If children are to live with the climate crisis, we must green the curriculum
If children are to live with the climate crisis, we must green the curriculum, Guardian, Meryl Batchelder,
It’s clear to me when I teach that sustainability and the environment should be a thread running through every subject
Thu 19 Aug 2021 ”……………….. With so much focus on children – the ones who will have to live with the coming ecological disaster – the role of education is key. This summer has seen unprecedented wildfires and floods. Pupils see scenes of biblical devastation on the news, but in many schools they are not being given the required information or context and this can lead to misunderstanding or anxiety.
……………. There is still no mention of the climate crisis in the national curriculum for England in primary schools, and in key stage 3 science very little of the curriculum relates to climate education. Incredibly, the last major update to the national geography curriculum for England in 2013 saw the then education secretary, Michael Gove, attempt to drop climate change.
………….. So what needs to change? We need a green curriculum that starts in early years and extends through all key stages. Properly taught, climate change education should be a thread through all subjects – not just science and geography – from the food miles of the ingredients we cook in food technology to debates on humanitarian issues such as mass migration in religious education or personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education.
Working in a state school means I am duty bound to teach lessons within the confines of the national curriculum. As far as this allows, I have sought to enrich my pupils’ learning with fieldwork, hands-on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) challenges and even gardening. But not every school has the resources or expertise to bring climate education into the classroom. Earlier this year, the climate education campaign group Teach the Future reported that seven in 10 UK teachers say they have not received adequate training to educate their students on the climate crisis……….. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/19/children-climate-crisis-green-curriculum-sustainability-environment—
Dungeness area in England set to go underwater as global heating continues
The Kent beaches set to be wiped out in 30 years because of climate
change. New data suggests that large parts of Kent could regularly fall
below sea level by the year 2050. The southern side of Kent looks to be
greatly impacted, with the entire Dungeness area to be underwater.
Kent Live 15th Aug 2021
https://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/kent-beaches-set-wiped-out-5789954
If nuclear power is adopted as the way ahead, the climate fight will be lost
We need to invest, and in terms of bangs per buck, we only have a certain amount, and nuclear eats up all the pies. Nuclear is so prohibitively expensive that it has the potential to undercut seriously our other more practical, economic, doable, viable climate response options.”
Climate change can be defeated. It can be defeated because this century has so far witnessed an extraordinary revolution in renewable energy and supporting technologies such as energy storage. As a new report from IRENA
pointed out,” The decade 2010 to 2020 saw renewable power generation becoming the default economic choice for new capacity.” So far this century, worldwide renewable power generation has increased three-fold.
Bear in mind that if in the year 2000 you had talked about the prospects of wind and solar, most experts would have laughed at you. This is because the costs back then were prohibitive. “Costs for electricity from utility-scale solar photovoltaics (PV) fell 85 per cent between 2010 and 2020,” states IRENA. That means the costs halved almost three times in a decade.
Of course, renewable cynics say that solar does not follow an exponential function, but if the price falls of the last decade and two decades can not be described by an exponential function, it is difficult to say what can. If we can rapidly move to net zero, we will create a staggering amount of wealth via more efficient use of energy, but if we
don’t do that, we will pay an enormous cost in terms of damage to the environment. there is a risk. If instead of renewables, we adopt nuclear, then the fight against climate change will be lost.
Paul Dorfman explained that nuclear is a very poor compliment to renewables. “Nuclear is very bad at ramping up and ramping down. So if the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow, you need something to switch on. Now nuclear doesn’t switch on. So the very last thing you need to support so-called intermittent renewables is nuclear.” He added, “
We need to invest, and in terms of bangs per buck, we only have a certain amount, and nuclear eats up all the pies. Nuclear is so prohibitively expensive that it has the potential to undercut seriously our other more practical, economic, doable, viable climate response options.”
Techopian 10th Aug 2021
https://www.techopian.com/climate-change-good-news-rubs-shoulders-with-the-bad-news/
Urgency of the IPCC climate report makes it clear that new nuclear is not the answer
The urgency of the IPCC report highlights the need to prioritise renewables and decentralised energy, and move away from new nuclear, says NFLA
Like many organisations, the UK and Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) reads the new report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with a sense of alarm, but also new motivation to highlight the urgency to reduce carbon emissions across the board.
The IPCC report published yesterday says there are no scenarios where a 1.5 degrees Celsius increase in temperature in the world will now not be avoided, meaning some of the negative challenges of climate change will take place. This is now largely and almost entirely due to the actions of humanity in neglecting to reduce carbon emissions over previous decades, and not moving away from fossil fuels sooner.
In its analysis of the IPCC report, BBC Environment Correspondent Matt McGrath notes (1):
- Climate change is widespread, rapid and intensifying due to human actions (and inaction in preventing it).
- Extreme heat events, like that taking place presently across southern Europe, North America and northern Russia, will become more frequent.
