If nuclear energy is replaced by natural gas, say goodbye to climate goals

[ad_1]

<div _ngcontent-c14 = "" innerhtml = "

When Three-mile Island officially halted in September, it marks the end of a remarkable story – that of the partial meltdown of the reactor core in 1979, which then sparked a long debate about the future of nuclear energy.

Now, however, it's more than Three Mile Island. It is the fate of nuclear energy in a world aware of carbon emissions. In other words, the global appetite for energy will increase while the demand for cleaner electricity will become more intense. Because of this, nuclear energy can produce 24 hours a day less carbon emissions. But will this happen, given the policy and the financial cost of a construction?

As for Three Mile Island, it still has 15 years of operating license. But it can not compete with the low cost of natural gas. The parent company, Exelon Corp., has asked the state of Pennsylvania to give it the credit needed to produce clean energy so it stays open. While New York, New Jersey and Illinois have adopted similar measures allowing their nuclear power plants to survive, Pennsylvania's $ 500 million lifeline is running out of gas.

"While we see significant support … throughout Pennsylvania to reduce carbon emissions and preserve the environmental and economic benefits provided by nuclear energy, we do not see the way forward for policy changes. … ", said Kathleen Barron, Senior Vice President of Exelon. The decommissioning of one of the remaining plant facilities will cost $ 1 billion and will last 60 years.

The abundance of shale gas has resulted in a lasting decline in natural gas and energy prices. At the same time, market designs that favor wind and solar power are also losing ground to nuclear power. But what nuclear energy offers is carbon-free electricity with a capacity factor of 90%, which is more efficient than any other type of electricity generation.

What about renewable energy?

In the United States, 98 nuclear reactors produce energy, representing 20% ​​of the country's electricity and 60% of its energy without carbon emissions. The Union for Concerned Scientists found that 35% of active nuclear units were at risk of shutting down, accounting for 22% of US capacity, as they could not compete with natural gas. This would increase US energy sector emissions by 4% to 6%. Providing a grant therefore has advantages.

"Carbon reduction policies work and are affordable," says& nbsp; Steve Clemmer, Director of Energy Research for the& nbsp;Union for the scientists concerned. "A national carbon price and / or low-carbon electrification standard would help avoid over-reliance on natural gas, while costing the US household only $ 0.74 to $ 1.03 per month. way, "he added. a low-carbon fuel would be double the cost associated with carbon pricing.

A central question now is whether nuclear energy would be included in Green New Deal. If so, this provision could win the support of Republicans preoccupied with global warming and who would prefer technology-based solutions. the Democratic candidates for the presidencyas for them, go from neutral to neutral, some only declaring themselves outright opposed.

Opponents of nuclear energy have legitimate concerns. In addition to accidents like those of Fukushima in 2011, they point out that the burial of used nuclear fuel remains an elusive problem, while the cost of building a nuclear power plant is too expensive and takes too much time: Southern Company's Vogtle Generating Station has disappeared from a $ 14 billion business to a $ 24 billion company – whose schedule has been pushed back from about 5 years to 2022. This is also a $ 12 billion federal loan guarantee.

Instead, these skeptics would prefer that the country rely on wind and solar electricity, profitable electricity sources and endowed with a battery storage system that also becomes better and cheaper.

"The solution is a massive commitment to increasing renewable energy with energy storage while applying modern energy efficiency technologies to reduce demand," writes Damon Moglen, Senior Strategic Advisor at Friends. of the Earth. The hill. "Wind and solar power is cheap, clean and efficient. We must focus all our resources on their development. "

The upcoming crossroads

But the International Energy Agency warns that while renewable energies are booming, they will account for only 18% of the world's energy by 2040, 28% less than is said to be needed to halt the impact of global warming. To reduce the level of heat trapping emissions, it is said that renewable energies should be targeted at heating and home transportation.

The Paris-based agency adds, however, that green energy could grow much faster thanks to progressive policies, which would give investors a sense of long-term confidence. Policymakers are therefore in a hurry to bet on technologies or to spread their risks and diversify their fuel portfolios.

Despite the uncertain political and economic environments surrounding nuclear energy, most national research laboratories are committed to building next-generation reactors. Southern Company's business is a third-generation reactor, while fourth-generation reactors are in the design phase.

These fourth-generation "very high temperature" units have the potential to produce more electricity at a lower price& nbsp; – with less fuel irradiated and a carbon footprint lower than that of wind or solar energy. The chances of any radiation leak are close to zero, say the promoters.

"Ladies and gentlemen, look around you," said US Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, speech in Georgia to promote the Southern Company's Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant. "This is the real new green deal."

Ironically, the financial problems of nuclear power are surfacing at a time when the global community is prioritizing low-carbon or low-carbon fuel sources. If policymakers set the price of carbon, nuclear power could continue to flourish. Otherwise, natural gas will eventually consume it – not exactly the ideal result for climatic hawks.

