To meet global warming objectives we must expand nuclear.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

A fairly definitive study on the subject confirms what's known all along--to meet the most critical (i.e., the most stringent) of the goals for curbing global warming, all of our current work in renewables is inadequate. They can do most of the work, which is a substantial improvement from a decade ago, but it is not physically possible to meet the goal with any current or impending renewable technology. We also must increase nuclear power production to 235% of current levels:

Nuclear Power Needs to Double to Curb Global Warming
Experts suggest that without nuclear power the world has little chance of restraining global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius
January 30, 2015 |By Bobby Magill and Climate Central



With fossil fuels growing as sources of electricity across the globe, the IEA sees nuclear power as a stable source of low-carbon power helping to take polluting coal-fired plants offline.
Credit: Tobin/Flickr
Since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in Japan chilled global attitudes toward nuclear power, the world has been slowly reconciling its discomfort with nuclear and the idea that it may have a role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to tackle climate change.

The International Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency suggest in a report released Thursday that nuclear will have such a significant role to play in climate strategy that nuclear power generation capacity will have to double by 2050 in order for the world to meet the international 2°C (3.6°F) warming goal.

With fossil fuels growing as sources of electricity across the globe, the IEA sees nuclear power as a stable source of low-carbon power helping to take polluting coal-fired plants offline.

To accomplish the needed CO2 emissions cuts to keep warming no greater than 2°C, the IEA says global nuclear power generation capacity needs to increase to 930 gigawatts from 396 gigawatts by 2050. With nearly 100 nuclear reactors, the U.S. has more nuclear power plants than any other country, representing 105 gigawatts of production. France, Japan, Russia and China round out the top five countries using nuclear power.

Globally, nuclear energy is already making a comeback with 72 nuclear reactors now under construction worldwide, mainly in Asia.

“This marked the greatest number of reactors being built in 25 years,” IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said in a statement. “Nuclear energy also remains the second-largest source of low-carbon electricity worldwide. And, indeed, if we are to meet our collective climate goals, nuclear energy is critical.”

All forms of low-carbon energy must be employed to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, she said.

That conclusion is consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s findings last year that global carbon dioxide emissions need to be capped at 450 parts per million in order to prevent warming greater than 2°C, Robert N. Stavins, director of the Project on Climate Agreements at Harvard University and a drafting author of the IPCC’s Working Group III Report, said.

“It is virtually inconceivable that the 2 degree or 450 parts per million target as a cap can be achieved in this century without a variety of factors, among which are substantially greater reliance on nuclear power than current trajectories would suggest,” Stavins, who is unaffiliated with the IEA’s report, said.

Charles Kolstad, professor of economic policy research at Stanford University, suggested the IEA’s conclusions may be too strident.

“Nuclear is not necessary to meet any target except the most stringent,” he said. “The IPCC relies heavily on CCS (carbon capture and storage). Nuclear would certainly help, though.”

That’s because global power demand is growing and nuclear is a good alternative to coal, the main source of power in parts of the world where cheap natural gas is unavailable to replace coal, he said.

The IEA said nuclear reactor safety issues raised by Fukushima can be addressed by strong regulations, independent regulators, a culture of safety surrounding nuclear plants and the development of new safety technology, the report says.

China is leading the globe in nuclear energy expansion with plans to grow its nuclear power generation capacity to 59 gigawatts in 2020 from 17 gigawatts in 2014. Nuclear represents only about 2 percent of China’s total power production, but it has 29 nuclear reactors under construction.

The status of nuclear power is more mixed in Europe, where it is about 25 percent of total electricity production. Four new reactors are under construction in Europe. While Germany, Belgium and Switzerland are phasing out nuclear power altogether, Poland, Turkey and the United Kingdom are planning to expand the use of nuclear power.

The U.S., produces about 19 percent of its electric power with its 100 nuclear reactors. But most of its existing nuclear reactors are more than 30 years old. Only five new ones are under construction today and five others have been decommissioned since 2013.

Nuclear power expansion overall in the U.S. is expected to be flat in the coming years because of high costs of new nuclear development and the low cost of natural gas from shale, a formidable and quickly growing competitor to nuclear and coal for electric power generation. The report says that makes it unlikely nuclear will play a significant role in U.S. climate strategy anytime soon.