- The 1.5C global temperature increase limit is now on ‘life support’. Keeping temperatures under this level was a key 2050 target, but the IPCC suggests the world will hit it possibly as early as 2030. The IPCC has previously said there are great advantages of staying under the 1.5C limit compared to a 2C temperature increase. To do that, it argued carbon emissions would need to be cut in half by 2030 and net zero emissions reached by 2050. Otherwise, the limit would be reached between 2030 and 2052.
- Under all likely scenarios, global sea levels will rise. The IPCC report shows that under current scenarios, the seas could rise above the likely range, going up to 2m by the end of this century and up to 5m by 2150. While these are unlikely figures, they cannot be ruled out under a very high greenhouse gas emissions scenario.
- There will be an increase in extreme rainfall, creating the types of serious flooding recently seen in the likes of Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands.
The core message of the IPCC report is the huge urgency in getting carbon emissions down as quickly as possible. For example, it notes the need to reduce methane emissions from oil, gas, agriculture and rice cultivation should be a core priority for all governments……………
For NFLA as well, the urgency of this report should now preclude the obsession from the UK Government to deliver new nuclear. It is in this decade when large carbon reduction is required, whilst any new nuclear development will be unlikely to be making any great impression until the 2030s at the very earliest. The billions being suggested to either bail out Hinkley Point C or back Sizewell C, or fund Rolls Royce’s ‘small’ modular nuclear reactor programme, would now be far better directed towards the cheaper, cleaner and more easily realisable renewable and energy efficiency programmes.
The IPCC report tells all of us to get real. NFLA agree. Our reports on best practice in delivering local decentralised energy solutions in carbon reduction show a positive way forward. (2) Our reports showing the heavy costs and technical challenges of new nuclear, as well as of the huge decommissioning and radioactive waste management costs of our existing nuclear legacy, emphasise as well that nuclear is not part of the solution to deliver a net zero response by 2050. (3) It is high time for radical change, and most Councils are ready for it – now it needs central government to respond to this highly alarming IPCC report………..
It is also clear to me and the NFLA that new nuclear is not the answer to this urgent emergency – it takes too long, costs too much and the existing nuclear legacy needs to be dealt with, not creating more radioactive waste that we still do not know what to do with. ,,,,NFLA UK & Ireland Steering Committee Chair Councillor David Blackburn ………… https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/urgency-ipcc-report-highlights-need-prioritise-renewables-and-decentralised-energy-move-away-from-new-nuclear/
NO SUPPORT for NUCLEAR in the new report from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC).
10 Aug 21, The report is comprehensive on the present and future impacts of global heating, and on what needs to be done. But nuclear power as a method for action is not included.
Indeed, nuclear power is barely mentioned, and when it is, its negative effects on climate and environment are mentioned.
Page 236 line 39 – “Radioactive fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing (1940s–1950s) and urban smog (1950s– 1960s) first provoked widespread attention to anthropogenic aerosols and ozone in the troposphere”
Page 261 – reference to nuclear war and volcanic eruptions
Page 309 – another reference to impacts of nuclear weapons
Page 971 – line 23 – reference to a nuclear holocaust – in reference to future uncertainties
Page 1380 – line 33 discussion on 14C released from nuclear weapons uptake into the ocean
Page 3161 – line 15 – 17 “Thermal and nuclear electricity plants may be challenged when using warmer river waters for cooling or when mixing waste waters back into waterways without causing ecosystem impacts (Kopytko and Perkins, 2011; van Vliet et al., 2016; Tobin et al., 2018)
Why the nuclear lobby spruiks about climate change (when they really couldn’t care less) – theme for August 2021
It’s a breathtaking hypocrisy, in this month when we remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki – but the real purpose for new ”advanced”nuclear technology is simply support for nuclear weapons. ”Small nuclear reactors” have no hope of affecting global heating – quite the reverse – as they take funding and human energy away from genuine solutions.
Why does the nuclear lobby bang on about climate change?
Simply in order to get tax breaks and other financial incentives that go with being accepted as ”green” and ”sustainable”
This is why the nuclear industry, IAEA, and all the associated bodies and governments are bent on convincing everybody that the goal of nuclear power is to fight climate change.
The journalists buy their arguments, because those arguments are cleverly dressed up in technicaljargon – avoiding discussion of matters that journalists might understand better, (such as the costs, waste disposal problems, environmental and health impacts)
The essential connection with nuclear weapons is obscured, making everybody involved feel better.
Fire, floods ravage Russia, threaten nuclear research site
Fire, floods ravage Russia, threaten nuclear research site https://www.dailysabah.com/world/europe/fire-floods-ravage-russia-threaten-nuclear-research-site, BY GERMAN PRESS AGENCY – DPA MOSCOW EUROPE AUG 08, 2021 AAfter reports of over 250 fires ravaging through Russia, blazes now threaten a nuclear research center in the city of Sarov, prompting a state of emergency, officials said on Sunday.
The danger level was boosted as fires near Nizhny Novgorod are spreading and the change in status makes it easier to mobilize extra firefighting forces, according to city officials.
