THREAD (Nuclear in IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C)
When plotting all scenarios in the #SR15 database, it looks like nuclear may have a rosy future. But a closer look shows it is a more complex picture... 1/6
When plotting all scenarios in the #SR15 database, it looks like nuclear may have a rosy future. But a closer look shows it is a more complex picture... 1/6
Plotting the additional nuclear over the baseline scenario (scenario minus baseline) reveals:
* nuclear does not change much relative to the baseline in most scenarios
* nuclear has solid growth in some scenarios 2/6
* nuclear does not change much relative to the baseline in most scenarios
* nuclear has solid growth in some scenarios 2/6
It turns out that the scenarios with solid growth in nuclear come from two models GCAM & MESSAGE. Here are model & scenario combinations with highest nuclear growth (42 listed). This lifts the median & gives impression of a more positive future for nuclear. 3/
It has been argued that this is because most models have a limit on uranium supply @jpjmarti, & this may trump cost assumptions. (I have not looked into this). Figure shows uranium use relative to a 23Mt supply constraint across model. 4/6 passiiviidentiteetti.wordpress.com/2018/10/26/ipc…
This is a part of the problem with using scenario databases (& scenario analysis), as they are not a random sample of the scenario space. Some models are more representative of others, & scenario clouds do not reveal the nuances. 5/6
Does nuclear have a future in a 1.5°C or 2°C world? I don't know. It seems that models love expensive technologies like CCS & BECCS, so why not nuclear?
I am not trying to put a view for or against nuclear, just point out the obvious: everything depends on assumptions... 6/6
I am not trying to put a view for or against nuclear, just point out the obvious: everything depends on assumptions... 6/6
