Whats the nuclear time called1/29/2024 The mindset shift needed among these and other green groups is to see nuclear as one component of a diversified energy system that can be part of the climate solution, and then to turn their considerable power and creativity toward convincing the public. Instead, major environmental groups such as the Sierra Club (“unequivocally opposed”), Greenpeace (“say no to new nukes”), the Climate Action Network Europe, the European Environmental Bureau (“We advocate for an exit from nuclear energy”) and so on don’t see a place for nuclear. Somehow that point is lost, or dismissed. The goal should not be X or Y percent of renewables, but how to promote an energy transition that delivers reliable, low-emission power. But again, if the goal is to reduce emissions, then why not embrace technologies that do exactly that? Whether nuclear can be considered “renewable” seems to me to be almost a theological question, not a technical one. If the goal is to reduce emissions, though, why should that be the case? Well, one response is that championing nuclear power could reduce investment in renewables. Here is the Austrian energy minister, Leonore Gewessler: “The attempt to declare nuclear energy as sustainable and renewable must be resolutely opposed.” Those four countries have all dialed back on nuclear. ![]() It gets more than two-thirds of its power from nuclear, which is a huge part of the reason it ranks 60th in the world in per capita carbon-dioxide emissions (4.46 tons), a much better performance than global peers like Japan (8.5), Belgium (8.1), Germany (7.9), and Austria (7.3). But if you want reliable power and lower emissions and if you don’t want thousands of square miles of land coated with wind and solar farms, something has to give.Ĭonsider France. As the Rolling Stones wisely noted, “You can’t always get what you want.” To deal with something as complicated and wide-ranging as climate change, there will be trade-offs. But they are not doing much about the conditions that make new construction so costly and difficult.įor that to happen, I think we need to go deeper-to change mindsets among two very different sets of players.Īnti-nuclear green activists. They are willing to invest some money in next-generation technologies or maybe to extend an operating license. These markets are, at best, wary of nuclear power. Nothing else is at anything like scale.īut clearly, nuclear has not carried the day, particularly in Europe, Japan, and the United States. ![]() Other sources either emit much more (coal, gas, oil) or are intermittent (wind, solar). ![]() Given that electricity demand could triple by 2050, the need for low-emission and constant power is acute. To me, the case for nuclear is clear and compelling. And then the authors asked a critical question: “Can the industry reverse the trend of exceeding budgets and timelines while scaling up fast enough to rise to the climate challenge?” The authors agreed that nuclear can play a significant role in decarbonization, and noted that there were some encouraging trends, even in markets, such as the United States, where new plants are thin on the ground. McKinsey & Company, where I worked for more than 30 years, also recently turned to the topic. I argued last year that nuclear power can help the world deal with two related challenges: energy security and climate change.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |