COP28’s Unrealistic Tripling of Nuclear Power
Image by Ondrej Bocek.
UN climate conferences since 1992 have failed to follow thru with results, as CO2 emissions continue higher and higher with every passing year. In fact, post climate conference impact of adopted proposals has become something 0f an inside joke. The most recent conference, COP28, embraced nuclear power as a godsend challenging climate change.
“Triple Nuclear Power” still echoes throughout the halls of COP28. If one stands at the podium in the convention center now empty and listens intently, echoes reverberate “triple nuclear power” spewing out of red-faced maniacs from over 20 countries that committed to tripling nuclear power to bail our global asses out of a crazed climate system of epic proportions.
The US, UK, UAE, and others signed a declaration. Since they couldn’t budge oil and gas, it was decided to favor nuclear power as a surrogate for fixing the rip snorting global heating imbroglio found from pole to pole, from ocean to ocean. It’s real, it’s palpable; it’s now, much earlier than forecasts, as 1.5C prematurely comes to surface during irregular episodes.
Yet, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the declaration by 22 countries calling for a tripling of nuclear energy by 2050 is more fantasy than reality: “Even at best, a shift to invest more heavily in nuclear energy over the next two decades could actually worsen the climate crisis, as cheaper, quicker alternatives are ignored for more expensive, slow-to-deploy nuclear reactors.” (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Dec. 13th, 2023)
Building nuclear power facilities has a long history that unfortunately casts a doubtful shadow over the idea of tripling by 2050. A now-famous plan by Princeton University in 2004 called for a “stabilization wedge” to avoid one billion tons of carbon emissions per year by 2055 by building 700 large nuclear reactors over 50 years.
In 2022, there were 416 operating reactors in the world. Starting in 2005 when the Princeton plan was announced, it would have meant building 14 reactors per year, assuming all existing reactors continued to function. However, over the 50-year cycle aging reactors and those going into retirement would ultimately require 40 new reactors per year. But throughout the entire history of nuclear power, on average 10 nuclear power plants connected to the electricity grid per year, and the number of new units was only 5 per year from 2011-2021.
Once again, like the sticky issue of direct carbon capture, achieving the scale of proposed solutions to climate change’s biggest weapon, or global warming, is beyond reality. Talk is cheap.
Meanwhile less expensive safer wind and solar easily trounce nuclear power’s newly installed output, by a country mile, to wit:
New nuclear energy capacity 2000-2020 42 GWe
New wind capacity from 2000-2020 605 GWe
New solar capacity from 2000-2020 578 GWe
Nuclear costs are prohibitively high: It’ll cost $15 trillion to triple nuclear capacity, assuming existing reactors continue to function, which will not be the case, raising this big bet well over $15T. Who’s putting up $15T?
And is there enough time to triple by 2050? From design to projected operation of the NuScale VOYGR plant takes 13 years. According to the International Energy Agency, the design and build phase for a country’s first nuclear reactor is 15 years. Several countries that signed on to the declaration to triple nuclear power are newbies.
According to a Foreign Policy article, Dec. 13th 2023 entitled: COP28’s Dramatic But Empty Nuclear Pledge: several reasons for skepticism about the nuclear energy triple buildout were enumerated, concluding: “The combination of macroeconomic pressures and regulatory restrictions means that neither pledges such as those made at COP28 nor memorandums of understanding with various industries, utilities, and governments should give anyone much confidence that a major expansion of nuclear energy is forthcoming.”
Nuclear expert Mycle Schneider, the lead author of the prestigious World Nuclear Industry Status Report (500 pgs.) now in in its 18th edition known for its fact-based approach on details of operation, construction, and decommissioning of the world’s reactors was recently interviewed by the Bulletin: Schneider’s publication is considered the landmark study of the industry.
