nuclear-news

Nuclear Energy Can­not Meaningfully Contribute to a Climate-Neutral Energy System 

Nuclear Energy Can­not Meaningfully Contribute to a Climate-Neutral Energy System  https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/12/16/nuclear-energy-cannot-meaningfully-contribute-to-a-climate-neutral-energy-system/, BY SCIENTISTS FOR THE FUTURE   16 Dec 21,  In light of the accelerating climate crisis, nuclear energy and its place in the future energy mix is being debated once again. Currently its share of global electricity ge­n­eration is about 10 percent. Some countries, international organizations, private businesses and scientists accord nuclear energy some kind of role in the pursuit of climate neutrality and in ending the era of fossil fuels. The IPCC, too, includes nuclear energy in its scenarios.

On the other hand, the experience with commercial nuclear energy generation acquired over the past seven decades points to the significant technical, economic, and social risks involved. This paper reviews arguments in the areas of “technology and risks,” “economic viability,” ’timely availability,” and “com­patibility with social-ecological transformation processes.”

Technology and risks:

 Catastro­phes involving the release of radioactive material are always a real possibility, as il­lustrated by the major accidents in Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Also, since 1945, countless accidents have occurred wherever nuclear energy has been deployed. No significantly higher reliability is to be expected from the SMRs (“small modular reactors”) that are currently at the plan­ning stage. Even modern ma­thematical techniques, such as probabilistic security analyses (PSAs), do not adequa­tely reflect important factors, such as deficient secu­rity arrangements or rare natural disasters and thereby systematically underestimate the risks.

Moreover, there is the ever-present proliferation risk of weapon-grade, highly enriched uranium, and plutonium. Most spent fuel rods are stored in scarcely protected surface containers or other interim solutions, often outside proper con­tainment structures. The safe storage of highly radioactive material, owing to a half-life of individual isotopes of over a million years, must be guaranteed for eons. Even if the risks involved for future generations cannot be authoritatively determined to­day, heavy burdens are undoubtedly externalized to the future.

Nuclear energy and economic efficiency: The commercial use of nuclear energy was, in the 1950s, the by-product of military programmes. Not then, and not since, has nuclear energy been a competitive energy source. Even the continued use of existing plants is not economical, while investments into third generation reactors are pro­jected to require subsidies to the tune of billions of $ or €. The experience with the development of SMR con­cepts suggests that these are prone to lead to even higher electricity costs.

Lastly, there are the considerable, currently largely unknown costs involved in dismant­ling nuclear power plants and in the safe storage of radioactive waste. Detailed ana­lyses confirm that meeting ambitious climate goals (i. e. global heating of between 1.5° and below 2° Celsius) is well possible with renewables which, if system costs are consi­dered, are also considerably cheaper than nuclear energy. Given, too, that nuclear power plants are not commercially insurable, the risks inherent in their operation must be borne by society at large. The currently hyped SMRs and the so-called Generation IV concepts (not light-water cooled) are techno­logically immature and far from commercially viable.

Timely availability: Given the stagnating or – with the exception of China – slowing pace of nuclear power plant construction, and considering furthermore the limited innovation potential as well as the timeframe of two decades for planning and con­struction, nuclear power is not a viable tool to mitigate global heating. Since 1976, the number of nuclear power plants construction starts is declining. Currently, only 52 nuclear power plants are being built. Very few countries are pursuing respective plans. Traditional nuclear producers, such as Westinghouse (USA) and Framatome (France) are in dire straits financially and are not able to launch a significant num­ber of new construction projects in the coming decade. It can be doubted whether Russia or China have the capacity to meet a hypothetically surging demand for nuclear en­ergy but, in any event, relying on them would be neither safe nor geopolitically de­sirable.

Nuclear energy in the social-ecological transformation: The ultimate challenge of the great transformation, i. e. kicking off the socio-ecological reforms that will lead to a broadly supported, viable, climate-neutral energy system, lies in overcoming the drag (“lock-in”) of the old system that is dominated by fossil fuel interests. Yet, make no mistake, nuclear energy is of no use to support this process. In fact, it blocks it. The massive R&D investment required for a dead-end technology crowds out the devel­opment of sustainable technologies, such as those in the areas of renewables, energy storage and efficiency.