But it is only one of 250 fires Russia is currently trying to extinguish throughout the country. The Siberian region of Sakha, in the country’s northeast, has been hit particularly hard. Dozens of houses have burned down and residents have been evacuated to safety.
Meanwhile, state TV showed images of cities in the Irkutsk and Krasnoyarsk regions enveloped in smoke.
Authorities said that, nationwide, about 3.5 million hectares are burning – about the combined area of Serbia and Montenegro. Weather experts and Greenpeace spoke of the worst fires in the history of Russian record keeping.
On the flip side, emergency crews in the Amur region, which borders China, are battling floods after heavy rainfalls. About 80 kilometers (about 50 miles) of streets and six bridges are underwater, with about 24 communities cut off from the outside world due to flooding along the Amur River said the regional transportation minister, Alexander Selenin.
Towards a clean and sustainable energy system: 26 criteria nuclear power does not meet
Towards a clean and sustainable energy system: 26 criteria nuclear power does not meet https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/22/towards-clean-and-sustainable-energy-system-26-criteria-nuclear-power-does-not-meet
By Jan HaverkampRead our dossier “Nuclear Power in Europe: 35 Years After the Chernobyl Disaster“. Nuclear energy has been brought back into the European energy debate due to populist power. Currently, a complex debate is taking place within the EU about whether nuclear power should be part of the Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities. Nuclear energy does not meet a number of basic criteria that should be a requirement of technologies in a sustainable energy policy. It only became clear slowly after the introduction of the first nuclear power plants that nuclear energy does not meet these criteria. In the 1970s, however, this crystallised in a thorough nuclear energy critique on a technical, economic, social and political level. Over the last 50 years, the nuclear industry has not been able to overcome these problems. Certain ways of approaching them have changed, however: some risks have been counteracted by dint of expensive safety and security measures, so that the problem has shifted partly, but still not sufficiently, from risk to costs.
It is currently argued that we should keep existing nuclear power plants open longer to prevent a further exacerbation of the climate problem. It is also argued that we need to build new nuclear power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Work is currently underway on a few dozen new nuclear power plant designs that, according to protagonists of nuclear energy, should meet the criteria for a sustainable energy supply. However, these designs have not yet proven their worth in practice.
To determine whether nuclear energy can, or even should, play a role in future energy policy, it must fulfil basic criteria of sustainability.
Product detailsDate of Publication April 2021Publisher Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European UnionNumber of Pages 34Licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0Language of publication EnglishTable of contents
Introduction
Sustainability criteria that nuclear energy does not meet
A. Technical criteria
B. Economic criteria
C. Social and political criteria
Apocalyptic scenes hit Greece, as Athens besieged by fire
Little had prepared any of us on the Athens-bound flight for the sight of
the great fire-induced clouds that swept either side of the plane as it
made its descent on Friday. News of the extreme heat engulfing Greece had
spread beyond its borders all week, packaged in increasingly desperate
language.
Temperatures were breaking records few had ever imagined. If
Monday was bad, then Tuesday was worse. In some parts of the country, the
mercury had hit 47C (117F), with thermal cameras on drones recording the
ground temperature in downtown Athens at 55C.
By Wednesday, we were hearing
that entire tracts of suburban forest on the Greek capital’s northern
fringes had gone up in flames. Infernos seemingly redolent of Dante’s
hell had incinerated everything in their path; friends had lost homes;
thousands had been evacuated with residents and tourists fleeing blighted
zones by any means possible. Terraces, an Athenian’s respite against the
blazing heat, had been transformed into ash-laden no-go zones.
Guardian 7th Aug 2021
The world is getting “dangerously close” to running out of time to avert catastrophic climate change
The world is getting “dangerously close” to running out of time to avert catastrophic climate change, Cop26 President Alok Sharma has said. Mr Sharma – who is tasked with making a success of the upcoming climate talks in Glasgow – said failing to limit warming to 1.5C would be “catastrophic”.
In an interview with the Guardian, Mr Sharma said a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, due to be published on Monday, would be the “starkest warning yet” about what the future could hold. “You’re seeing on a daily basis what is happening across the world. Last year was the hottest on record, the last decade the hottest decade on record,” he said. He said Cop26 “has to be the moment we get this right”, adding: “We can’t afford to wait two years, five years, 10 years – this is the moment.”
Telegraph 8th Aug 2021
More Nuclear Power Isn’t Needed, So Why Do Governments Keep Hyping it?
the claim that the ‘latest nuclear technology will be up and running within the next decade’ is unconvincing.”
That’s a problem, given that Britain needs to reduce its emissions 78% by 2035 to stay on track with the Paris Agreement.
Indeed, according to the independent World Nuclear Industry Status Report, nuclear energy “meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster.”
The U.S. and France have openly acknowledged this military rationale for new civil nuclear build,” he told me. “U.K. defense literature is also very clear on the same point.
