In an address to the World Bank Group Executive Board, IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi criticized the disproportionate financial support for fossil fuels over nuclear energy by multilateral development banks. He emphasized the need for increased funding for nuclear projects to achieve global decarbonization, aligning with COP28 commitments to triple nuclear capacity by 2050. Grossi highlighted the IAEA's readiness to support countries, particularly in the developing world, in integrating nuclear power to meet climate goals.
This is not an argument. Good investment in any sector requires diversification.
The IPCC 1.5°C report published late in 2018 presents 89 mitigation scenarios in which nuclear generation grows on average 2.5 times from today’s level by 2050.
Besides the fact that no one predicts how much more renewables can scale, where prices will go, and whether they will be enough. All it takes is one war or a few more tariffs with China to screw up renewable-only decarbonization.
That's why it's important to diversify and not assume anything. If a source is green, it must be used.
Then it's curious how all the anti-nuclear people I argue with are from Germany. You have chosen your own path, don't come and impose your ideologies on others :)
As long as it’s your fiat, spend it however you want. Don’t come to the public coffers for a boondoggle though. We are rapidly approaching 1TW/year deployment rates of solar, and every time manufacturing capacity doubles, cost drops 20%.
You could replace all of the world's nuclear generation capacity (~370GW) with battery firmed solar in less time than it will take to build a single nuclear reactor (~10 years from shovels in the dirt to first kwh to the grid). Components in both the solar and batteries are mostly human safe compared to fission, and can be recycled using existing processes today. Australia, for example, has 10,000x the solar potential of its current electrical usage.
But I digress; I assume nuclear proponents will continue to beat the drum until the last nuclear generator is sunset. Solar is the ultimate democratization of energy, and we don't need PR puff pieces; we need the solar manufacturing and deployment flywheel to keep spinning up. Enough sunlight falls on the Earth in under an hour to power humanity for a year.
Diversity in energy sources is a good point but not strictly an argumemt for nuclear power.
You claim some hypothetical event with china to cross the plans of global low tech solar/wind energy but ignore the impact on constructions of nuclear power plants, which, as previous comment noted, take much longer to build.
> If a source is green, it must be used.
"Green" is a perfect propaganda pitch btw. The actual problems we try to solve are energy source and waste products. Nuclear energy looses on both aspects, which is why its much more expensive (also including risk/complexity).
IMO nuclear power became just another alternative narrative, like ivermectin, because right wingers cant deny covid or climate change anymore and cant bow to the other side.
You have weak arguments against renewable energy and none for nuclear yet you smell propaganda and ideology and dismiss a well sourced comment.
I am using your own arguments against you.
> Besides the fact that no one predicts how much more renewables[/nuclear] can scale [or last], where prices will go, and whether they will be enough. All it takes is one war or a few more tariffs with China to screw up renewable[/nuclear]-only decarbonization.
> You claim some hypothetical event with china to cross the plans of global low tech solar/wind energy but ignore the impact on constructions of nuclear power plants, which, as previous comment noted, take much longer to build.
Why should I respond to someone who proposes to build renewable in parallel, while omitting in the same sentence the possibility of building multiple reactors in parallel?
It's a rhetorical game that says enough about the user's goals. I do not intend to stoop to such a level.
> You claim some hypothetical event with china to cross the plans of global low tech solar/wind energy but ignore the impact on constructions of nuclear power plants.
I am not ignoring anything, I repeat, going only renewable implies not diversifying.
That a geopolitical problem could destroy decarbonization goals is a real risk. Or do you want to deny China's total monopoly in the industry?
No energy source is perfect, including nuclear and solar, so stop adding arguments just to overshadow the problems we're talking about.
> "Green" is a perfect propaganda pitch btw.
Well, we can define and use the word that you prefer.
By green I mean a technology whose emissions are low enough to help in decarbonization. Is it better?
Decarbonization is the main issue here.
> The actual problems we try to solve are energy source and waste products. Nuclear energy looses on both aspects, which is why its much more expensive (also including risk/complexity).
As I wrote earlier, the main problem is decarbonization. Secondary problems exist in any kind of energy source.
That the IPCC predicts nuclear growth in most scenarios is quite indicative of its relevance to decarbonization.
So nuclear power is important for decarbonization. And it has been shown over the decades to be a viable option for providing electricity with low emissions. Do you deny this?
Once we accept that, we can discuss how slow and expensive it is, but before then I don't see it possible to engage in an intellectually honest discourse :)
Well, technologically, maybe, but not in terms of location. Previous commenter called it "democratized".
> do you want to deny China's total monopoly in the industry?
No, but that could change. As china did, we can orient towards an electrical future too and there are generator designs without rare earth elements. So chinese dominance is not a given.
