Without significantly increasing the use of nuclear power worldwide, it will be difficult to achieve the goal of reducing harmful emissions and fighting climate change, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said on Monday. Cornel Feruta, the acting Director-General of the agency, was speaking in Vienna, at the opening of the first-ever International Conference on Climate Change and the Role of Nuclear Power. It brought together some 550 participants from 79 countries, and 18 international organizations, to exchange science-based information, and hold objective discussions on the role of nuclear power in mitigating the climate crisis. The IAEA pointed out that nuclear power contributes around one-third of all low carbon electricity, producing practically no greenhouse gases, and some 10 per cent of the total electricity produced worldwide.
UN 7th Oct 2019 read more »
IAEA 7th Oct 2019 read more »
Catastrophic climate change can still be averted even without increasing one of the biggest sources of carbon-free electricity. That was the message sent to International Atomic Energy Agency officials on Monday, who convened their first-ever conference exploring how nuclear power could help mitigate climate change. Reactors currently supply about a third of the world’s low-carbon electricity, but that share could tumble as economies turn to cheaper technologies.
Bloomberg 7th Oct 2019 read more »
Nuclear fails carbon challenge, as UN nuclear cheerleader holds climate jamboree in Vienna. A recent and comprehensive Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) of greenhouse gas emissions from differing power generation technologies by Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, California – and director of its Atmosphere/Energy Program – have indicated that nuclear CO2 emissions are between 10 to 18 times greater than those from renewables. Diana Ürge-Vorsatz, Professor at the Central European University and Vice-Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III, notes in her foreword to WNISR2019 that several IPCC scenarios that reach the 1.5°C temperature target rely heavily on nuclear power, and that “these scenarios raise the question whether the nuclear industry will actually be able to deliver the magnitude of new power that is required in these scenarios in a cost-effective and timely manner. The report records (with multiple primary references) that “Over the past decade, ‘levelized’ cost estimates for utility-scale solar dropped by 88%, wind by 69%, while nuclear increased by 23%. It also demonstrates using up-to-date sources that “new solar plants can compete with existing coal fired plants in India, wind turbines alone generate more electricity than nuclear reactors in India and China. But new nuclear plants are also much slower to build than all other options, e.g. the nine reactors started up in 2018 took an average of 10.9 years to be completed. In other words, nuclear power is an option that is more expensive and slower to implement than alternatives and therefore is not effective in the effort to battle the climate emergency, rather it is counterproductive, as the funds are then not available for more effective options.” The bottom line outcome of the analyses is that even the extended operation of existing reactors is not climate effective as operating costs exceed the costs of competing energy efficiency and new renewable energy options and therefore durably block their implementation.
David Lowry’s Blog 7th Oct 2019 read more »