Regarding NuScale, the US-based company that develops America’s flagship SMR (Small Nuclear Reactors), the company initially promised in 2008 to start generating power by 2015. As of 2023, they haven’t started construction of a single reactor. They do not have a certification license for the model they promoted for a Utah municipality. NuScale’s six module facility would cost $20,000 per kilowatt installed, twice as expensive as the most expensive large-scale reactors in Europe. And SMRs will generate disproportionate amounts of nuclear waste. No bargain here, assuming it even works efficiently enough, which is doubtful.
Schneider: “The entire logic that has been built up for small modular reactors is with the background of climate change emergency. That’s the big problem we have.” A sense of urgency cannot be met: “Considering the status of development, we’re not going to see any SMR generating power before the 2030s. It’s very clear: none. And if we are talking about SMRs picking up any kind of substantial amounts of generating capacity in the current market, if ever, we’re talking about the 2040s at the very earliest.”
Schneider on COP’s pledge to triple nuclear power: “From an industrial point of view, to put this pledge into reality. To me, this pledge is very close to absurd, compared to what the industry has shown.”
Looked at another way: “It took 70 years to bring global nuclear capacity to the current level of 370 gigawatts (GW), and the industry must now select technologies, raise finance and develop the rules to build another 740 GW in half that time… Why would anyone spend a single dollar on a technology that, if planned today, won’t even be available to help until 2035-2045?’ said Mark Jacobson, an energy specialist at Stanford University.” (Source: Nuclear Sector Must Overcome Decades of Stagnation to Meet COP28 Tripling, Reuters, Dec. 7, 2023) How about $15 trillion?
COP28 did not deliver on phase down of fossil fuels, and it’ll likely miss on tripling nuclear power. But once the results are finally known, it’s too late. The heat’s already on.
Τhe Climate Summit in the United Arab Emirates did the Bidding of the Petroleum Billionaires
Carbon dioxide, CO2, is a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It increased by 50 percent since 1750. NASA, JPL-Caltech., 2022.
Prologue
The final draft document of the December 2023 Climate Summit, COP28, thousands of pages long, included the magic words “fossil fuels” – just once. This daring, of including fossil fuels and their inevitable phase out in the testimony of COP28, said David Gelles, a New York Times reporter, “marks a potentially trajectory-altering moment in the fight against climate change.”
I am not sure I buy this exaggerated hope. I watched on the Internet the last two hours of the closing discussion at COP28 at the United Arab Emirates. Al Jaber, oil minister of UAE, presided over the chaotic closing ceremony. Delegates from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and the United States, for example, praised al-Jaber for his leadership. A-Jaber also thanked his family, his “excellency,” the president of UAE, and his team for the achievement of saying softly what is a deafening cry by the natural world and millions of humans who have died and have been suffering from the ceaseless burning of fossil fuels for more than a century.
Phasing out or down fossil fuels or more drilling?
Listening to these nauseating “thanks,” I imagined the deals al-Jaber had worked out behind the scenes for more oil exploration and more drilling. Then the praises turned to the “take-home” of the global conclave to reach a consensus for “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner.”
Gelles says that al-Jaber “ultimately muscled language about ending fossil fuels into the final COP agreement.” He did. Yet the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, which has al-Jaber as director, is investing some $ 150 billion in the next 5 years for more drilling. And, in a fundamental way, Jaber’s muscled language continues the drilling for another 27 years.
The revised advanced version of the COP28 final decision document states that about 200 countries are urged to triple renewable energy while they double the efficiency of all the energy they employ. Moreover, all nations need to speed up their moving away from fossil fuels – this decade. But these nations are given all the way to mid-century to finish phasing out petroleum, natural gas, and coal.
The handicaps of this new consensus are basically two. First, waiting for a complete phase out of the main causes of planetary overheating by 2050 is foolish and irresponsible. Scientists are warning that unless we phase out 43 percent of all fossil fuels by 2030, we will raise the planetary temperature to more than 1.50 Celsius above pre-industrial levels. So, saying go on and drill until 2050 guarantees explosive global temperatures, deadly heat waves on land and seas, droughts, massive fires, floods, and severe worldwide famine. Nature, helpless and perpetually abused, will experience another massive extinction of species.
