[ad_1]
There are many arguments for using nuclear power to solve our energy problems. There are also some serious risks. Let’s waive those for the moment, on the grounds that the climate emergency demands a rapid energy transition away from fossil fuels.
Let’s even imagine that we’re willing to sacrifice human lives for a quick climate fix. Let’s also imagine that we have unlimited budgets, and all the experts needed to design, build, operate and regulate these installations.
Even after all these incredible feats, there are still insurmountable obstacles.
As an example, take the Sizewell B nuclear power plant in the UK. Although it was first announced in 1969, the project went through several different designs. Some of these took five years to complete. It was eventually built (that took seven years) and connected to the grid in 1995 – a full 26 years after it was initially approved.
The lack of storage facilities that are acceptable to local communities has led to nuclear waste accumulation in the USA since the 1940s.
Pro-nuclear French plans for new reactors should be submitted by 2023, with a target date for 2035-37 to allow the reactors go online. That’s a 15-year timeline, during which we need to be reducing annual carbon pollution by at least 7.6 per cent, according to the UN.
We simply don’t have time to waste. Climate catastrophe can’t be avoided by putting all our eggs into the nuclear basket. Speaking of waste, nuclear waste isn’t a minor problem. It is an ongoing source for contamination with no solutions.
The lack of acceptable storage sites for nuclear waste in the US has led to nuclear waste building up at some sites since the 1940s. That’s 80 years.
Complex technologies
Complex infrastructure projects that involve complex technologies on the same scale as nuclear power stations require time. Public inquiries, regulatory approvals, detailed contractual, and procurement arrangements are all necessary. There is also public opposition. It took us 13 years for the two Luas lines to be connected in Dublin. Do you think we could build the nuclear power station quicker than a tramline or tramline?
Then there’s the related problem of scaling up the contribution of nuclear power from its current level quickly enough to combat climate change. Nikolaus Muellner and his colleagues reviewed a paper in Energy Policy, which concluded that nuclear power’s contribution to climate change mitigation is very limited.
At present the impact of nuclear power – in terms of emissions prevented or avoided – is the equivalent of just 2-3 per cent of total global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The team examined plans for new nuclear constructions and lifetime extensions and found that the value of this power would decline further until 2040.
They also note that technical difficulties and limited supplies uranium235 hinder substantial expansion scenarios with current nuclear technology. It is unlikely that new nuclear technologies will be available in the foreseeable future.
Muellner’s research finds that fast breeder reactors, while they may overcome the problem of limited uranium-235 resources, will not be available for commercial deployment before 2040-2050.
Climate change, pollution, and energy insecurity are the most pressing issues of our time. They require significant changes to our energy infrastructure in order to address them. However, there is no single substitute for fossil energy.
Electricity generation
Interestingly, Benjamin Sovacool from the University of Sussex conducted other studies that correlated CO2 emissions with electricity generation across 123 nations over 25 years. He found that large scale national nuclear programs don’t even produce significantly lower carbon emissions. This means that increasing nuclear power does not necessarily mean a lower level of climate pollution or a higher energy demand.
Renewable energy, in contrast to fossil and nuclear energies, can be generated at a smaller scale, household or community-level.
The so-called “negative emission technologies” that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are not capable of being scaled up in a reasonable timeframe. There is no magic bullet to solve our problems.
Distributed generation, demand side management, and most importantly, a shift to 100 percent renewable energy have been repeatedly proven to be the most cost-effective solutions for both the climate crisis as well as energy security. Renewable energy can be produced at much smaller scales than those of nuclear and other fossil energies. This allows for multiple co-benefits beyond power.
As of 2022 there were 442 operating nuclear power reactors worldwide. They generate 393 gigawatts of electric current or 11 percent of total global electricity generation. Even emerging nuclear technologies like small modular reactors and advanced fuel cannot penetrate the energy system fast enough for the 2030 goal. In a few decades, we will need approximately 14,500 nuclear power plants to power the entire world.
Although the recent nuclear fusion breakthroughs are fascinating and warrant continued funding, they are unlikely to make sense in the context of intercontinental electric grids that are designed for large amounts of renewable generation.
Nuclear power might make sense on purely technological grounds if we agree to discount the environmental impacts, but to bet on it whilst Ireland’s renewable energy potential is cost competitive and untapped would be an unforgivable political misjudgment and a waste of precious time.