“It’s obviously not going to happen in this country,” Christine Todd Whitman, co-chair of the nuclear power advocacy group Clean and Safe Energy Coalition and former New Jersey Governor and former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief, said.

Nuclear reactors currently operating in the U.S. need to remain running in order to meet the Obama administration’s greenhouse gas reduction goals, but the nuclear industry needs to drive home the message that natural gas and renewables may be insufficient for the U.S. to slash emissions adequately to tackle climate change, Whitman said.

Today’s political climate in the U.S., with Congress generally hostile to the EPA’s strategy to cut greenhouse gas emissions, is not lending itself to quick expansion of nuclear here, she said.

“I hope it will change to the degree it makes it easier for nuclear power to continue to develop in this country,” Whitman said.

This article is reproduced with permission from Climate Central. The article was first published on January 29, 2015.

[Purple]

When not a year ago I spoke to this forum about my belief that all this renewable thing is just a band aid meant to allow people to delude them self and others into thinking everything will be OK even without atomic energy and that we should resist it and instead focus on atomic power I was shouted and even laughed at. But at last, vindication.

[madd0ct0r]

Only doubling is not enough. That report seems to rely on heavy ccs use, which is in my opinion a highly speculative technology at this point.

[Nova Andromeda]

When not a year ago I spoke to this forum about my belief that all this renewable thing is just a band aid meant to allow people to delude them self and others into thinking everything will be OK even without atomic energy and that we should resist it and instead focus on atomic power I was shouted and even laughed at. But at last, vindication.

I'm certain I didn't laugh. I was at a talk at the Biophysics conf. 5-10 years ago where one of the researchers gave a talk with the same thesis. Basically, he added up the total energy available if we fully tapped all the renewables immediately and it didn't even come close to the energy we need. I cannot recall how solar was figured into this equation, but I'm sure the efficiency estimated was more pessimistic than it is now. The bottom line is nukes for the win.

Although, I've pointed out that a decentralized solar economy may actually be feasible for residential needs. It probably won't work for industrial needs though as I imagine those are far greater than total residential needs.

[Irbis]

Meanwhile, this one chart shows best how current CO2 levels are definitely natural, not out of the ordinary and humans have nothing to do with it so it's not a problem:

http://doskonaleszare.blox.pl/resource/co2_pl.png

(bottom axis - thousands of years ago, right one - concentration of CO2, top grey note - current level).

[Simon_Jester]

When not a year ago I spoke to this forum about my belief that all this renewable thing is just a band aid meant to allow people to delude them self and others into thinking everything will be OK even without atomic energy and that we should resist it and instead focus on atomic power I was shouted and even laughed at. But at last, vindication.

Was I one of the ones who offended against you? I don't think I was. What thread was it?

Also, renewables aren't only a band-aid or a feel-good thing. They do have some real potential- just, probably, not enough to solve all our problems.

It's like, taking ibuprofen won't cure your broken leg. But it'll sure help, so you'd be a fool to ignore it entireyl.

Only doubling is not enough. That report seems to rely on heavy ccs use, which is in my opinion a highly speculative technology at this point.

What is ccs?

[The Vortex Empire]

What is ccs?

Carbon capture and storage, involves capturing CO2 generated by fossil fuels and burying it to remove it from the carbon cycle. Would need to be done on a massive scale.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Irbis, I understand we probably agree about many other things that this board doesn't agree with, but speaking from my past three years in the scientific community and all the knowledge during that period and before it and every study I have read, you and your damned polish website are wrong. We are really past the point of speaking with people like you--you just cannot be reasoned with so nobody should waste the time on it, as opposed to simply carrying ahead with productive solutions. Most of my friends and political circles doubted climate change too but by by six or seven years ago the evidence was overwhelming for anyone, no matter how ideologically set against it, who was sane. I conclude that anyone who didn't bolt at the time I did must be a madman.