More Nuclear Power Isn’t Needed. So Why Do Governments Keep Hyping It?, Forbes, David Vetter 6 Aug 21,
.. …….Prime Minister Boris Johnson has consistently backed the development of “small and advanced reactors,” while last week the country’s Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, stated: “While renewables like wind and solar will become an integral part of where our electricity will come from by 2050, they will always require a stable low-carbon baseload from nuclear.”
This pronouncement, offered as a statement of fact, left some observers scratching their heads: here was a U.K. government minister claiming renewables would always require nuclear power to function. Was this true? And why do politicians like to use the word “baseload,” anyway?
………. many experts, including Steve Holliday, the former CEO of the U.K. National Grid, say that [the baseload] notion is outdated. In a 2015 interview Holliday trashed the concept of baseload, arguing that in a modern, decentralized electricity system, the usefulness of large power stations had been reduced to coping with peaks in demand.
But even for that purpose, Sarah J. Darby, associate professor of the energy program at the University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute, told me, nuclear isn’t of much use. “Nuclear stations are particularly unsuited to meeting peak demand: they are so expensive to build that it makes no sense to use them only for short periods of time,” she explained. “Even if it were easy to adjust their output flexibly—which it isn’t—there doesn’t appear to be any business case for nuclear, whether large, small, ‘advanced’ or otherwise.”
In a white paper published in June, a team of researchers at Imperial College London revealed that the quickest and cheapest way to meet Britain’s energy needs by 2035 would be to drastically ramp up the building of wind farms and energy storage, such as batteries. “If solar and/or nuclear become substantially cheaper then one should build more, but there is no reason to build more nuclear just because it is ‘firm’ or ‘baseload,’” Tim Green, co-director of Imperial’s Energy Future Lab told me. “Storage, demand-side response and international interconnection can all be used to manage the variability of wind.”
Another vital issue concerns time. Owing to the well-documented safety and environmental concerns surrounding ionizing radiation, planning and building even a small nuclear reactor takes many years. In 2007, Britain’s large Hinkley Point C nuclear power station was predicted to be up and running by 2017. “Estimated completion date is now 2026,” Darby noted. “And Hinkley C was using established technology. Given the nuclear industry’s record of time delays and overspends, the claim that the ‘latest nuclear technology will be up and running within the next decade’ is unconvincing.”
That’s a problem, given that Britain needs to reduce its emissions 78% by 2035 to stay on track with the Paris Agreement.
Indeed, according to the independent World Nuclear Industry Status Report, nuclear energy “meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster.”
So if there isn’t a need for more nuclear power, and it’s too expensive and slow to do the job its proponents are saying it will do, why is the government so keen to back it?
Andy Stirling, professor of science and technology policy at the University of Sussex, is convinced that the pressure to support nuclear power comes from another U.K. commitment: defense. More specifically, the country’s fleet of nuclear submarines.
The U.S. and France have openly acknowledged this military rationale for new civil nuclear build,” he told me. “U.K. defense literature is also very clear on the same point. Sustaining civil nuclear power despite its high costs, helps channel taxpayer and consumer revenues into a shared infrastructure, without which support, military nuclear activities would become prohibitively expensive on their own.”
This is no conspiracy theory. In 2018, Stirling and his colleague Philip Johnstone published the findings of their research into “interdependencies between civil and military nuclear infrastructures” in countries with nuclear capability. In the U.S., a 2017 report from the Energy Futures Initiative, which includes testimony from former U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz in 2017, states: “a strong domestic supply chain is needed to provide for nuclear Navy requirements. This supply chain has an inherent and very strong overlap with the commercial nuclear energy sector and has a strong presence in states with commercial nuclear power plants”
In the U.K., bodies including the Nuclear Industry Council, a joint forum between the nuclear industry and the government, have explicitly highlighted the overlap between the need for a civil nuclear sector and the country’s submarine programs. And this week, Rolls-Royce, which builds the propulsion systems for the country’s nuclear submarines, announced it had secured some $292 million in funding to develop small modular reactors of the type touted by the Prime Minister.
In Stirling’s view, these relationships help to explain “the otherwise serious conundrum, as to why official support should continue for civil nuclear new build at a time when the energy case has become so transparently weak.”
Stirling and other experts say the energy case for nuclear is weak because there are better, cheaper and quicker alternatives that are readily available.
“When there is too little wind and solar, zero emissions generators which can flexibly and rapidly increase their output are needed,” said Mark Barrett, professor of energy and environmental systems modelling at University College London. “These can be renewables, such as biogas, or generators using fuels made with renewables such as hydrogen. But unlike nuclear, these can be turned off when wind and solar are adequate.”
Indeed, Barrett pointed out, renewables are becoming so cheap that energy surpluses won’t necessarily be that big a deal.
Renewable costs have fallen 60-80% in the last decade with more to come, such that it is lower cost to spill some renewable generation than store it, and predominantly renewable systems are lower cost than nuclear. Renewables can be rapidly built: U.K. wind has increased to 24% of total generation, mostly in just 10 years. And of course renewables do not engender safety and waste problems.”