Second, the Climate Summit agreement is toothless. No mechanism exists to enforce it. No wonder thousands of fossil fuel lobbyists traveled to UAE Climate Summit. They worked with al-Jaber and his team and created a very lengthy legal paper full of loopholes and propaganda, decorated by a green lipstick about transitioning to renewable energy.
Triumph of petroleum billionaires
Meanwhile, the world’s largest oil producer, the United States, is celebrating an oil boom. American oil companies are cracking a gush of oil, about 13.2 million barrels of petroleum per day. This means gasoline prices are dropping. More cars and trucks and private airplanes and yachts will indulge driving and flying and sailing much more. Burning more petroleum, however, nullifies the voluntary advice of the Climate Summit. The result? Ballooning of the already high emission of greenhouse gases, which capture solar energy and increase global temperature.
Small island-nations were unhappy with the outcomes of COP28. Anne Rasmussen, the chief negotiator of Samoa, was angry because the deal happened in the absence of 39 island-nations. The powerless island-nations were not in the room. “The course correction that is needed has not been secured,” she said. However another delegate from Samoa, Cedric Schuster, did not mince words. She said: “We will not sign our death certificate. We cannot sign on to text that does not have strong commitments on phasing out fossil fuels.”
Another woman with experience in state and UN bureaucracy, Mary Robinson, was also angry. She had caught al-Jaber saying that science was irrelevant on issues of fossil fuel use or phase out. She said: “It is not good enough to say you recognize and respect the science but then fail to take heed of its dire warnings in the collective action you commit to … It is not good enough to use weak language or to permit loopholes for the fossil fuel industry to continue to contribute to the very problem countries are meant to be committed to tackling here in Dubai … this current version of the COP28 text is grossly insufficient.”
The COP petroleum managers also ignored indigenous people. “We watched first-hand as the fossil fuel polluters and wealthy governments manipulated developing countries to undermine real action on climate change,” said Tom Goldtooth, the director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, “[while] our strong messages of fossil fuel phase-out fell on deaf ears and instead more false solutions will accelerate climate change and deforestation… The UN climate change conference has failed humanity and Mother Earth.”
Another powerful voice for the impoverished tropical countries is that of Nina Lakhani, a reporter for the Guardian. She attended the Climate Summit in the UAE and was discouraged and outraged by witnessing the blatant influence and power of the fossil fuel lobbyists and petroleum-rich countries. She said:
“The biggest polluting countries and industries in the world, including the U.S., the U.K., the EU, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway, and the fossil fuel industry itself were extremely happy with the result [of the COP28]. The language [of the draft document]… says… that there will be a transition away from fossil fuels. There is no timeline. There is nothing more concrete than that… this is business as usual… There is no language that basically… acknowledges the historic responsibility of rich, developed countries like the U.S. and the U.K. and others in the current climate catastrophe. And it places no… extra responsibility on them to get rid of fossil fuels fast, or any timeline at all. And in addition to that… through pressure from the U.S. and the EU and others, there’s actually a huge get-out clause. There’s a paragraph that says that transition fuels… are OK. And by that, they’re talking about gas… the Biden administration has been expanding [the extraction of petroleum and gas] — the U.S. is the biggest oil and gas producer in the world this year, by a long way. It also has the plans to expand oil and gas at a much greater and faster scale than any other country in the world.”
True, I don’t like hypocrisy, either. I would have hoped that President Biden had the courage to, finally, put the lives and health of Americans and the planet above the profits of fossil fuel companies. But that’s an illusion. He is too much into supporting the wars in Ukraine and Israel. He would not be able to invite China, India, the European Union, and Russia for a real climate summit to, in fact, put into practice and policy the phase out of fossil fuels. Such a step, in theory, would guarantee his reelection. A Nobel Peace Prize would probably follow.
So, in real America, people should wake up and stop both misguided wars funded by us behind our backs. Then Americans must face the battle of their lives, saving themselves and our beloved planet Earth from the pernicious and thoughtless appetites of the billionaire class.
No comments:
Post a Comment