the highest in Europe – a dynamic that fueled political backlash. By contrast, France (which embraced nuclear in the 1970s) decarbonized its grid far more rapidly and thoroughly, achieving one of the lowest-carbon electricity systems on Earth and lower electricity costs. France now emits less than one-tenth the CO₂ per kilowatt-hour of Germany.

The lesson is that a renewables-only strategy can backfire if it ignores the need for dependable, around-the-clock power. Well-meaning policymakers who restrict clean-energy support to just wind and solar – whether out of ideology or misunderstandings about feasibility – risk a scenario where fossil fuels remain the default backup and continue to dominate in disguise. As Earthrise Accord starkly puts it, “renewables-only policies, far from eliminating fossil fuels, can inadvertently prolong their dominance – sabotaging our climate objectives in the process.” Rather than displacing fossil generation completely, an unbalanced approach may simply reshuffle when and how fossils are burned (e.g. only when the weather isn’t cooperating, but still burned in large quantities overall). Moreover, scrambling to build massive storage or overbuild capacity to compensate can drive up costs and provoke public opposition, undermining support for climate action.

None of this is to deny the critical importance of renewables – wind and solar will rightly form the backbone of many clean energy systems. But the evidence shows that excluding other clean technologies makes the task far more expensive and less likely to succeed. Even the best batteries and demand-response programs can only carry you so far through multi-week dark periods or extreme peaks. A resilient, affordable net-zero grid needs diversity: a mix of variable renewables and “firm” low-carbon resources (resources that can deliver power whenever needed). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognizes this, as do many independent studies. In fact, a landmark analysis in the journal Joule (Jenkins et al., 2018) concluded that 100% renewable scenarios for large industrial countries would require “enormous overbuilds” of capacity along with vast storage, leading to “excessive land use, system fragility, and escalating costs.” By contrast, including firm power sources yields a more feasible and cost-effective path. The logical takeaway is that we must move past the misleading renewables-vs-nuclear dichotomy. It’s not either/or – it’s both/and. The climate doesn’t care if a kilowatt-hour comes from sun, wind, water, or atoms, as long as it’s carbon-free. To win this race, we need to unleash all these solutions together, using each where it plays best. With that in mind, let’s examine why nuclear energy is poised to play a pivotal role – and why dismissing it, as some prominent environmentalists have done, is a dangerous error.

Nuclear Power: The Essential Catalyst for Deep Decarbonization

Nuclear energy is arguably the most misunderstood clean energy resource. It has long been shrouded in controversy, fear, and misinformation – often treated as the antithesis of “green.” In reality, nuclear fission is one of the cleanest, safest, and most powerful ways to generate energy known to humankind. A single nuclear reactor can output a steady gigawatt of carbon-free power day and night for 18–24 months straight without refueling, regardless of weather or seasons. A pellet of uranium fuel (roughly the size of a fingertip) produces as much energy as a ton of coal or 150 gallons of oil, all without any combustion or air pollution. The energy density of nuclear fuel is orders of magnitude beyond chemical fuels, which is why nuclear has such a small physical footprint. As noted earlier, a handful of reactors on a few square miles can supply the same electricity as sprawling thousands of wind turbines or solar panels spread over hundreds of square miles. This efficiency of land and materials makes nuclear an extremely attractive option for a crowded planet. Importantly, nuclear power’s lifecycle carbon emissions (including mining, construction, etc.) are on par with wind and solar – essentially negligible compared to fossil fuels. And contrary to popular belief, its safety record in the Western world is superb: in over 60 years of civilian nuclear power, aside from the unique Soviet-designed Chernobyl accident, there have been no disasters causing widespread harm. All the used nuclear fuel the U.S. has ever produced could fit in a single football field stacked 10 yards high, and this waste has been safely contained with no radiation injury to the public. Meanwhile, the routine pollution from coal, oil, and gas kills an estimated 8 million people every year via air pollution – a toll far exceeding any nuclear-related fatalities. In short, on the metrics that matter for climate and health, nuclear is an all-star: zero-carbon, extremely low pollution, and very safe when properly managed.

But nuclear energy’s greatest contribution may lie in what it enables across the entire energy system. Because nuclear plants produce reliable 24/7 electricity (and heat), they can serve as the backbone of a decarbonized grid, providing the stable output that balances wind and solar’s fluctuations. This is not just theory – it has been demonstrated. France decarbonized its electricity sector in the 1970s–80s by rapidly building a fleet of standardized nuclear reactors, achieving an ~80% carbon-free grid in about two decades – faster than any nation before or since. Sweden and the Canadian province of Ontario similarly cut their power emissions to near-zero with a combination of nuclear and hydro. The United States Navy has safely operated nuclear reactors in over 500 reactor-years of ship voyages (submarines and aircraft carriers) without a serious accident, underscoring the technology’s reliability when managed with rigor. These real-world cases prove that nuclear can be deployed at scale, deeply displacing fossil fuels. By contrast, countries that rejected nuclear often remained locked into coal and gas for electricity (as we saw with Germany, Japan after 2011, and others).