Sarah Darby agreed, saying “a mix of energy efficiency, storage and more flexible demand shows much more promise for reducing carbon emissions overall and for coping with peaks and troughs in electricity supply.”
“The U.K. market for flexibility services is already delivering effective firm-equivalent capacity on the scale of a large nuclear reactor per year, at costs that are a small fraction of the costs of nuclear power,” Stirling told me. “With costs of flexibility diminishing radically—in batteries, other storage, electric vehicles, responsive demand, hydrogen production—the scope for further future cost savings is massive.”
“There is no foreseeable resource constraint on renewables or smart grids that makes the case for nuclear anywhere near credible,” he added. “That the U.K. Government is finding itself able to sustain such a manifestly flawed case, with so little serious questioning, is a major problem for U.K. democracy.”
In the U.K., both the incumbent Conservative party and the main opposition party, Labour, support the development of new and advanced nuclear power reactors. In an emailed response to questions for the U.K. government’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, a government spokesperson categorically denied any link between the civil nuclear sector and the defense industry……..
I contacted the office of Labour’s shadow secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy Edward Miliband for comment, but no response has been forthcoming……..https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2021/08/06/more-nuclear-power-isnt-needed-so-why-do-governments-keep-hyping-it/?sh=285eb017ddda
Study reveals an increase in the frequency of nuclear power outages caused by climate change
Study reveals an increase in the frequency of nuclear power outages caused by climate change https://techxplore.com/news/2021-08-reveals-frequency-nuclear-power-outages.html
by Ingrid Fadelli , Tech Xplore AUGUST 6, 2021
Past research suggests that climate change and energy systems have a bidirectional relationship. In other words, just like emissions from energy systems can fuel climate change, climate change could also expose the vulnerabilities or shortcomings of energy systems.
For instance, climate change could adversely impact the operation of critical energy systems and infrastructure, potentially disrupting the provision of electricity. While nuclear power plants (NPPs) could be a viable solution for generating low-carbon electricity, the operation of these plants is susceptible to climate change and to the extreme weather conditions resulting from it.
Ali Ahmad, a researcher at Harvard University, recently carried out a study investigating the possible effects of climate change on NPPs. His paper, published in Nature Energy, specifically assessed whether climatic changes over the past three decades impacted the frequency of nuclear power outages.
“With more than three decades of data on changing climate, we are now in a position to empirically assess the impact of climate change on power plant operations,” Ahmad wrote in his paper. “Such empirical assessments can provide an additional measure of the resilience of power plants going forward. Here I analyze climate-linked outages in nuclear power plants over the past three decades.”
Compared to other power plants, such as those based on fossil fuels and biomass, NPPs require stricter safety regulations. Moreover, after an unplanned outage, nuclear reactors need to undergo a series of tests and analyses aimed at identifying the issue, thus it can take a while before they are started again.
Understanding the extent to which climate change can impact the functioning of NPPs is thus of vital importance, as it could inspire the development of strategies to mitigate these climate-related effects. In his paper, Ahmad examined the frequency of climate-linked nuclear power outages over the past three decades or so.
Overall, he found that NPP outages caused by climatic events have become increasingly more frequent in the past few decades. Many of these outages were induced by changes in climate, while others were a result of natural disasters such as earthquakes or tsunamis. Ahmad screened available data to only focus on outages associated with climate change.
“My assessment shows that the average frequency of climate-induced disruptions has dramatically increased from 0.2 outage per reactor-year in the 1990s to 1.5 in the past decades,” Ahmad wrote in his paper. “Based on the projections for adopted climate scenarios, the average annual energy loss of the global nuclear fleet is estimated to range between 0.8% and 1.4% in the mid-term (2046-2065) and 1.4% and 2.4% in the long term (2081-2100).”
As many researchers have been highlighting the value of nuclear power as a means to slow down and mitigate climate change, understanding the effects of climatic changes and global warming on NPPs before humans start heavily relying on them is of great importance. Ahmad’s recent analyses demonstrate that the operation of NPPs was significantly disrupted by changes in climate over the past decades. In the future, the results of his study could help to create more realistic economic and nuclear energy models that take climate-associated risks into consideration.
The impact of climate change on nuclear reactors should be a key part of COP26 Climate Summit
the UK’s coastal nuclear power stations are vulnerable to sea-level rise, storm surges and flooding of reactor and spent fuel stores – and soon
In other words, action to address the impact of climate change on nuclear energy should be a key part of the United Nation’s Cop26 climate summit.
