Thread by @e_Sundell

Keeping updated with relevant scientific findings isn't easy. In this thread I'll provide digestible science summaries regarding climate and energy.

@Partiet(NO) @miljopartiet(SWE) @vihreat(FI) @SFpolitik(DK). This is worth our time to consider!

1/ We always need perspective, so lets start with it.

This is the worlds energy consumption.

2/ Hoesung Lee, the current chair of UN's IPCC, tell us that reducing the energy sectors emission to zero to 2050 includes three broad strategies.

a) increased energy efficiency
b) increased electrification
c) decarbonization of electricity supply

3/ Lee notes that energy efficiency gains is accounted for in the energy consumption (5:32), and that the median energy consumption in modelled pathways to the 1.5 degree goal, stays at current levels (6:43).

Electricity on the other hand, will more than double (7:17)!

4/ Let's focus on our electricity supply.

So apparently our electricity supply needs to double and be decarbonized (CO2 & CH4 are key greenhouse gases).

Let's look at the fraction of low-carbon electricity in various countries.

5/ Wait... Hydro/Nuclear/Solar/Wind referred to as low-carbon sources. Nuclear, but not biomass? Yes.

Let's look at IPCCs metastudy of lifecycle emissions.

Original diagram: ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3…

6/ The black marker above represent the median emission which often is used as an estimate.

Wind: 11 and 12
Nuclear: 12
Hydro: 24
Solar: 27, 41, and 48
Biomass: 230
Gas: 490 (fracked gas will be far higher)
Coal: 820

See page 1335: ipcc.ch/site/assets/up…

7/ Okay... Nuclear is low-carbon but not renewable... But biomass is renewable but isn't low-carbon!

That means that 100% low-carbon is a climate centered goal, but 100% renewable isn't! This satire start to make sense...

8/ But... solar/wind is often cheaper per energy, and batteries are becoming cheaper.

😃 Yes!
😓 But cheap energy isn't always valuable energy.

While solar/wind can be star players, they need others in their team.

@JesseJenkins clarifies this:

9/ Firm low-carbon power like nuclear is needed for a good result decarbonizing. Are we planning for it?

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs urges us to get long term plans that withstand politics - sprints are easy, but we need to make it all the way.

10/ So, nuclear help mitigate climate change, ocean acidification, air pollution, etc. But what about the waste?

We have to put it in perspective, which @Thoughtscapism have done well.

But we all probably will have our doubts still, so learn even more:
thoughtscapism.com/2017/11/04/nuc…

11/ Okay okay, maybe the waste isn't so bad, but what about Fukushima? What about the radiation?

Like everything else, we need perspective. @Kaikenhuippu provided this excellent infographic.

12/ We just considered the harm nuclear powers associated radiation. We often do.

Let's consider air pollution - WHO listed it alongside climate change as the #1 health threat, but radiation wasn't on the list.

Millions die by air pollution.

13/ Germany's Angela Merkel (Davos, 2019): "I believe we would be well advised to admit that if we phase out coal and nuclear energy then we have to be honest and tell people that we’ll need more natural gas."

Germany recently opened a coal plant.

14/ A final point before I wrap up.

It is often said that nuclear is slow to build.

While nuclear plants are slow to build, they add a lot of power production. We need to add a lot of low-carbon for many decades to come, so let's think long term no matter what.

14/ Wrapping up.

We must ~double electricity supply and decarbonize it - globally. We must plan long term across countries, and benefit including firm low-carbon power sources.

Your opinion matters, so if you are coming to terms with nuclear, act and raise your voice.

15/ Whoever is a champion for current and future life on Earth have my sincere respect.

Please be mindful of each other, I often see pro-/anti-nuclear debates where both sides actually care for the same things - let's avoid that and make actual progress.

Thanks for your time!