Summary of the nuclear push at COP 28.

As the FT <https://www.ft.com/content/bc486d67-8f92-46b3-9072-f0357d7f0336>
puts it, one thing is clear about COP28, the spotlight is on nuclear power
with an unprecedented amount of attention at this year’s gathering. Over 20
countries, including the US, UK, and United Arab Emirates, have signed a
declaration to triple nuclear capacity
<https://www.france24.com/en/environment/20231202-more-than-110-countries-join-cop28-deal-to-triple-renewable-energy-by-2030>
by 2050. Whether the world can deliver on these nuclear promises is
questionable — the sector is notorious for high construction costs and
lengthy project timelines, not to mention hazardous waste. The goal of
tripling the world’s nuclear output would require deploying an average of
40 gigawatts of nuclear power
<https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/20-plus-countries-pledge-to-triple-the-worlds-nuclear-energy-by-2050>
every year through 2050, according to the World Nuclear Association.
Despite the hype, global nuclear power generation declined 4 per cent in
2022 to its lowest level in four decades, according to the new World
Nuclear Industry report <https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/>
.

December 10, 2023 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change

1 Comment »

The market place, the facts of the safety record of the nuclear industry, the costs of construction, the length it takes to build a nuclear power plant and no permanent storage of the deadly, toxic, high level nuclear waste are what have put the profit addicted, dying nuclear industry on bear life support. There are proven methods of renewable energy with solar, wind, hydroelectric and geothermal energy. COP28 should not have called for the “tripling of nuclear capacity” as a panacea for fighting climate change. And neither should the plan for carbon capture and sequestration as a way to fight climate change is too energy intensive and too expensive or “cost-effective.”

Planting trees and other plants are the best “carbon capture & sequestration” methods we have. Photosynthesis takes carbon dioxide out of the air and produces oxygen which we need. Consider that carbon scrubing for our basic life support of “Spaceship Earth,” just like the lithium hydroxide canisters on the NASA space ships & nuclear submarines. The best thing and most “cost effective” thing to do is stop extracting and burning fossil fuel in the first place.

We have to look at the whole cycle of what we produce, how we produce it and how we can recycle, re-use, re-purpose the things we make consume and how the wastes are safely and sustainably disposed of. The ideal is no wastes and no adverse environmental impact. We have to stop spoiling our nests and wrecking our “Spaceship Earth,” before our Sun goes supernova and our species emmigrates to another solar system or galaxy hopefully before then. If we survive climate change and don’t commit nuclear suicide with Mutually Assured Distruction or “MAD” and prove once and for all time that “we are all cremated equally.”

Comment by paulrodenlearning | December 10, 2023 | Reply