Nuclear energy producers, given the competitive en­viron­ment they operate in, are incentivized to prevent – or minimize – investments in renewables. For obvious technical as well as economic reasons, nuclear hydrogen – the often-proclaimed deus ex machina – cannot enhance the viability of nuclear power plants. Japan is an exhibit A of transformation resistance. In Germany the end of the atomic era proceeds, and the last six nuclear power stations will be switched off in 2021 and 2022, but further steps are still needed, most importantly the search for a safe storage facility for radioactive waste.

By way of conclusion: The present analysis reviews a whole range of arguments based on the most recent and authoritative scientific literature. It confirms the assessment of the paper Climate-friendly energy supply for Germany – 16 points of orien­tation, pub­li­shed on 22 April 2021 by Scientists for Future (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4409334) that nuclear energy can­not, in the short time re­maining before the climate tips, meaningfully contribute to a climate-neutral energy system. Nuclear energy is too dangerous, too expensive, and too sluggishly deploy­able to play a significant role in mitigating the climate crisis. In addition, nuclear en­ergy is an obstacle to achieving the social-ecological transfor­mation, without which ambitious climate goals are elusive.

This article is the English language summary of the findings of the German report by Scientists for Future (S4F) International. 

December 18, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, climate change | Leave a comment

Warmer winters are happening across the globe

 As climate scientist Kai Kornhuber walks around New York City this winter,
an eerie feeling creeps into his body. It’s warm enough for a T-shirt in
December, and the birds are chirping loudly.

The temperatures tell birds
and trees that it’s time for action, but the systems are out of sync for
December, says Kornhuber, a postdoctoral researcher at Columbia
University’s Earth Institute. “It’s not right, there’s a disconnect
between how it should be and how it is.” Kornhuber said.

Warmer winters
are happening across the globe, and leading to some big impacts: 2021
brought the planet’s 16th-warmest February since records began. While the
popular imagination might associate the climate crisis with scorching
summers and their attendant droughts, wildfires, hurricanes and heat waves,
milder winters can also be drivers of catastrophic weather events and
profound changes. They range from shifts in agricultural use, triggering
changing weather patterns to boosting the likelihood of violent events,
like the swarm of tornadoes that wreaked havoc in the American midwest and
south over last weekend.

 Guardian 17th Dec 2021

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/17/warmer-winters-climate-crisis-scientists

December 18, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, climate change | Leave a comment

Nuclear can’t deliver on climate —

Nuclear power can’t save us before climate tipping point

Nuclear can’t deliver on climate — Beyond Nuclear International
Nuclear energy can­not meaningfully contribute to a climate-neutral energy system say German scientists  https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/72759838/posts/3712941667 By Ben Wealer et al., Scientists for Future 13 Dec 21,
In light of the accelerating climate crisis, nuclear energy and its place in the future energy mix is being debated once again. Currently its share of global electricity ge­n­eration is about 10 percent. Some countries, international organizations, private businesses and scientists accord nuclear energy some kind of role in the pursuit of climate neutrality and in ending the era of fossil fuels. The IPCC, too, includes nuclear energy in its scenarios.

On the other hand, the experience with commercial nuclear energy generation acquired over the past seven decades points to the significant technical, economic, and social risks involved. This paper reviews arguments in the areas of “technology and risks,” “economic viability,” ’timely availability,” and “com­patibility with social-ecological transformation processes.”

Technology and risks: Catastro­phes involving the release of radioactive material are always a real possibility, as il­lustrated by the major accidents in Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Also, since 1945, countless accidents have occurred wherever nuclear energy has been deployed. No significantly higher reliability is to be expected from the SMRs (“small modular reactors”) that are currently at the plan­ning stage. Even modern ma­thematical techniques, such as probabilistic security analyses (PSAs), do not adequa­tely reflect important factors, such as deficient secu­rity arrangements or rare natural disasters and thereby systematically underestimate the risks.

Moreover, there is the ever-present proliferation risk of weapon-grade, highly enriched uranium, and plutonium. Most spent fuel rods are stored in scarcely protected surface containers or other interim solutions, often outside proper con­tainment structures. The safe storage of highly radioactive material, owing to a half-life of individual isotopes of over a million years, must be guaranteed for eons. Even if the risks involved for future generations cannot be authoritatively determined to­day, heavy burdens are undoubtedly externalized to the future.