[madd0ct0r]

um, duchess, his graph shows a miassive recent increase in co2. i don't think he's arguing what you think he is

[The Vortex Empire]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

[Guardsman Bass]

What's the point of even discussing nuclear seriously as a near-term energy policy? It doesn't have the combination of political/regulatory support and either public or private investment capital in order to build new plants here, and doesn't seem to be developing it any time soon. The Democrats have little appetite for nuclear power, and the Republicans only support it on paper - they're not going to commit any funding to it.

Meanwhile, Solar and Wind Power have much greater and existing public support, and can be brought online in the near-future in much larger quantities (especially if the total system costs keep going down).

[mr friendly guy]

What's the point of even discussing nuclear seriously as a near-term energy policy? It doesn't have the combination of political/regulatory support and either public or private investment capital in order to build new plants here, and doesn't seem to be developing it any time soon. The Democrats have little appetite for nuclear power, and the Republicans only support it on paper - they're not going to commit any funding to it.

Meanwhile, Solar and Wind Power have much greater and existing public support, and can be brought online in the near-future in much larger quantities (especially if the total system costs keep going down).

Um, China and India. China is the biggest carbon emitter. There is also cooperation between the US and China to do research on thorium MSRs, so even if the US and Europe don't want to go nuclear at the present time, the technology could be sold elsewhere and who knows, reimported to the US. Heck, since Thorium is apparently harder to weaponise it could be potentially sold to Iran as a face saving measure. That way they get the nuclear reactor but cannot weaponise it, and since they officially claim peaceful purposes..

All in I think they is still a bit to discuss with nuclear even if their isn't as much political will for it in the US and Europe as I would like.

[Zaune]

What's the point of even discussing nuclear seriously as a near-term energy policy? It doesn't have the combination of political/regulatory support and either public or private investment capital in order to build new plants here, and doesn't seem to be developing it any time soon. The Democrats have little appetite for nuclear power, and the Republicans only support it on paper - they're not going to commit any funding to it.

Because unless you happen to have a handy portal to the magical land of Equestria, solar and wind aren't going to cut it by themselves unless a Deus Ex Machina-grade scientific breakthrough happens with energy-storage technology. Their output is subject to too many environmental factors we can't control, or even really predict more than a week in advance, and our current state-of-the-art in battery technology is nowhere near capable of storing enough of the surplus to last through a whole winter.

[madd0ct0r]

There's some nice ideas for storage in this economist article, and they reiterate the good point that vary time scale storage will be needed, from mega capacitors already used to smooth out second by second fluctuations to the monster scale types of storage needed to accommodate seasonal swings in energy use.

http://www.economist.com/news/technolog ... swer-store

It also depends on the mix you are looking at and the location - Texan or Australian electricity demand for air-con is pretty strongly correlated with sunlight, the opposite of electric heating in Scotland. Fortunately, generating and storing low level heat energy is the easiest problem of all the storage mechanisms.

[jwl]

What's the point of even discussing nuclear seriously as a near-term energy policy? It doesn't have the combination of political/regulatory support and either public or private investment capital in order to build new plants here, and doesn't seem to be developing it any time soon. The Democrats have little appetite for nuclear power, and the Republicans only support it on paper - they're not going to commit any funding to it.

Meanwhile, Solar and Wind Power have much greater and existing public support, and can be brought online in the near-future in much larger quantities (especially if the total system costs keep going down).

Not all countries have the same politics. Here in the UK, my understanding is that building any kind of power station is damaging politically, leading to no power stations being built. However, recently a nuclear power station (Hinkley Point C) is in the process of being approved that will provide 7% of UK electricity, essentially concentrating all the political discontent into a single power station and thus reducing the votes lost per kWh, so to speak.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

What's the point of even discussing nuclear seriously as a near-term energy policy? It doesn't have the combination of political/regulatory support and either public or private investment capital in order to build new plants here, and doesn't seem to be developing it any time soon. The Democrats have little appetite for nuclear power, and the Republicans only support it on paper - they're not going to commit any funding to it.

Meanwhile, Solar and Wind Power have much greater and existing public support, and can be brought online in the near-future in much larger quantities (especially if the total system costs keep going down).