Climate change: Why nuclear power isn’t part of the solution to this global crisis – Dr Paul Dorfman https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/climate-change-why-nuclear-power-isnt-part-of-the-solution-to-this-global-crisis-dr-paul-dorfman-3328894
Over the past few weeks, the intensity and scale of the floods from slow-moving storms have broken records, and climate models are running hot.By Paul Dorfman
Monday, 2nd August 2021 This has prompted some to champion nuclear power as a source of lower-carbon electricity. But this newfound USP needs to be considered within the bigger picture because UK coastal nuclear power stations will be one of the first, and most significant, casualties to ramping climate impact. Put simply, nuclear is quite literally on the front-line of climate change – and not in a good way.
This has prompted some to champion nuclear power as a source of lower-carbon electricity. But this newfound USP needs to be considered within the bigger picture because UK coastal nuclear power stations will be one of the first, and most significant, casualties to ramping climate impact. Put simply, nuclear is quite literally on the front-line of climate change – and not in a good way.
All recent scientific data points to ramping sea-levels, faster, harder, more destructive storms and storm surges – inevitably bringing into question the operational safety, security and viability of UK coastal nuclear infrastructure.
Not normally given to exaggeration, the Institute of Mechanical Engineers says we may have to ‘up sticks’, relocate or abandon nuclear sites. This will cost. Trying to defend coastal nuclear means significantly increased expense for nuclear operation, waste management, and the 100-year-plus programme to decontaminate the UK’s 17 old nuclear reactors.
For nuclear to be practical, reactors have to be built economically, efficiently and on time. But practical experience says otherwise. EDF’s flagship EPR reactor is vastly over-cost and over-time at the two sites where it’s being built, at Olkiluoto in Finland and Flamanville in France.
Problems include poor concrete, bad welding and a faulty reactor pressure vessel – the main safety component. Things were supposed to have gone better in China, until last month’s nuclear fuel debacle demonstrated their inadequate safety oversight.
As for nuclear fusion, for the last 60 years proponents have said the technology will be ready in 20 years’ time – so perhaps this is an experiment to prove that time doesn’t exist in modern nuclear physics.
The reality is nuclear is a high-risk option. And this plays out in real time. Worldwide, nuclear is in stark decline and renewables are rising. The obvious explanation is the ramping costs of the former and the plummeting costs of the latter. So, not all lower carbon options are equal, benign or effective – and there are choices to be made.
Happily, big finance is at a tipping point as key global debt and equity investors pour record capital into renewables. With wind and solar power capacity growing at a record rate, the International Energy Agency predicts that renewables will supply 90 per cent of global electric power by 2050.
In Europe, renewables overtook fossil fuels to become the EU’s main source of electricity for the first time in 2020. Perhaps because it’s 50 per cent cheaper to generate electricity from renewables compared with fossil fuel-powered plants, the EU will increase renewables share in the total energy mix to 40 per cent by 2030.
OK, running an integrated renewable energy system will mean not just more wind and solar, but also a power network that ensures a balance of supply and demand at all times.
So it’s reassuring that power supply in nuclear-free Germany, the strongest economy in Europe, is one of the most reliable in the world, with government and grid operators confident that it will stay this way. In its last session before the summer recess, the German parliament brought forward the deadline for achieving climate neutrality by five years to 2045.
Here in Scotland, BP plans to invest £10 billion to make Aberdeen a global hub for offshore wind. Meanwhile Shell and Scottish Power are developing the world’s first large-scale floating offshore windfarms in the north-east of Scotland. And a very recent report by Imperial University says a massive expansion of offshore wind to 108 gigawatt will drive new power in the UK.
There are no resounding new revelations about the vulnerability of nuclear power to natural disasters, human or engineering faults, accidental or deliberate harm. Accidents are, by nature, accidental, and we’ve learned the cost of ignoring this common-sense axiom.
The fact is, the UK’s coastal nuclear power stations are vulnerable to sea-level rise, storm surges and flooding of reactor and spent fuel stores – and soon. This means that nuclear flood risk based on ‘all case scenarios’ must be published and regularly updated as climate science evolves, including costings and a range of contingency plans for the swift onset of climate-driven severe weather.
In other words, action to address the impact of climate change on nuclear energy should be a key part of the United Nation’s Cop26 climate summit.
It’s time to think constructively. We need to secure clean, safe, affordable, sustainable, low-carbon energy to power industry, transport, homes and businesses.
Our energy transition will involve the expansion of renewable energy in all sectors, rapid growth and modernisation of the electricity grid, energy conservation and efficiency, rapidly evolving storage technology, market innovations from supply to service provision, and transport restructure.
Nuclear sucks funds and vital political attention from this imperative zero-carbon investment. It displaces renewables on the grid and diverts essential research. The ramping costs of new nuclear compromises better, flexible, safe, productive, cost-effective and affordable technologies – and comes at a time when the development of renewable, sustainable and affordable low-carbon energy is a growing economic sector with a huge potential for jobs.
In bidding a long goodbye to fossil fuels, we’re also saying farewell to nuclear, that quintessentially mid-20th century technology – and not before time. Nuclear just can’t compete with the technological, economic, safety and security advantages of the renewable evolution.
Nuclear is an out-dated technology – a tired non-starter in the 21st century. We can do better.