Major research institutions reinforce the centrality of nuclear in meeting climate goals. A 2022 report by the UN Economic Commission for Europe concluded that nuclear power is “indispensable” for deep decarbonization. The IPCC’s models show most cost-effective pathways include a significant share of nuclear alongside renewables. And an authoritative study by MIT in 2018 found that excluding nuclear energy causes the cost of achieving climate targets to skyrocket – in other words, a no-nuclear strategy is not only riskier in terms of reliability, it’s also much more expensive. The MIT researchers demonstrated that if nuclear is left out of the toolbox, the electricity sector’s decarbonization costs could escalate dramatically, due to the need for excessive overbuilding of renewables and storage. By contrast, keeping nuclear on the table provides flexibility and insurance against uncertainties (like if storage or carbon capture doesn’t advance as hoped). In blunt terms, there is no viable path to climate stability that does not include nuclear. As MIT’s study co-chair Jacopo Buongiorno stated, “unless nuclear energy is meaningfully incorporated into the global mix of low-carbon technologies, the challenge of climate change will be much more difficult and costly to solve.” This reflects a broad expert consensus: we need nuclear to hit our climate targets on time.

Nuclear’s role extends well beyond the power grid. It is uniquely suited to tackle sectors that renewables struggle with. High-temperature industrial processes (steel, cement, chemicals) currently rely on burning coal or gas at great climate cost. Advanced reactors could provide high-grade heat or electricity to these industries, slashing their emissions. Nuclear reactors can also produce carbon-free hydrogen at scale through electrolysis or future high-temperature processes. In fact, when nuclear electricity is used to split water, we often call the output “pink hydrogen” – a nod to its clean origin. Hydrogen and derived fuels like ammonia will be critical to decarbonize heavy transportation (long-haul trucking, shipping, aviation) and to store energy seasonally. While wind and solar can also make hydrogen (so-called green hydrogen), doing so faces the same intermittency issues – electrolyzers sit idle when power is down, and massive surplus capacity is needed to produce enough H₂ during good weather. A nuclear plant running 24/7, by contrast, can continuously generate hydrogen, turning water into fuel day and night. This steady output can fill hydrogen storage tanks for use whenever needed – essentially acting as a clean fuel factory. Earthrise Accord emphasizes this synergy: nuclear reactors feeding the grid and feeding electrolyzers to yield huge quantities of hydrogen. Such hydrogen can then be used in fuel cells or turbines to generate electricity during long lulls (providing a form of seasonal storage beyond batteries). It can also be burned directly in industrial furnaces or integrated into the production of carbon-neutral synthetic fuels for airplanes. In short, pairing nuclear with hydrogen unlocks a clean energy carrier that complements electricity – reaching parts of the economy that battery electrification might not cover.

A pertinent example is clean transportation. Electric vehicles (EVs) are fantastic for passenger cars in many cases, but they have drawbacks for some uses: long charging times, range loss in cold climates, and weight issues for heavy-duty trucks. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles offer fast refueling (3–5 minutes, similar to gasoline) and maintain full performance even in sub-freezing temperatures. Recent Arctic tests of fuel cell cars (like BMW’s hydrogen SUV prototype) showed they can deliver full power at –20 °C with no range penalty. By contrast, battery EVs commonly lose 20–40% of their range in winter conditions and can take hours to recharge in the cold. Industry leaders like Elon Musk have long dismissed hydrogen fuel cells – Musk infamously labeled them “fool cells.” That stance arguably steered investment away from hydrogen and contributed to today’s situation where nearly all eggs are in the battery EV basket (to Tesla’s commercial benefit) instead of a diversified approach. While EVs certainly have a massive role, Musk’s dismissiveness of hydrogen looks increasingly myopic in a world that needs multiple solutions. As one analysis noted, unlike EVs, hydrogen cars “do not experience reduced range or performance in low temperatures,” and refueling remains swift in any weather. For large trucks, buses, and machinery, fuel cells can provide longer operation and faster turnaround than huge battery packs.