This is the conclusion that I've reached for power in the US. People think nuclear power is dangerous and there's an industrialist conspiracy to foist it onto the public for profit precisely because no conspiracy exists. The risks and break-even for nuclear power is too far into the future to interest private capital, so there is no incentive for business interests to spend the money it would require to change peoples' minds. If there were such a conspiracy, people would be convinced that none existed because they'd have been brainwashed by propaganda. I'm not sure what to call this phenomenon, but it's certainly vexing.

[Guardsman Bass]

If conditions are different outside the US, then good. But in the US I agree with Arthur_Tuxedo - there's just no political appetite for or prospects of many new plants being built in the next couple of decades, and some of the existing plants are going off-line without anything to replace them.

Solar and Wind Power may be fractions of US electrical power now, but give them 30-40 years* and it will be different. They're actually building plants for those now (in addition to the home system set-ups for solar power), and there isn't nearly as much opposition or red tape to them as there is to build nuclear power. You might as well double-down on them, or at least try to get the kinks worked out for when the US stops leaning so heavily on natural gas and coal power.

* I'll bet that during the same time period, at most we will get 5-10 new nuclear plants, not all of which will be large facilities.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Bass, the whole point of the article is that it is not possible, period, to meet the CO2 targets we must meet without increasing worldwide nuclear production by x2.5. Period, that is a scientific study, that is incontrovertible -- and their assumptions were arguably optimistic in trying to minimize the need for nuclear.

Sure basically none of that expansion will come in the US, but what it shows is that countries like India, China, Brazil, Turkey, must build large numbers of nuclear plants if we are to collectively achieve the CO2 reductions worldwide necessary, and there is no way around this--there is no way to avoid more than doubling nuclear, no matter how optimistic wind and solar people try to be.

[Adam Reynolds]

This is the conclusion that I've reached for power in the US. People think nuclear power is dangerous and there's an industrialist conspiracy to foist it onto the public for profit precisely because no conspiracy exists. The risks and break-even for nuclear power is too far into the future to interest private capital, so there is no incentive for business interests to spend the money it would require to change peoples' minds. If there were such a conspiracy, people would be convinced that none existed because they'd have been brainwashed by propaganda. I'm not sure what to call this phenomenon, but it's certainly vexing.

This almost seems like the same idea as the irony of the Dunning-Kruger effect*. I wonder if there is a connection between that and conspiratorial thinking. This also seems related to Apophenia, seeing patterns in meaningless data, as well as cognitive bias towards Type 1 rather than Type 2 errors. The caveman who fails to notice the predator in the grass dies while the one who notices the grass moving when there is nothing survives.

Though more generally, it is easy to see why many are opposed to nuclear power. It is the basic human problem that causes people to be more afraid of flying on airplanes than driving in cars, or of dying from homicide than heart attack. We naturally overreact to rare scenarios and underreact to common ones. And the fundamental problem with nuclear power is that it can lead to catastrophic rare scenarios. When it does truly fail(not that it is common) it seems temporarily worse than the steady stream of possibly worse pollution that is created by conventional power plants. It is precisely because it is rare that it is a problem.

* I love this summary by John Cleese. "I think the problem with people like this is that they are so stupid they have no idea how stupid they are. If you are very very stupid, how can you possibly realize that you are very very stupid." "In order to know how good you are at something requires exactly the same skills as it does to be good at that thing in the first place. Which means — and this is terribly funny — that if you are absolutely no good at something at all, then you lack exactly the skills you need to know that you are absolutely no good at it. And this explains not only Hollywood, but also the entirety of Fox News.”

[Darth Tanner]

Here in the UK, my understanding is that building any kind of power station is damaging politically, leading to no power stations being built. However, recently a nuclear power station (Hinkley Point C) is in the process of being approved that will provide 7% of UK electricity, essentially concentrating all the political discontent into a single power station and thus reducing the votes lost per kWh, so to speak.

Austria have now launched a legal challenge to the EU so Hinkley is not approved just yet... the general idea is that once they get Hinkley going they can move on to Sellafield which would be an identical plant.

The major problem is the mainstream energy industry is dead in Europe, prices and demand are decaying so its practically impossible to get the billions of funding needed for a very long term nuclear project from private companies... we are solely relying on foreign controlled companies to get this done, namely the Chinese and French. All we can realistically build anymore are wind turbines, solar and gas so in 30 or 40 years we will have achieved the renewable future of being 100% gas most of the time.