Nuclear energy and economic efficiency: The commercial use of nuclear energy was, in the 1950s, the by-product of military programmes. Not then, and not since, has nuclear energy been a competitive energy source. Even the continued use of existing plants is not economical, while investments into third generation reactors are pro­jected to require subsidies to the tune of billions of $ or €. The experience with the development of SMR con­cepts suggests that these are prone to lead to even higher electricity costs.

Lastly, there are the considerable, currently largely unknown costs involved in dismant­ling nuclear power plants and in the safe storage of radioactive waste. Detailed ana­lyses confirm that meeting ambitious climate goals (i. e. global heating of between 1.5° and below 2° Celsius) is well possible with renewables which, if system costs are consi­dered, are also considerably cheaper than nuclear energy. Given, too, that nuclear power plants are not commercially insurable, the risks inherent in their operation must be borne by society at large. The currently hyped SMRs and the so-called Generation IV concepts (not light-water cooled) are techno­logically immature and far from commercially viable.

Timely availability: Given the stagnating or – with the exception of China – slowing pace of nuclear power plant construction, and considering furthermore the limited innovation potential as well as the timeframe of two decades for planning and con­struction, nuclear power is not a viable tool to mitigate global heating. Since 1976, the number of nuclear power plants construction starts is declining. Currently, only 52 nuclear power plants are being built. Very few countries are pursuing respective plans. Traditional nuclear producers, such as Westinghouse (USA) and Framatome (France) are in dire straits financially and are not able to launch a significant num­ber of new construction projects in the coming decade. It can be doubted whether Russia or China have the capacity to meet a hypothetically surging demand for nuclear en­ergy but, in any event, relying on them would be neither safe nor geopolitically de­sirable.

Nuclear energy in the social-ecological transformation: The ultimate challenge of the great transformation, i. e. kicking off the socio-ecological reforms that will lead to a broadly supported, viable, climate-neutral energy system, lies in overcoming the drag (“lock-in”) of the old system that is dominated by fossil fuel interests. Yet, make no mistake, nuclear energy is of no use to support this process. In fact, it blocks it. The massive R&D investment required for a dead-end technology crowds out the devel­opment of sustainable technologies, such as those in the areas of renewables, energy storage and efficiency.

Nuclear energy producers, given the competitive en­viron­ment they operate in, are incentivized to prevent – or minimize – investments in renewables. For obvious technical as well as economic reasons, nuclear hydrogen – the often-proclaimed deus ex machina – cannot enhance the viability of nuclear power plants. Japan is an exhibit A of transformation resistance. In Germany the end of the atomic era proceeds, and the last six nuclear power stations will be switched off in 2021 and 2022, but further steps are still needed, most importantly the search for a safe storage facility for radioactive waste.

By way of conclusion: The present analysis reviews a whole range of arguments based on the most recent and authoritative scientific literature. It confirms the assessment of the paper Climate-friendly energy supply for Germany – 16 points of orien­tation, pub­li­shed on 22 April 2021 by Scientists for Future (doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4409334) that nuclear energy can­not, in the short time re­maining before the climate tips, meaningfully contribute to a climate-neutral energy system. Nuclear energy is too dangerous, too expensive, and too sluggishly deploy­able to play a significant role in mitigating the climate crisis. In addition, nuclear en­ergy is an obstacle to achieving the social-ecological transfor­mation, without which ambitious climate goals are elusive.

This article is the English language summary of the findings of the German report by Scientists for Future (S4F) International. S4F supports the global climate movement by providing facts and materials based on reliable and accepted scientific data to activists, politicians, decision makers, educators and the general public.

December 13, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, climate change | Leave a comment

Six compelling arguments why nuclear energy is spectacularly unfit to power a just transition

Six compelling arguments why nuclear energy is spectacularly unfit to power a just transition  https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2021-12-12-six-compelling-arguments-why-nuclear-energy-is-spectacularly-unfit-to-power-a-just-transition/ By Makoma Lekalakala  Makoma Lekalakala is the director of Earthlife Africa and a board member of Natural Justice. She was the joint recipient, with Liz McDaid, of the 2018 Goldman Environmental Prize for Africa and the SAB Environmentalist of the year 2018.

All evidence shows that renewables create more jobs than nuclear. Depending on the technology and the job measurement, up to six times more. Moreover, not only do renewables create more jobs, they also create a wider variety of jobs, across more flexible locations.