The key is that to fuel a hydrogen transportation fleet with zero carbon, we need copious amounts of clean hydrogen fuel – which in turn requires a great deal of carbon-free energy to produce. This is where nuclear can shine. Instead of using intermittent renewables and idling electrolyzers much of the time, a nuclear-powered hydrogen plant could run at high capacity factor, churning out affordable hydrogen fuel around the clock. That hydrogen would essentially allow clean energy to be bottled and shipped in ways electricity cannot, extending decarbonization to ships on the high seas or planes in the sky. It’s another example of how nuclear enables deeper decarbonization: by creating clean fuels and providing energy beyond the electric grid. None of this is to diminish the tremendous contributions of renewables – solar and wind should absolutely be deployed wherever they can be integrated effectively. But expecting renewables to do everything is setting ourselves up for either failure or exorbitant costs. As the saying goes, “use the right tool for the job.” Nuclear energy is the tool that delivers high-powered, constant energy with minimal land and materials – precisely what’s needed to close the gaps that renewables alone cannot fill in heavy industry, long-duration storage, and dense urban power supply.

Toward an Abundant, All-of-the-Above Clean Energy Future

If we take an unflinching look at the evidence, the conclusion is unavoidable: the only realistic path to net-zero emissions is one that uses every clean energy option available – embracing renewables for their strengths and embracing nuclear for its unique capabilities. As Earthrise Accord puts it, we must reject the “false dichotomy” of choosing renewables or nuclear; “the climate doesn’t care about our ideological preferences – it cares about emissions.” Wind turbines and solar panels are wonderful technologies that should be expanded rapidly, but a resilient clean grid likely also needs always-on power, and “nuclear is the scalable way to provide that without carbon.” Likewise, batteries are great for smoothing daily fluctuations, but for deep backup and energy-intensive needs, “nuclear with hydrogen storage offers a more feasible path.” In short, a broad toolkit gives us the best odds of success. By being open to every solution – from rooftop solar to advanced fission reactors to geothermal heat pumps – we maximize our chances of eliminating emissions in time.

This pragmatism stands in contrast to what EA’s Eric Anders has called the “renewables-only orthodoxy,” a mindset in which admitting any need for nuclear or other firm power is seen as heresy or lack of faith in wind/solar. The harsh reality is that this orthodoxy “is not working.” Global carbon emissions hit a record high again in 2023 despite massive growth in renewables. Why? Because in many places, fossil fuels are filling the gaps left by an all-renewables approach. Germany’s experience of shuttering nuclear only to burn more coal is one example; parts of the U.S. replacing closed reactors with gas is another. As Anders notes, “by clinging to a narrow solution set, the mainstream [environmental] movement inadvertently ends up aligned with fossil fuel interests.” This is a searing indictment: well-meaning activists who think they are being the most virtuous green purists are, in effect, doing exactly what oil and gas companies want. Every time an environmental group helps block a nuclear project or lobbies to shut down an existing plant, “the immediate beneficiaries are coal and gas plants that run more and sell more fuel.” Fossil fuel lobbyists have slyly “weaponized” anti-nuclear sentiment, often quietly backing those campaigns because they know it keeps them indispensable. During the 1970s–80s, this tactic succeeded in much of the West – nuclear progress stalled, and coal/oil companies laughed all the way to the bank. One prominent environmentalist who later saw the light, Stewart Brand, reflected on his own anti-nuclear activism decades ago. “Unfortunately for the atmosphere,” Brand observed, “environmentalists helped stop carbon-free nuclear power cold… I was part of that too, and I apologize.” He estimated that this misstep “caused gigatons of carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere” from the coal and gas that filled the void. It is a stark admission that in trying to save the planet by opposing nuclear, the movement worsened the climate threat.

Tragically, the fallout of this anti-nuclear dogma is measured not just in CO₂ but in human lives. By undermining public and political trust in nuclear energy, legacy green groups effectively extended our deadly dependence on coal, oil, and gas, with all the pollution that entails. As Earthrise Accord’s climate misinformation analysis notes, this decades-long campaign against nuclear – largely driven by certain NGOs often funded (directly or indirectly) by fossil interests – “has significantly obstructed viable climate solutions,” delaying action and leading to “millions of preventable deaths worldwide.” These are deaths from toxic air, from heatwaves and floods amplified by climate change, from energy poverty and its knock-on effects. It is no exaggeration to say that the entrenched anti-nuclear ideology has killed people – by locking in coal and diesel use when a cleaner alternative was available. All the while, the supposed dangers of nuclear power were greatly exaggerated or outright fabricated. We now know that groups like Greenpeace and Sierra Club received funding from oil and gas interests during the height of their anti-nuclear crusades. Their scare tactics about reactor meltdowns and radioactive waste – though rooted in genuine concerns – were systematically blown out of proportion compared to nuclear’s actual track record. Meanwhile, the real and immediate harms of fossil fuels were downplayed. This misinformation echo-chamber has been so effective that even in 2025, the United Nations put out a major report on climate misinformation and somehow omitted any mention of the anti-nuclear propaganda campaign – effectively whitewashing the role legacy green groups played in delaying climate action. As Earthrise argued, by failing to call out this “climate lie,” the UN report “perpetuates precisely the type of harmful misinformation it seeks to criminalize”, allowing the anti-nuclear narrative to persist and further hinder progress.