">

When Three Mile Island officially closes its doors in September, it will mark the end of a remarkable story, that of a partial meltdown of the reactor core in 1979, which then launched a long debate on the future of nuclear energy. .

Now, however, it's more than Three Mile Island. It is the fate of nuclear energy in a world aware of carbon emissions. In other words, the global appetite for energy will increase while the demand for cleaner electricity will become more intense. Because of this, nuclear energy can produce 24 hours a day less carbon emissions. But will this happen, given the policy and the financial cost of a construction?

As for Three Mile Island, it still has 15 years of operating license. But it can not compete with the low cost of natural gas. The parent company, Exelon Corp., has asked the state of Pennsylvania to give it the credit needed to produce clean energy so it stays open. While New York, New Jersey and Illinois have adopted similar measures allowing their nuclear power plants to survive, Pennsylvania's $ 500 million lifeline is running out of gas.

"While we see significant support (…) throughout Pennsylvania for reducing carbon emissions and preserving the environmental and economic benefits of nuclear energy, we do not see the way forward for policy changes …" said Kathleen Barron, Executive Vice President of Exelon. The decommissioning of one of the remaining plant facilities will cost $ 1 billion and will last 60 years.

The abundance of shale gas has resulted in a lasting decline in natural gas and energy prices. At the same time, market designs that favor wind and solar power are also losing ground to nuclear power. But what nuclear energy offers is carbon-free electricity with a capacity factor of 90%, which is more efficient than any other type of electricity generation.

What about renewable energy?

In the United States, 98 nuclear reactors produce energy, representing 20% ​​of the country's electricity and 60% of its energy without carbon emissions. The Union for Concerned Scientists found that 35% of active nuclear units were at risk of shutting down, accounting for 22% of US capacity, as they could not compete with natural gas. This would increase US energy sector emissions by 4% to 6%. Providing a grant therefore has advantages.

"Carbon reduction policies work and are affordable," says Steve Clemmer, Director of Energy Research for the Union for the scientists concerned. "A national carbon price and / or low-carbon electrification standard would help avoid over-reliance on natural gas, while costing the US household only $ 0.74 to $ 1.03 per month. way, "he added. a low-carbon fuel would be double the cost associated with carbon pricing.

A central question now is whether nuclear power would be included in the Green New Deal. If so, this provision could win the support of Republicans preoccupied with global warming and who would prefer technology-based solutions. Democratic presidential candidates, on the other hand, go from neutral to favorable, with only a few expressing absolute opposition.

Opponents of nuclear energy have legitimate concerns. In addition to accidents like those of Fukushima in 2011, they point out that the burial of used nuclear fuel remains an elusive problem, while the cost of building a nuclear power plant is too expensive and takes too much time: Southern Company's Vogtle plant has disappeared a $ 14 billion business into a $ 24 billion business – the timeframe has been extended from about 5 years to 2022. It also has a loan guarantee federal budget of about $ 12 billion.

Instead, these skeptics would prefer that the country rely on wind and solar electricity, profitable electricity sources and endowed with a battery storage system that also becomes better and cheaper.

"The solution is a massive commitment to increasing renewable energy with energy storage while applying modern energy efficiency technologies to reduce demand," writes Damon Moglen, Senior Strategic Advisor at Friends. of the Earth. The hill. "Wind and solar power is cheap, clean and efficient. We must focus all our resources on their development. "

The upcoming crossroads

However, the International Energy Agency warns that, even though renewable energies are booming, they will only account for 18% of the world's energy in 2040, which is lower than the 28% that it believes are needed to mitigate the impact of global warming. To reduce the level of heat trapping emissions, it is said that renewable energies should be targeted at heating and home transportation.

The Paris-based agency adds, however, that green energy could grow much faster thanks to progressive policies, which would give investors a sense of long-term confidence. Policymakers are therefore in a hurry to bet on technologies or to spread their risks and diversify their fuel portfolios.

Despite the uncertain political and economic environments surrounding nuclear energy, most national research laboratories are committed to building next-generation reactors. Southern Company's business is a third-generation reactor, while fourth-generation reactors are in the design phase.

These fourth-generation "very high temperature" units have the potential to produce more electricity at a lower price – with less fuel irradiated and a carbon footprint lower than that of wind or solar energy. The chances of any radiation leak are close to zero, say the promoters.

"Ladies and gentlemen, look around," said US Secretary of Energy Rick Perry in a speech in Georgia to promote the Southern Company's Vogtle nuclear power plant. "This is the real new green deal."

Ironically, the financial problems of nuclear power are surfacing at a time when the global community is prioritizing low-carbon or low-carbon fuel sources. If policymakers set the price of carbon, nuclear power could continue to flourish. Otherwise, natural gas will eventually consume it – not exactly the ideal result for climatic hawks.