A just transition is the only way out of the multiple crises we face — the climate emergency, the collapse of life systems the world over, and growing political and social discontent. Over the past year, we have seen some argue that not only is nuclear the best way to “green” our economies, but we have also seen nuclear being framed as a technology that will be good for “workers”.

However, the publication by Dr Neil Overy and the Heinrich Böll Foundation, Neither Climate Nor Jobs: Nuclear Myths About the Just Transition, offers a comprehensive account of why nuclear will be detrimental to our collective capacity to transform our energy systems in a way that leaves no one behind — #LeaveNoOneBehind.

Here are six reasons why nuclear energy is spectacularly unfit to power a just transition, in a way that leaves no one behind:

1 Just transitions require stable electricity supplies in the face of extreme weather. It is widely claimed that nuclear power is reliable but, over the past five years, French nuclear power plants have had to shut down for up to 7,000 hours due to climate events. In fact, nuclear energy’s reliance on water for cooling makes it particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The causes for these have ranged from floods to droughts and dramatic temperature increases. Earlier this year, we saw that in the Texas snowstorm, nuclear plants had to be shut down because water in pump stations froze.

It is also argued that a green energy system would require nuclear for “baseload”, but technology has moved far beyond this. It is outdated thinking such as this that keeps us from doing what must be done to keep temperatures below 1.5°C, even though it has been shown that smart grids can draw from a mix of renewable energy sources to provide a constant energy supply.

2 Even in the unlikely case that nuclear power stations are in locations that are not affected by temperature changes, storms, sea level rise or water scarcity, the lengthy time lag between planning to operation of new plants (a decade in the best cases, which are the exception rather than the rule) means that new nuclear will be of little help in mitigating emissions in the crucial decade leading up to 2030. In comparison, utility-scale solar and wind plants are completed on average in around half the time — two to three years from planning to operation.

There will be no just transition if we fail to decarbonise in this decade, in the lead-up to 2030. The IPCC is clear that unless we cut emissions by half until 2030, we will miss the 1.5°C target. We all know that those most vulnerable to the climate emergency are those who are already marginalised and who we cannot afford to leave behind.

3 Even as a technology that could potentially reduce GHG emissions after 2030 compared to fossil fuels, nuclear costs are prohibitively expensive and make for anti-poor policies. Even before accounting for the nuclear waste management expenses, a new nuclear power plant costs about four times more than renewable utilities.

Such fantastic expenses mean that:

• Efforts to address and eliminate energy poverty will fail. In fact, energy poverty will most likely be exacerbated;
• Precious resources will be diverted from public services like health and education — services relied on, again, by those who we cannot leave behind;
• It will not be possible to make the investments required for a Just Transition — investments in skills development, industrial programmes, small business support programmes and a stronger social safety net — precisely when these will be needed most; and
• We have also seen how the exorbitant costs of nuclear crowd out investments in renewables.

4 All evidence shows that renewables create more jobs than nuclear. Depending on the technology and the job measurement, up to six times more. Moreover, not only do renewables create more jobs, they also create a wider variety of jobs, across more flexible locations. This means that job profiles are accessible to a wider array of people and can be located where they are needed most. And then, despite its enormous expense, the economic stimulus that nuclear creates is less than that created by renewables.

5 Even if we ignore all the above — cost, time, jobs, economic impact, supply reliability risks — nuclear energy still provides inferior environmental outcomes. The median carbon footprint of nuclear power is at least two to four times more than that of renewables — and that is still an underestimate. It also creates an intergenerational toxic waste crisis.

6 History shows us that the social and economic consequences of a serious accident occurring at a nuclear power station are devastating to both workers and society at large. Such outcomes can hardly be justified by the few jobs nuclear creates.

These last two points suggest that nuclear is spectacularly unfit to power a just transition. And not only will the jobs it creates go to a few highly skilled elites, nuclear energy’s economic stimuli will affect lesser industries and its costs will likely result in austerity policies.

Nuclear power is not, has never been, and will never become a viable means to generate electricity, especially within the context of the worsening climate emergency. It is obvious, via any metric, that renewable energy is a far better option if we are to meaningfully address carbon emissions to avert a climate catastrophe.

Renewables will do so while safeguarding decent livelihoods and rolling back inequality. DM

This article is based on Makoma Lekalakala’s speech at the COP26 launch of Dr Neil Overy’s report, Neither Climate Nor Jobs: Nuclear Myths About the Just Transition.

December 13, 2021 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, climate change | Leave a comment