The world needs nuclear power to fight climate change and action should be taken to expand the use of this clean energy source and help build “a low carbon bridge” to the future, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in a landmark statement supported by dozens of countries at COP28 today.
Announced by Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi at a high-profile event of the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai, it was the first time such an IAEA statement was issued, its broad international backing underlining increased global interest in nuclear power to tackle the existential challenge of a rapidly warming planet.
The statement is a further indication of a new momentum for nuclear power as a source of reliable low carbon energy, needed also to meet growing electricity demand and achieve sustainable economic development.
“The IAEA and its Member States that are nuclear energy producers and those working with the IAEA to promote the benefits of peaceful uses of nuclear energy acknowledge that all available low emission technologies should be recognized and actively supported,” the statement read by Director General Grossi said.
“Net zero needs nuclear power,” it said. “Nuclear power emits no greenhouse gasses when it is produced and contributes to energy security and the stability of the power grid, while facilitating the broader uptake of solar and wind power.”
Today, 412 nuclear power reactors operating in 31 countries make up more than 370 gigawatts of installed capacity, providing almost 10 per cent of the world’s total electricity and a quarter of its low-carbon supply. Several countries – including Bangladesh, Egypt and Türkiye – are building their first nuclear power plants, while many others have also decided to introduce nuclear energy. In addition, existing nuclear power countries, including China, France, India and Sweden to name a few, are planning to expand their nuclear programmes.
“Studies confirm that the goal of global net zero carbon emissions can only be reached by 2050 with swift, sustained and significant investment in nuclear energy,” the statement said.
It underlined the importance of innovations in the nuclear sector such as small modular reactors that aim to make nuclear power easier to build, more flexible to deploy and more affordable. In addition, "continuous plant life management and refurbishment ensure the ongoing safety and reliability of our existing fleet, allowing it to provide decarbonized energy to the electric grid and other sectors,” the statement said.
Since the beginning of the 21st century, nuclear power has avoided the release of some 30 gigatonnes of greenhouse gases. It can also contribute to addressing climate change in areas apart from generating electricity, notably in helping to decarbonize district heating, desalination, industry processes and hydrogen production, the statement highlighted.
“Resilient and robust nuclear power has the potential to play a wider role in the quest towards net zero carbon emissions, while ensuring the highest level of nuclear safety and security,” it said.
Director General Grossi said that “achieving a fair and enabling investment environment for new nuclear projects remains an uphill battle. We are not at a level playing field, yet, when it comes to financing nuclear projects.”
“Analysts widely agree that nuclear power capacity will need to more than double by 2050 for current climate goals to be reached. We will need even more capacity to go beyond the electricity grid and decarbonize transport and industry,” he told the IAEA Board of Governors last month.
In a further step to enhance the prominence of nuclear power, leaders from around the world will gather in Brussels in March next year for the first-ever Nuclear Energy Summit, hosted jointly by the IAEA and Belgium.
Nuclear is too expensive and takes too long to get into production. And no, it does not matter why. It only matters that that is the reality.
Now for those that must interject with, “because rgulation and tree huggers!!!1!!!”, that is because Corporations have shown they can’t be trusted to self regulate.
I think it all comes down to costs, eventually people do the mental calculus and arrive at the same conclusion: solar is cheaper.
That being said, I do think it is important to have energy diversity, mostly because if most of our sun ever has problems, weather by enemy attack or natural disaster, that would leave us in a situation where we would have to rapidly transition to nuclear anyway.
It’s expensive, but it is also important to have a spare tire in the trunk.
Why are we putting a price tag on fixing global warming?
Because only an idiot thinks cost isn’t the primary obstacle to preventing further rise.
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying why should the price being high make everyone say, nah too expensive to save the planet. High cost is an obstacle sure. But it’s not like the government has zero dollars in its pocket, it can build these things. The argument is that it’s too much money is pushing back progress on solving a looming dooming issue
From a full systems perspective, which is the perspective mostly determining your power bill, nuclear is actually the cheapest route to zero emissions. It’s not a great argument against nuclear, but one against solar and wind. This is why German electricity prices are going through the roof, while France remains competitively cheap.
Here’s what Bank of America has to say about it: “Solar and wind look more expensive than almost any alternative on an unsubsidized basis when accounting for those external factors (Exhibit 20). This is especially true when accounting for the full system costs (LFSCOE) that include balancing and supply obligations (Exhibit 21). Nuclear appears to be the cheapest scalable, clean energy source by far.”
Now, I do think we need solar and wind, if only for the speed they can help us get to lower emissions. We’ll be paying through our noses for it though.
@Emil @DrDominate Wow, that “report” is an impressive collection of selective misinformation!
Nuclear’s main benefit is that the power output of the reactor can be scaled up or down as needed. This in turn means that less storage and surplus production capacity are necessary to meet expected demand.
Modulation got at least 2 issues :
- economical (competitiveness)
- it reduce also lifespan of the fuel
Because nuclear, in contrast to France for example, has such a low share of the market at around 13%. There’s no need to load follow.
@Emil The special arrangments make for GB nukes in 2020 suggests that it would have been very much better if they had.
Being against nuclear in all forms: dumb
Thinking nuclear should be primary driver to net zero: also dumb
So please enlighten the rest of us? You seem to have it figured out
People seem to be either on the ‘nuclear is evil by definition’ or the ‘nuclear will solve all our problems’ bandwagon.
Using nuclear as a lower emissions stabilizing source makes sense but deployment speed and cost of renewables makes them a better primary source.
Not to mention nuclear fuels make us dependent on politically unreliable suppliers as was the case with other fossil fuels.
“Not to mention nuclear fuels make us dependent on politically unreliable suppliers as was the case with other fossil fuels.”
Why is this always mentioned as an argument with nuclear, but never with other energy sources? Like, China has a (near) monopoly on rare earths and solar panel production. But that’s fine apparently.
No, that’s not fine, that’s wrong. China is no longer needed for solar and their price dumping actaully a nuisance to countries advancing their own production.
Because your whataboutism is made up.
Denying facts is not going to help your case.
For those not denying reality, here’s a piece for contemplation: https://www.ft.com/content/fd8e7175-9423-4042-a6f7-c404afdfcda4
No facts are being denied.
China in no way has a monopoly, nor even a majority of, rare earth metals.
https://www.britannica.com/science/rare-earth-element/Abundance-occurrence-and-reserves as opposed to your behind paywall source which discusses old production data and not availability.
The “China has a monopoly” that gets trotted out by nuke simps conflates cheaper to produce due to corruption with available actual supply.
There are major deposits all over the world and production is occurring in numerous places now, as opposed to the over half a decade old data used to justify the inane claim.