In the UK at least the main hope for nuclear is a good long blackout from our lack of capacity and growing reliance on wind which would get the politicians heads out of their arses and create a real energy policy other than leave it to the market to subsidy farm.

[madd0ct0r]

I think you are a bit confused about wether France is European. Also, source that the energy market is dead in Europe?

[Darth Tanner]

Yeah sorry that was a bit nonsensical... please read UK instead!

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

This almost seems like the same idea as the irony of the Dunning-Kruger effect*. I wonder if there is a connection between that and conspiratorial thinking. This also seems related to Apophenia, seeing patterns in meaningless data, as well as cognitive bias towards Type 1 rather than Type 2 errors. The caveman who fails to notice the predator in the grass dies while the one who notices the grass moving when there is nothing survives.

Though more generally, it is easy to see why many are opposed to nuclear power. It is the basic human problem that causes people to be more afraid of flying on airplanes than driving in cars, or of dying from homicide than heart attack. We naturally overreact to rare scenarios and underreact to common ones. And the fundamental problem with nuclear power is that it can lead to catastrophic rare scenarios. When it does truly fail(not that it is common) it seems temporarily worse than the steady stream of possibly worse pollution that is created by conventional power plants. It is precisely because it is rare that it is a problem.

* I love this summary by John Cleese. "I think the problem with people like this is that they are so stupid they have no idea how stupid they are. If you are very very stupid, how can you possibly realize that you are very very stupid." "In order to know how good you are at something requires exactly the same skills as it does to be good at that thing in the first place. Which means — and this is terribly funny — that if you are absolutely no good at something at all, then you lack exactly the skills you need to know that you are absolutely no good at it. And this explains not only Hollywood, but also the entirety of Fox News.”

A twist on that may also be responsible for nuclear power's bad reputation. TEPCO and the Soviet system were too incompetent to realize that they weren't competent to safely run old reactor designs, and by definition lacked the foresight to upgrade those ancient and unsafe designs to a standard that could withstand gross mismanagement without creating a regional disaster.

[Mr. G]

Bass, the whole point of the article is that it is not possible, period, to meet the CO2 targets we must meet without increasing worldwide nuclear production by x2.5. Period, that is a scientific study, that is incontrovertible -- and their assumptions were arguably optimistic in trying to minimize the need for nuclear.

Well, you can meet the same targets by investing MORE in renewable energy sources. It's all a matter of cost, nuclear today is probably more expensive than solar, hydroelectric and wind. Hence, it doesn't make any economic sense to invest in it: with the same money you can decrease Co2 emissions by a greater degree with renewables.

Global nuclear power capacity is only 400 gigawatts. Renewables now represent 4 times as much and growing at much faster pace. Though capacity utilization is lower for obvious reasons. Renewables needs to grow it's capacity several times, however, to actually substitute for fossil fuel energy sources.

Sure basically none of that expansion will come in the US, but what it shows is that countries like India, China, Brazil, Turkey, must build large numbers of nuclear plants if we are to collectively achieve the CO2 reductions worldwide necessary, and there is no way around this--there is no way to avoid more than doubling nuclear, no matter how optimistic wind and solar people try to be.

Well, or you can just trow a massive one trillion dollar subsidy on renewables. Also, in Brazil's case, 80% of the country's energy comes from hydroelectric, as a result Brasil is the country among the top 20 largest economies, that emits the least CO2 per dollar of GDP.

[Mr. G]

Meanwhile, Solar and Wind Power have much greater and existing public support, and can be brought online in the near-future in much larger quantities (especially if the total system costs keep going down).

Yes, I am for just trowing massive subsidies on renewables, which will even stimulate faster technological improvement in reducing costs.

What is ccs?

Carbon capture and storage, involves capturing CO2 generated by fossil fuels and burying it to remove it from the carbon cycle. Would need to be done on a massive scale.

I am a strong supporter of the space mirror proposal: solve the problem directly . It probably would cost tens of trillions of dollars though.