Dr Paul Dorfman, of the UCL Energy Institute, University College London, is founder and chair of the Nuclear Consulting Group
Degrowth: the necessary climate solution no-one is talking about
The Necessary Climate Solution No-one is Talking About https://www.tasmaniantimes.com/2021/08/degrowth-necessary-climate-solution-no-one-is-talking-about/ Erin Remblance 1 Aug 21,
For all the talk of renewable energy, electric vehicles and plant-based diets, there’s a gaping hole in the way we’re trying to solve accelerating climate change.
We will not stay below 2°C of warming while pursuing economic growth – yet barely anyone talks about it.
Since the end of World War II Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth has been the metric of human prosperity in Western nations – the idea being that if the productivity of the economy increases so will the wellbeing of the people within that economy. And for a while that was the case – but since the 1970’s increases in GDP have, on average, failed to translate into increases in wellbeing and happiness.
It is not surprising. Research has shown that once a certain GDP threshold, or level of wellbeing, has been met people gain little from consuming more ‘stuff’ – a necessary requirement for continuous GDP growth.
Robert F Kennedy eloquently summed up the inadequacy of GDP as a metric of wellbeing at a speech he gave in 1968:t]
The gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.
It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.
What’s more, GDP has never been, and can’t be, decoupled from material footprint, including energy[i]. This means we cannot roll out renewable energy fast enough to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement – to keep warming below 2°C – if we continue growing our economy.
Three percent growth every year for the rest of this decade is 30% growth by 2030. Achieving a 75% reduction on 2005 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 is a Herculean effort already, let alone if the economy is 30% bigger by that time. And surely, given the urgency with which we must decarbonise, reducing energy demand must be a part of the mix, even if it means reducing GDP?
There are nearly 8 billion people in the world today – but they haven’t all contributed equally to the climate crisis. Between 1990 and 2015 the world’s wealthiest 1% were responsible for double the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the poorest 50%. Over that same period, the wealthiest 10% of the world’s population were responsible for 52% of the world’s GHG emissions, while the poorest 50% were responsible for only 7% of the world’s GHG emissions.
Degrowing our economy to fit back within the planetary boundaries will also allow people living below satisfactory standards of human wellbeing to improve their living conditions. Data from 2016 showed that 940 million people still didn’t have access to electricity, and 3 billion people didn’t have access to clean fuels for cooking. These people don’t even own a washing machine, let alone a car and they certainly aren’t flying anywhere. Degrowth is not only necessary to solve the climate crisis, it’s the only way to address widening inequality across the globe.
For all the talk of renewable energy, electric vehicles and plant-based diets, there’s a gaping hole in the way we’re trying to solve accelerating climate change.
We will not stay below 2°C of warming while pursuing economic growth – yet barely anyone talks about it.
Since the end of World War II Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth has been the metric of human prosperity in Western nations – the idea being that if the productivity of the economy increases so will the wellbeing of the people within that economy. And for a while that was the case – but since the 1970’s increases in GDP have, on average, failed to translate into increases in wellbeing and happiness.
It is not surprising. Research has shown that once a certain GDP threshold, or level of wellbeing, has been met people gain little from consuming more ‘stuff’ – a necessary requirement for continuous GDP growth.
Robert F Kennedy eloquently summed up the inadequacy of GDP as a metric of wellbeing at a speech he gave in 1968:t]he gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.
It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.
What’s more, GDP has never been, and can’t be, decoupled from material footprint, including energy[i]. This means we cannot roll out renewable energy fast enough to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement – to keep warming below 2°C – if we continue growing our economy.
Three percent growth every year for the rest of this decade is 30% growth by 2030. Achieving a 75% reduction on 2005 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 is a Herculean effort already, let alone if the economy is 30% bigger by that time. And surely, given the urgency with which we must decarbonise, reducing energy demand must be a part of the mix, even if it means reducing GDP?
There are nearly 8 billion people in the world today – but they haven’t all contributed equally to the climate crisis. Between 1990 and 2015 the world’s wealthiest 1% were responsible for double the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the poorest 50%. Over that same period, the wealthiest 10% of the world’s population were responsible for 52% of the world’s GHG emissions, while the poorest 50% were responsible for only 7% of the world’s GHG emissions.
Degrowing our economy to fit back within the planetary boundaries will also allow people living below satisfactory standards of human wellbeing to improve their living conditions. Data from 2016 showed that 940 million people still didn’t have access to electricity, and 3 billion people didn’t have access to clean fuels for cooking. These people don’t even own a washing machine, let alone a car and they certainly aren’t flying anywhere. Degrowth is not only necessary to solve the climate crisis, it’s the only way to address widening inequality across the globe.
What could life in a degrowth economy look like? It would involve shorter working weeks and less commuting, giving us more time to do things we enjoy. Less individual ownership and more sharing. Less debt and more services provided by the government. A focus on community and connection rather than individualism and perpetually trying to find happiness through our next purchase, holiday or experience.In a degrowth economy environmentally destructive and resource intensive industries would be scaled back, and more people would be working in jobs that benefited one another and the planet, putting more meaning and purpose into our lives.
