2050 carbon emission goals need nuclear to succeed, says International Energy Agency
- Reference: 1656696553
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/07/01/2050_carbon_emission_goals_need/
- Source link:
In a [1]report [PDF] released yesterday, the IEA said worldwide nuclear power output, currently at 413GW, would need to double to 812GW by 2050 to meet carbon neutrality goals and limit global warming to 1.5°C, per [2]its own framework .
The IEA doesn't see nuclear power as the solution to net zero emissions, though, rather a part of the transition process to preferred forms of renewable energy like wind, solar, and hydroelectric. "Building sustainable and clean energy systems will be harder, riskier, and more expensive without nuclear," the IEA [3]said . "Nuclear power has the potential to play a significant role in helping countries to securely transition to energy systems dominated by renewables."
[4]
IEA director Fatih Birol said the current energy crisis, rising fossil fuel prices, problems with energy security, and ambitious climate goals give nuclear energy a road to a comeback, but not a smooth one.
[5]
[6]
"A new era for nuclear power is by no means guaranteed," Birol said.
Among the obstacles the report lists, some are obvious, such as [7]public opinion . Even in countries like the US, where nuclear is viewed more favorably and [8]small modular reactor development has grown, still only a third favor government investment in nuclear power.
[9]
In addition to sentiment, the report found that advanced economies, which control 70 percent of the current nuclear capacity, are lagging. Since 2017, only four reactors that began construction weren't located in Russia or China.
Sixty-three percent of plants in advanced economies are over 30 years old, creating yet another problem. Several countries have taken steps to refurbish and extend the life of ageing reactors, but the IEA is still concerned those countries could lose a third of their nuclear production capabilities by 2030.
[10]Why chasing the AI dragon may force big tech to take sustainability seriously
[11]Small nuclear reactors produce '35x more waste' than big plants
[12]Fusion won't avert need for climate change 'sacrifice', says nuclear energy expert
[13]First Light says it's hit nuclear fusion breakthrough with no fancy lasers, magnets
The IEA has a second scenario in which global nuclear energy production shrinks from 10 percent in 2020 to 3 percent in 2050. The body said an additional $500 billion in investment would be needed to meet 2050 carbon goals were that to happen. Consumer prices for energy would also rise, it said.
If the IEA is correct, modernizing nuclear power seems to be a necessary step in a green energy transition. The IEA has seven recommendations for countries considering nuclear power as part of their carbon neutrality plans:
Extend the lifetime of existing plants
Compensate nuclear power plants "in a competitive and non-discriminatory manner" for emissions reduction
Create financial frameworks favorable to new reactor construction
Develop efficient and effective safety regulations
Build proper waste disposal facilities
Speed up development of small modular reactors
Make long-term support of the nuclear industry contingent on projects staying on time and budget
It's worth noting that half of emissions reductions that IEA predicts come from technologies it describes as "not yet commercially viable," which includes SMRs. The report didn't mention what other technologies are holding carbon reduction back, and the IEA has yet to respond to requests for comment. ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/0498c8b8-e17f-4346-9bde-dad2ad4458c4/NuclearPowerandSecureEnergyTransitions.pdf
[2] https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050
[3] https://www.iea.org/news/nuclear-power-can-play-a-major-role-in-enabling-secure-transitions-to-low-emissions-energy-systems
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Yr9ugZfanfeKzqLvlAl8WAAAAIg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Yr9ugZfanfeKzqLvlAl8WAAAAIg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Yr9ugZfanfeKzqLvlAl8WAAAAIg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/23/americans-continue-to-express-mixed-views-about-nuclear-power/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/24/rollsroyce_smr_factory/
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Yr9ugZfanfeKzqLvlAl8WAAAAIg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/06/ai_sustainability_tech/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/02/nuclear_reactors_waste/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/31/fusion_no_answer_to_climate/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/07/first_light_nuclear_fusion/
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
I totally agree. In particular about the batteries, as far as I know we don't really have "environmentally friendly" battery tech at such a stage that we can deploy it at the kinds of scale that we need. IMO, if public opinion didn't waffle around nuclear power so much, we would currently be in a notably better position as far as carbon emissions (no the planet would not be irradiated, and no we would not be up to our ears in nuclear waste).
The good news is that there has been a ton of promising research into batteries that are both cheaper and more environmentally friendly, so I think within a decade we are very likely to have some good alternatives for long lived and recyclable utility scale batteries that can store renewable power for weeks (to account for extended periods of clouds or little wind) or even months (to "season shift")
If nuclear power was going to make a comeback, I think it already would have. It is too late for it now, because by the time you get new designs approved, push through all the attempts by anti-nuclear crusaders to throw sand in the gears, and finally start deploying them en masse, utilities would have to be worried that renewable power will have undercut the price and those who invested big in nuclear will look foolish.
Base load
Use it as base load with all the renewables being used to make clean Hydrogen or other fuels.
Once you have so much renewables and a way to store it to cover when the renewables are not generating then you can reduce the amount of base load provided by nuclear.
The Holy Grail...
...of fusion power seems to still be a long way off and fission reactors, unpopular as they are, are available now. If hydroelectric power is regarded as a renewable energy source then one or two smaller nations will have a big economic advantage as well as the environmentally moral high ground.
Net zero emissions by 2050,
A great goal but a pointless message if you do not have a plan on how to do it.
Or is the plan just to get the poor to use less energy because they can either have food or be warm?
Re: Net zero emissions by 2050,
"A great goal but a pointless message if you do not have a plan on how to do it."
make that:
A great goal but a pointless message if you do not have a REALISTIC plan on how to do it.
====
AFAICS, reality has never been a component of "zero-emissions" planning. Mostly net-zero has been a matter of politicians_setting_targets_and_let_the_techies_figure_out_how_to_meet_them. Unfortunately the techies are engineers, not magicians.
I think that the relative handful of folks who have actually worked the numbers for providing a decent standard of living for 7 plus billion people have all agreed that nuclear power -- and lots of it -- will be needed.
Not that I'm happy about that. I worry about nuclear proliferation. And the total failure -- at least here in the US -- to deal rationally with high level waste disposal. And I suspect that serious nuclear accidents just might become quite a bit more common if there are 20 or 40 times as many nuclear power plants as are currently in service.
But I suppose nuclear is probably the least bad solution.
Sounds about right.
There's a long way to go before 100% renewables is a practical proposition, with most explanations of how it will happen "soon" relying on a combination of fairy dust and unicorn poo. "Handwaving" away questions like "and what about when the wind isn't blowing and the sun's gone down" by just saying "batteries" is, with current levels of technology (and overall renewables supply), much the same as relying on fairy dust or unicorn poo. Perhaps in a decade ... or two ... or three ... And while we're waiting for that, we've a triple-whammy of existing reactors going offline when they run out of practical life, possibly long term supply issues after the turmoil in Ukraine, and at some point, a significant increase in demand as we are forced to switch to EVs and heat pumps.
Nuclear won't be "cheap" (but on the other hand, it doesn't have to be as expensive as it is) - but it can surely be cheaper than some of the alternatives ?