Skip to main content

Waking Up to Nuclear Energy Before COP21

cop21_11Times are bracing. The first fall chill contributes, of course, but it’s bracing, too, that the spotlight has fallen so strongly upon nuclear energy. The White House Nuclear Energy summit two Fridays ago contributed mightily to this sudden attention and so has the COP21 conference in Paris next month.  
These two events seem to have spurred exceptional interest in the atom, even when the summit or the upcoming U.N. climate change conference are not explicitly mentioned.
From The Los Angeles Times:
Nuclear energy's importance in reducing emissions is beyond dispute. In January, the International Energy Agency called nuclear power “a critical element in limiting greenhouse gas emissions.” It calculated that global nuclear generation capacity must more than double by 2050 (to about 750 gigawatts) if there is any hope of limiting temperature increases to the 2 degrees that is widely agreed as acceptable.
This story from Power covers the Washington summit:
Even some former nuclear opponents are getting behind the energy source now. Ken Caldeira, climate scientist working for the Carnegie Institution for Science, Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, noted that he was arrested while demonstrating against nuclear power near the front gates of the Shoreham facility—which was never placed into commercial operation—in the early 1980s. After studying climate science in graduate school, Caldeira changed his tune.
“The environmental community should be embracing nuclear power as one of the very few technologies that can provide high-density power in an environmentally acceptable way,” Caldeira said.
Another story, this one tied to COP21, tries a local angle to make a more general point:
America’s contributions toward combating climate change will fall short of what’s expected from this country – and seem double-faced – if the U.S. is also shutting down nuclear-generating capacity, which is its largest source of carbon-free energy.
This is from the Asbury Park (N.J.) Press. It makes the point that New Jersey generates most of its electricity from nuclear and yet Oyster Creek plant is closing in 2019. That’s what the “double-faced” comment refers to.

We know that COP21 might be delayed due to the terrible events in Paris last Friday. COP21 remains important, but it’s not the most important thing occupying our minds right now.

Even so, the conference will happen and it will likely issue the first viable global climate change solution since the Kyoto Protocol. Nuclear energy, it is safe to say, will enjoy more attention than it has received in these quarters for some time. If we have to wait for it a bit longer, we’ll wait.

Comments

JRT said…
George Monbiot is quoted as stating in The Guardian:

"The International Energy Agency estimates that the global use of coal will increase by 65% by 2035."

This is an existential threat to the future of the Earth

This is what must be addressed if future Global Warming is to be limited. To do this will require more than just pledges by countries at COP21. It will require a plan and action will need to be taken to provide the 2nd and 3rd worlds with Carbon free energy. Otherwise, they will burn coal, as their cheapest available source, to obtain it. The 1st world must take action to develop Carbon free energy that is cheaper than coal which can directly replace coal by providing 24/7 dispatchable electric power. Currently there appears to be only two possible technologies available:

Enhanced geothermal power

Generation IV nuclear power

We need to work on development of both of them ASAP.

Other technologies are in early R&D and may play a role later.

We also need to realize that although wind and solar can provide some Carbon free energy that they will not be able to replace coal, oil, and natural gas as nuclear power can.

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

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 …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…