We would value different things in a degrowth economy and define success differently. A degrowth economy does not need to mean a degrowth lifestyle, indeed we could be richer for it.
It’s probably tempting to define a ‘degrowth’ economy as socialism, but it’s a false binary that an economic system is either capitalism or socialism. All economies are a mix of both, often with other bits of ‘isms’ thrown in for good measure. Let’s use our imaginations and contemplate what life could look like if we focused on the things that really matter, and not simply the amount of growth in our economy.
In the end, the economy is a man-made construct. It can be changed. The laws of nature, however, cannot. It would be tragic to look back and think we gave it all up because we weren’t brave enough to challenge the insane notion of endless growth on a finite planet with the urgency it deserves.
[i] Chart page 102, Less is More, Jason Hickel Global GDP & Material Footprint.
Erin Remblance is a mother-of-three who works in carbon reduction, is a climate activist and is studying wellbeing economies.
Small nuclear reactors, a dangerous experiment, and distraction from real climate action – David Suzuki
Renewables cost less than nuclear, come with fewer health, environmental and weapons-proliferation risks and have been successfully deployed worldwide.
Given rapid advances in energy, grid and storage technologies, along with the absolute urgency of the climate crisis, pursuing nuclear at the expense of renewables is costly, dangerous and unnecessary.
Is smaller better when it comes to nuclear? Pique, By: David Suzuki 1 Aug 21, Nuclear power hasn’t been in the news much since the 2011 Fukushima meltdown in Japan. Thanks to a push by industry and governments, you might soon hear more about how nuclear reactors are now safer and better.
Specifically, the conversation has shifted to “small modular nuclear reactors” or SMNRs, which generate less than 300 megawatts of electricity, compared to up to 1,600 MWe for large reactors.
Some of the 100 or so designs being considered include integral pressurized water reactors, molten salt reactors, high-temperature gas reactors, liquid metal cooled reactors and solid state or heat pipe reactors. To date, the industry is stuck at the prototype stage for all models and none is truly modular in the sense of being manufactured several at a time—an impediment considering the speed at which global heating is worsening.
The benefits touted by industry have convinced many countries, including Canada, to gamble huge sums on nuclear, despite the poor odds. The Small Modular Reactor Action Plan hypes it as the possible “future of Canada’s nuclear industry, with the potential to provide non-emitting energy for a wide range of applications, from grid-scale electricity generation to use in heavy industry and remote communities.” ………
given the seriousness of the climate emergency and the various options for transforming our energy systems to combat it, is nuclear—regardless of size or shape—the way to go? We must rapidly reduce emissions now, and we have readily available technologies to do so.
New nuclear doesn’t make practical or economic sense for now. Building reactors will remain expensive and time-consuming. Studies estimate electricity from small nuclear can cost from four to 10 times that of wind and solar, whose costs continue to drop. SMNRs will require substantial government subsidies.
Even when nuclear has to compete against renewables prepackaged with storage, the latter wins out.
One recent study of 123 countries over 25 years published in Nature Energy found that renewables are much better at reducing greenhouse gas emissions than nuclear—whose benefits in this area are negligible—and that combining nuclear and renewables creates a systemic tension that makes it harder to develop renewables to their potential.
Like all nuclear reactors, SMNRs produce radioactive waste and contribute to increased nuclear weapons proliferation risk—and Canada still has no effective strategy for waste. Nuclear power also requires enormous amounts of water.
Corporate interests often favour large, easily monopolized utilities, arguing that only major fossil fuel, nuclear or hydro power facilities can provide large-scale “baseload” power. But many experts argue the “baseload myth” is baseless—that a flexible system using renewables combined with investments in energy efficiency and a smart grid that helps smooth out demand peaks is far more efficient and cost-effective, especially as energy storage technologies improve.
Even for remote populations, energy systems that empower communities, households, businesses and organizations to generate and store their own energy with solar panels or wind installations and batteries, for example, and technologies like heat-exchange systems for buildings, would be better than nuclear.
Renewables cost less than nuclear, come with fewer health, environmental and weapons-proliferation risks and have been successfully deployed worldwide. Given rapid advances in energy, grid and storage technologies, along with the absolute urgency of the climate crisis, pursuing nuclear at the expense of renewables is costly, dangerous and unnecessary.
David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Writer and Editor Ian Hanington. https://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/opinion/opinion-is-smaller-better-when-it-comes-to-nuclear-4175458
1 This Month
26 April – Chernobyl: Inside the Meltdown airs on National Geographic on Sunday 26th April from 4pm
29 April – Nuclear Expert Webinar #1 – Radiation Impacts on Families with Mary Olson and Cindy Folkers
- 12:15 PM MT – 1:45 PM MT
- Location: Virtual – REGISTER TODAY
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (317)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 