It is time to break this cycle of self-sabotage in the climate movement. Legacy environmental leaders who continue to reflexively dismiss nuclear power – people like Bill McKibben, who recently doubled down on a renewables-only vision and claimed we “don’t need” new nuclear – must be corrected by facts and moral urgency. McKibben’s stance, however well-intentioned, is scientifically and practically wrong. Yes, wind, solar, and batteries have made incredible strides (and will make more), but saying they alone can solve climate change on the tight timeline we have is a dangerous form of wishful thinking. It ignores the engineering reality that 100% reliance on weather-dependent energy would require daunting feats of overbuild and storage that may not be achievable in time (or at all). McKibben himself acknowledged that replacing one 1 GW nuclear plant would require roughly 6 GW of solar plus storage to provide equivalent reliable output – “a daunting build-out,” as he put it. Yet he expresses optimism that this is doable quickly, while simultaneously arguing new nuclear “takes too long” to build. The reality is that building six times overcapacity of renewables with massive storage is hardly a fast or easy route either. We are seeing in California, Germany, and elsewhere that even aggressive renewable programs are struggling to maintain reliability and hit targets without some form of firm power. By stubbornly opposing nuclear, McKibben and others are in effect acting as “useful idiots” for the fossil fuel industry – unwittingly advancing a narrative that keeps gas plants in business as the fallback for renewables. They have also become, as harsh as it sounds, useful idiots for regressive forces like the Trump/MAGA movement. How so? Because when green leaders push policies that lead to energy shortages or skyrocketing prices, it hands a political cudgel to demagogues who thrive on public anger.

We saw this dynamic when Europe’s over-reliance on gas (after shutting nuclear plants) contributed to an energy crisis that populists gleefully exploited. In the U.S., the perception (fueled by some truth) that “green elites” care more about shutting down pipelines and reactors than about keeping energy affordable has alienated many working-class voters. This opens the door for faux-populists like Donald Trump to present themselves as champions of the common man’s economic security, even as they peddle more fossil fuels. As analysts have noted, a “politics of scarcity” – where environmental policies emphasize constraints, bans, and higher costs – can breed resentment and backlash. The Roosevelt Institute warns that scarcity-focused approaches not only hamper economic opportunity but “actively undermine democracy by fueling populist resentment.” Trump’s rhetoric seizes on any energy policy failure, from blackouts to high gasoline prices, to claim that only he can restore prosperity. Indeed, if climate advocates insist on strategies that make energy unreliable or expensive, they will lose public support and empower bad-faith actors. We’ve already watched the Trump administration roll back climate measures and ridicule renewables (remember Trump’s bizarre tirades about wind turbines causing blackouts and cancer). We cannot afford to give such figures ammunition.

The answer is to flip the script with an “abundance agenda.” This is the idea – championed by forward-thinking progressives and centrists alike – that our politics should be about delivering plenty for people: plenty of clean energy, plenty of good jobs, plenty of affordable housing and infrastructure. Instead of asking people to sacrifice and live with less, we offer a vision of sustainable prosperity for all. And at the heart of any credible abundance agenda is abundant energy. As commentators like Jonathan Chait have written, embracing clean abundance could be transformative: it realigns the Democratic Party (and global liberal politics) as the champion of growth, innovation, and working-class opportunity. Abundant cheap energy – primarily from nuclear power and complemented by a buildout of renewables – can underpin an industrial revival, creating millions of skilled, union jobs modernizing our energy system. It can drive down electricity and fuel costs, making climate action economically popular rather than a burden. Imagine a future where American factories hum with electric furnaces and hydrogen feedstocks, all powered by clean reactors and wind farms; where mining critical minerals is done responsibly with the help of nuclear process heat (as Earthrise has proposed in its “nuclear-forward vision” for rare earth mining); where Upstate New York and the Midwest are revitalized by new advanced reactor manufacturing plants and thriving local supply chains. This is not utopian – it’s entirely achievable if we shed the old dogmas. Crucially, it can unite broad coalitions. Labor unions support nuclear new-build when it promises stable, long-term jobs. Communities that bristle at the idea of “being saved by wind turbines” might welcome a high-tech nuclear project that provides tax revenue and prestige (this has been observed in Eastern European countries and even in some U.S. locales considering SMRs). An abundance agenda also steals the thunder from petro-populists: if Democrats (or any leaders) deliver tangible energy improvements – say, reopening a shuttered coal plant town with a new SMR facility – then the false nostalgia of “Make America Great Again” fades. People see real progress and hope for the future instead of clinging to the past.

