Ever since @GretaThunberg’s, in many regards excellent, summer speech (#sommarip1) I’ve been trying to come to terms with the sources used to rule out #NuclearEnergy as the cornerstone in fighting #ClimateChange. Now @TIME has published the full script..
time.com/5863684/greta-…
time.com/5863684/greta-…
..with links to her sources. Turns out “Risky” comes from HPC running over budget(!), and “expensive” is based on openly anti-#nuclear @MycleSchneider’s WNISR report, with no regard to e.g. system costs.
= two words w/o any backing that delay dealing with #climate issues. Why?
= two words w/o any backing that delay dealing with #climate issues. Why?
Don’t get me wrong, HPC has gone over budget and time and may cause a financial “risk” to UK citizens vs not doing anything, but it’s also incremental to achieving #netzero. But it’s crazy cherry picking. China builds 6+ reactors cheaply per year. Decoupling always needs nuclear.
...hence, ruling out the entire global ambition of decarbonized energy sectors – in which nuclear is the only scalable, plannable and reliable fossil free electricity source readily available – is like ruling out global wind power due to #Markbygden taking 20 years to build...
...or taking the price correlation issues now seen across all grids with (too) large installed weather-dependant electricity capacity (lex #Energiewende) as a reason not to invest more in clean #energy solutions – pleasing the fossil lobby and their deadly “natural #gas”.
For more relevant numbers, and perspective, on ‘risk’ (i.e. the way the word likely was perceived by listeners, as something ‘dangerous’) we just need to look at the overall peer-reviewed facts. @OurWorldInData also covers this topic diligently. Nuclear saves lives every day.
‘Expensive’ is true in a “energy only” model. But as investors in clean energy stress; price correlation (overproduction/no storage), EROEI, transmission, lack of inertia/grid services drive system costs of non-nuclear <50g CO2/kWh grids. *Graph a few years old, new one out soon.
I think the reason #nuclear power is still allowed to ‘dominate the debate’ is down to the fact that before all tools proven to work are welcomed to an equal seat by the table—with pros and cons factually screened—we can’t start to make real improvements. Tech neutrality is key.
OK, the links have been moved around and apparently “Risky” doesn’t need a source anymore? Just a given, huh? And somehow “small” is motivated by the openly anti-nuclear WNISR report, in conflict with the “holistic” claim pointing to the IPCC report assuming 5-9x more nuclear.
*’incremental’ should have been ‘instrumental’. Can I blame autocorrect here? Probably not, huh?
And, “small part”... is that really so? We’re talking about the only energy source so far being able to enable true decoupling and stabilizing electricity grid emissions below 50g Co2/kWh.. this chart from @GrantChalmers over past 12 months show why that’s no small achievement.
See, @GretaThunberg et al, if more countries did what Sweden, France and Ontario did so delinquently we’d see a lot more IPCC goal-compliant countries (in green) over at electricityMap.org:
Green grids empowering people, circular economies and improving #climate justice.
Green grids empowering people, circular economies and improving #climate justice.
