3 ms·

Yes, current nuclear technology will not play a big part in preventing climate change because: It’s not infinitely powerful: It only contributes 5% to the worl

Yes, current nuclear technology will not play a big part in preventing climate change because: It’s not infinitely powerful: It only contributes 5% to the world’s energy supply[159] and even in China, where regulation is lax and public opposition to nuclear is not as big an issue for policy-makers, few reactors are currently being built (_six_ in the last 18 months). It carries safety risks.[160] While advanced nuclear power in some advanced economies might actually reduce nuclear proliferation risk by using up nuclear material, in other countries, nuclear power might increase proliferation risks.[161] It will not be used in many emerging economies.[162] Consider that only 1–5 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are currently plan to have commercial nuclear power and these countries are at least 10 years away from starting construction on nuclear plants.[163] Continued reliance on outdated nuclear technology might not have the same crucial global technology spillovers as investments in other clean energy (including advanced nuclear). Since the best path towards global decarbonization is through global technology spillover into emerging economies, the actors that have the best emissions score may, surprisingly, not be the most effective actors at reducing the global rate of emissions in the future. We need more energy R&D to make nuclear better new small modular nuclear reactor designs. All citations here: https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/ https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/

WillPostForFood 7y ago
On the other hand, France seems to have gotten it right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
- jhayward 7y ago
  France is phasing out 35% of their nuclear power in the next few years. With one exception[1], there are no new nuclear power plants in planning to replace any of the existing fleet, which will all have to be retired soon. [1] Flamanville, which is 400% over budget and behind schedule by 11 years.
  - WillPostForFood 7y ago
    France made a policy decision to reduce Nuclear from 75% of 50%, largely a populist response to Fukushima, and the perception that Nuclear is dangerous, not green, etc.. It was a political decision, not practical. We'll see if they actually are able to meet that goal, but most signs point to no. Regardless, my point is France, a G7 nation got to 75% nuclear. Fear is the main reason other countries can't.
- adrianN 7y ago
  France started sufficiently early. I don't think we have the production capacities to switch over completely to nuclear power over the next twenty years (worldwide!). Building reactors takes a lot of time and is quite expensive.
  - _Tev 7y ago
    Then we better start with it soon, right? Also we should start subsidizing batteries (and their research) more. How else do you propose to eliminate CO2 from electricity production?
    - adrianN 7y ago
      I think right now renewable energy with storage and improved grids provides a better carbon reduction per dollar than nuclear. There is also a pretty big potential for saving energy, for example for AC. We need to be at net zero in ten to fifteen years. Building reactors takes a pretty long time. I don't think we even have enough qualified personnel to build the huge number of reactors we'd need to replace fossil power plants. Solar and wind seems like it needs less expertise, but I'm not an expert on this topic.
      - _Tev 7y ago
        Well, this nicely shows problems with this debate in a nutshell. 1) nuclear is covered in FUD: > I don't think we even have enough qualified personnel to build the huge number of reactors 2) renewables "just work" without any issues ... Well at least everyone claims so: > I think right now renewable energy with storage and improved grids provides a better carbon reduction per dollar than nuclear. Can you provide a SINGLE example of any country on Earth with ability to store enough electricity to run the country for just ONE hour? One minute? And what would / did that cost? Can we actually scale it (pumped storage works nicely in ideal cases, but those are rare)? The amount of handwaving around renewables is incredible ...

WillPostForFood 7y ago

On the other hand, France seems to have gotten it right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

jhayward 7y ago
France is phasing out 35% of their nuclear power in the next few years. With one exception[1], there are no new nuclear power plants in planning to replace any of the existing fleet, which will all have to be retired soon. [1] Flamanville, which is 400% over budget and behind schedule by 11 years.
- WillPostForFood 7y ago
  France made a policy decision to reduce Nuclear from 75% of 50%, largely a populist response to Fukushima, and the perception that Nuclear is dangerous, not green, etc.. It was a political decision, not practical. We'll see if they actually are able to meet that goal, but most signs point to no. Regardless, my point is France, a G7 nation got to 75% nuclear. Fear is the main reason other countries can't.
adrianN 7y ago
France started sufficiently early. I don't think we have the production capacities to switch over completely to nuclear power over the next twenty years (worldwide!). Building reactors takes a lot of time and is quite expensive.
- _Tev 7y ago
  Then we better start with it soon, right? Also we should start subsidizing batteries (and their research) more. How else do you propose to eliminate CO2 from electricity production?
  - adrianN 7y ago
    I think right now renewable energy with storage and improved grids provides a better carbon reduction per dollar than nuclear. There is also a pretty big potential for saving energy, for example for AC. We need to be at net zero in ten to fifteen years. Building reactors takes a pretty long time. I don't think we even have enough qualified personnel to build the huge number of reactors we'd need to replace fossil power plants. Solar and wind seems like it needs less expertise, but I'm not an expert on this topic.
    - _Tev 7y ago
      Well, this nicely shows problems with this debate in a nutshell. 1) nuclear is covered in FUD: > I don't think we even have enough qualified personnel to build the huge number of reactors 2) renewables "just work" without any issues ... Well at least everyone claims so: > I think right now renewable energy with storage and improved grids provides a better carbon reduction per dollar than nuclear. Can you provide a SINGLE example of any country on Earth with ability to store enough electricity to run the country for just ONE hour? One minute? And what would / did that cost? Can we actually scale it (pumped storage works nicely in ideal cases, but those are rare)? The amount of handwaving around renewables is incredible ...