In practical terms, policy needs to adjust. Governments should be investing in next-generation nuclear designs (SMRs, molten salt reactors, etc.) that promise enhanced safety and faster construction, while streamlining regulatory hurdles that needlessly delay deployment. They should also remove biases in market rules that currently favor intermittent generation over always-on nuclear – a more technology-neutral approach would reward any zero-carbon source for its reliability and stability contributions. On the renewables side, we should indeed continue to expand solar and wind as much as we can (they are critical to hitting near-term targets), but integrate them with planning for firm capacity. That could mean retaining existing nuclear plants (preventing further premature closures is low-hanging fruit for climate) and building new ones, as well as investing in grid upgrades and storage for flexibility. We should also be candid about timelines: in sectors like aviation or shipping, there is no viable substitute for energy-dense fuels in the short term – so a crash program to develop and deploy green fuels (via nuclear hydrogen, for instance) is needed if we want to decarbonize those by 2050. Policymaking must embrace truth over ideology. As Earthrise Accord’s motto suggests, power the transition with truth and atoms. That means standing up even to traditional allies when they get the science wrong. It means calling out groups that spread climate misinformation by demonizing nuclear – treating them no differently than we treat oil company climate deniers. Accountability has to cut across the political spectrum: fossil fuel lobbyists shouldn’t get a pass just because they cloak themselves in green rhetoric while bashing nuclear.

In conclusion, achieving the clean energy future we need will require bravery to change course and embrace the full suite of solutions. We must move beyond outdated feuds and unite under a simple guiding principle: does it cut emissions and help solve the problem? If yes, support it. If no, don’t. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, efficiency, batteries, hydrogen – all have vital roles. Those who continue to insist that “renewables alone” are the only acceptable answer are not just mistaken; they are actively impeding progress and (however unintentionally) aiding the fossil fuel status quo. The climate crisis is too urgent for us to leave any tools on the shelf due to ideological bias. As Earthrise Accord eloquently states, “we need to add the power of the atom to the power of the sun and wind” if we are to leave a livable planet for our children. This is the moral imperative of our time. By dispelling myths and ending the propaganda war against certain technologies, we can unleash the full potential of human ingenuity in the service of a livable climate. The promise of renewables is real – but so are their limitations. A truly sustainable and just energy transition acknowledges both truths. It’s time to tell the whole truth: we will only solve climate change by working together, in pragmatic alliance, leveraging every clean energy source at our disposal. An abundant, clean energy future is within reach if we are wise enough to seize all its components. Let’s get to work – with sun, wind, and atoms lighting the way.

Sources:

• Earthrise Accord analysis, “Climate Misinformation Dominates Climate Misinformation Report,” on the fossil-fueled anti-nuclear campaign and its deadly consequences.

• Earthrise Accord, “The Renewables-Only Trap: How Excluding Nuclear Power Backfires on Climate Goals,” on how renewables-only policies lead to fossil fuel reliance.

• Earthrise Accord Open Letter, “Dear Bill McKibben: Earthrise, Climate Truth, and the Nuclear Gap,” on the need for nuclear alongside renewables and the history of anti-nuclear misinformation.

• Earthrise Accord, “Abundance vs. Austerity II: Nuclear Power and the Battle for America’s Future,” on the abundance agenda and why nuclear is indispensable for prosperity and climate survival.

• MIT Energy Initiative (2018), The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World, which finds that excluding nuclear makes deep decarbonization dramatically more expensive and less achievable.

• Electric Insights (Imperial College London) report (2021) on how the UK’s wind lull was met by gas, illustrating the storage challenge of renewables-only scenarios.

• World Economic Forum report on Pakistan’s solar boom and its impact on coal use and emissions.

• Hydrogen Fuel News and CTE Study on cold-weather performance of EVs vs hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, demonstrating fuel cells’ advantages in winter conditions.

• Earthrise Accord, “Occidental’s Greenwashing on Squamish Nation Land,” on BC’s hydro-powered DAC project and the ecological impacts of hydropower on Indigenous lands.

• Stewart Brand quoted in Goodreads on how early anti-nuclear activism “caused gigatons of CO₂” and his apology for it.

• Additional data on fossil fuel deaths and climate impacts from Earthrise Accord and third-party studies.