> By green I mean a technology whose emissions are low enough to help in decarbonization. Is it better?
I prefer the term "sustainable" and by framing it with energy sources and waste products i am giving you the higher order problem at hand.
> Decarbonization is the main issue
I disagree because my scope is broader. I agree with your statement that NE is "cleaner" than fossil based power plants for now, because as with carbon, its just a matter of scale too.
In an inverted scenario where nuclear waste is the main concern, i could, like you, argue in favor of fossil power.
The path ahead is quite clear, our focus should heavily be on renewables and only tolerate finite energy source as temporary in our transition strategy ... which is something you would deny, i guess.
> No, but that could change. As china did, we can orient towards an electrical future too and there are generator designs without rare earth elements. So chinese dominance is not a given.
True. But looking at the problems we are experiencing in the silicon world, a transition could bring a generalized crisis and quite a long time to return to "current" production levels. We're already struggling now with decarbonization, and China's is just one possible problem that we can't afford on the roadmap. So the priority should be to diversify to minimize these problems
> I prefer the term "sustainable" and by framing it with energy sources and waste products i am giving you the higher order problem at hand.
That's fine, but "sustainable" is a very subjective term. What is the threshold of sustainable? And I bet we have different views and different priorities.
> I disagree because my scope is broader. I agree with your statement that NE is "cleaner" than fossil based power plants for now, because as with carbon, its just a matter of scale too. In an inverted scenario where nuclear waste is the main concern, i could, like you, argue in favor of fossil power.
But somehow it seems contradictory to me in some places.
The materials and rare earths from which panels, wind blades and batteries are made are finite. Recyclable, but finished.
Uranium is recyclable from spent fuel, and renewable from the sea.
Then in addition to uranium other types of elements can be used such as fuel, Thorium, Plutonium, etc. (CANDU reactors for example can go with Thorium)
Also this basic argument seems a bit lacking to me, all these energy sources have a finite life, a panel a few decades, a power plant 60-80 years. When new more efficient ways to generate clean energy are discovered they will be used and replaced, we have this now, and it would be better to use them.
Plus, regarding the term "sustainable," and its subjectivity, I find it a priority to minimize the materials required. Because having billions of tons of waste to recycle, it's much harder to control, do it effectively, and in a sustainable way in every corner of the earth.
So I much prefer very small amounts of hazardous material (highly controlled and localized) over endless amounts of inorganic material everywhere.
Plastic, even for noble uses, has already demonstrated the worst of man's carelessness. So nice democratization, but one must also recognize its problems and limitations.
Regarding the word "democratization," however, I see a lot of propaganda in it. Whenever it's used it almost seems like people are naming a divine entity. And all kinds of issues, accountability, feasibility, etc. are omitted. And conversely, any kind of "centrality," is intrensically a problem. I really have a hard time seeing past something of the rhetoric of the "mighty and evil."
Isn't climate change supposed to cause more extreme weather? Seeing how renewables are very much reliant on weather conditions it seems best to diversify and have a clean energy source that won't be negatively impacted from the extremes.
I guess it depends on what you mean by impacted. Wind and solar are dependent on the wind and sunshine for producing something. But nuclear is highly dependent on steady supply of cooling water to function, and the failure case for extreme events (for example a large wave hitting Japan) is much worse.
Wind relies on wind and can be damaged with increased tornadoes and hurricanes and other storms. They also have to have their blades locked into place during strong enough winds.
Solar requires sunlight so increased storms, tornadoes, hurricanes, hail, etc can damage them and cause them to be less effective.
Hydro requires water so increased draughts will cause them to be less effective.
Nuclear requires cooling water which can be harder to deal with.
My point is that if you are expecting extreme weather it is best to diversify. I am not saying that nuclear will be immune to everything, only that it provides an alternative which we shouldn't ignore.
The possibility of failure should be contextualized with data. Gen 3 reactors are statistically orders of magnitude safer than any other power source, per GWh produced. Demonstrating how they are extremely safer than any other energy source.
> (for example a large wave hitting Japan) is much worse.
Mmh, like the 0-1 victims of Fukushima?
Nuclear power plants, just with Fukushima have demonstrated their tremendous reliability. We're talking about a 60-year-old reactor, which in the face of extreme conditions managed to minimize any kind of harm to humans.
Renewables aren’t a silver bullet they are made out to be. They are particularly bad for grid stability something that goes unmentioned in discussions.
Nuclear excels at that, both are needed. But pound for pound nuclear is just a better resource on most counts: land use area, energy density, stable generation and cost too if you factor in all the storage and power filters[1] that renewable needs.
Nuclear waste is a manageable problem if not for the fear mongering.
