Skip to main content

G7: Nuclear Energy, Renewables In, Fossil Fuels Out by 2100

The G7 leaders met Monday in Germany to discuss a number of issues, but the one of interest to us is climate change. Not in and of itself, but in terms of what pledges the leaders made to address the threat.

The G7 also reaffirmed the goal of limiting global warming in the 21st century to 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels, first agreed at a 2009 UN climate summit in Copenhagen.

"Urgent and concrete action is needed to address climate change," the G7 leaders said in a final statement after a two-day summit in Germany.

And that’s not all.

First, a deep cut in carbon emissions by 2050 and second, an eventual end to fossil fuel use by 2100.

That’s startling. Saying things is easy, especially if you can slow walk it over 85 years. How to do it is the hard part. We can think of a very helpful way, but why not let the G7 have a go at it.

Several environmental groups praised the G7 countries for declaring war on carbon, which, they say, will surely lead to a rise in renewable energy. But the G7 never actually said that renewables will be the energy source of the future. They only mentioned the need for carbon-free energy. In effect, the group of countries left the door open to nuclear energy.

Nuclear power has been praised as a climate change fighter because of its reliability and near-zero emissions. Nuclear power already provides 11 per cent of the world's electricity, according to the World Nuclear Association.

Last year’s G7 meeting was considerably more explicit about nuclear energy.

The statement said, "We intend to promote the use of low-carbon technologies," which were defined as "renewables, nuclear in the countries which opt to use it, and carbon capture and storage."

Six of the G7 are nuclear energy states (Germany until 2022, and we’ll see about that), with only Italy excluded. And Italy still imports about 10 percent of its electricity from nuclear sources. (And large non-G7 states such as Russia, China and India are also major nuclear energy states).

It’s somewhat ironic but not in the least unexpected that Germany is all in on this plan but will be in major trouble after 2022, when it shuts down its last nuclear plants. Of the western European countries, Germany will be the least able to meet its emissions targets – and that’s before rules come out of this meeting that are more stringent than what the European Union has set.

But the reality is Germany has always been given an undeserved free pass on the issue of its own greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.

That’s because it is falsely held up by environmentalists as a model of green propriety, since it gets up to 30% of its electricity from renewable energy sources.

But all that does is mask Germany’s dirty little secret.

That is that it gets far more of its electricity, 45%, by burning coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel.

This is from a Canadian source and boy, are the Canadians mad at Germany right now. See the full editorial for more.

As far as the U.S. is concerned, this is as strong an argument for ensuring the final EPA rule on power plant emissions correctly values nuclear energy. Since nuclear energy is the largest source of carbon-free electricity in America (not to mention in most of the countries that use nuclear), any rulemaking dedicated to reducing carbon emissions must preserve existing nuclear generating capacity, provide an incentive for new nuclear power plant construction, and certainly must not create disincentives for new nuclear generating capacity. That just makes sense generally, but has now been given special urgency after the seriously ratcheted-up goals agreed to by the G7.

We’d call this a no-brainer, and it’s fair to say that the role of nuclear energy in any carbon emission reduction regime is well-recognized – at least rhetorically. Now is the time to follow rhetoric with action.

Comments

jimwg said…
If all of this protocol and financial pound-foolishness and political posturing is the world's best response to a supposed global emergency/pending catastrophe of climate change then we're all in FAR worst shape than I ever thought!

James Greenidge
Queens NY

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …