So, there was John Kerry at the COP28 summit in Dubai sharing his deeply-held belief that there is no path to net-zero carbon by 2050 that does not involve nuclear power: "We know, because the science and the reality of facts and evidence tell us, that you can't get to net-zero 2050 without some nuclear".
And when he says "some nuclear", he means a lot - the US (and several other developed countries, including Japan, France, UK, South Korea, UAE) is calling for a tripling of nuclear capacity. Yes, they are also calling for a tripling of renewable energy capacity too, but clearly the once-discredited nuclear industry is having a bit of a moment, notwithstanding its record of huge cost overruns, long construction times, expensive electricity, poor planning for long-term radioactive waste storage, and the potential for catastrophic accidents.
But is Kerry's claim true. A quick Google search suggests that it absolutely is:
- Net zero "needs nuclear power," IAEA says in landmark statement backed by dozens of countries at COP28
- The world won't get to net zero emissions without nuclear power
- Net zero isn't possible without nuclear power
- There's no path to net zero without nuclear power, says O'Regan
- Net zero needs nuclear
- Why net zero needs nuclear
- Mark Carney says net-zero impossible without nuclear power
- We can't solve climate change without nuclear power
- Global climate objectives fall short without nuclear power in the mix: UNECE
- Etc, etc. You get the idea.
It's certainly the conventional wisdom. But the conventional wisdom is not always the wisest wisdom. And, if you look carefully, sandwiched between all these paeans of praise to the nuclear industry (many of which are contributed by the nuclear industry itself, incidentally), there are some contrary voices:
- Wishful thinking about nuclear energy won't get us to net zero
- Why small modular nuclear reactors won't help counter the climate crisis
- Don't believe hydrogen and nuclear hype - they can't get us to net zero carbon by 2050
- 'You don't need nuclear to get to net zero', says climate professor Jeffrey Sachs
- 7 reasons why nuclear energy is not the answer to solve climate change
- Nuclear power still doesn't make much sense
These are not wild voices from the political wilderness; they are reasoned analyses by respected scientists. Yes, there are fewer of them, and they MUCH worse funded. But these voices should not be just ignored.
So, does "the science and the reality of facts and evidence tell us" that nuclear power is a sine qua non for net zero carbon by 2050? Well, some of it does, but some of it doesn't. As with most of these things, it all depends on what assumptions you make (and when predicting the future, particularly a technological future, it is impossible to avoid making some assumptions).
One article called nuclear power the "most religious form of energy", and that "those who believe in it, believe in it 100%". That's not far wrong. It's one of the most polarizing technologies we have, with strong opinions on both sides. But the fact that we're still arguing about it attests to the fact that the jury is still out. It is pretty incontrovertible that nuclear power is not a cheap option (as the same article - and many others - explains), and it does have many other drawbacks too. But can we actually do without it?
Just to add spice into the mix, it's not even totally clear that nuclear power is a low-carbon energy source, let alone carbon neutral, the single most important factor in its popularity these days:
*Sigh* It seems that nothing is ever simple. And John Kerry seemed so convincing...
No comments:
Post a Comment