The COP21 climate meeting in Paris has ended with mixed feelings. It certainly was historic in that the world agreed that climate change is a huge issue that needs to be addressed. 196 countries signed an agreement to do something about it – particularly to limit the rise in global temperatures to 2°C (3.6°F) by century’s end. That alone marks a change in the global mindset about this global issue.
But many think the agreement doesn’t really do anything - that it lacks teeth. As Bill McKibben, eco-warrior and the co-founder of 350.org, said, "This didn't save the planet, but it may have saved the chance of saving the planet."
What did happen in Paris is that every country agreed to come up with a carbon reduction plan - their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) - and to review it every five years. Also, rich countries would help poor countries achieve these goals by providing $100 billion a year, and possibly providing loan guarantees to help with financing. This latter point is actually the most important, and could provide trillions of dollars in virtual climate aid over the next decade.
As an example, in India the interest rate for a loan to construct a wind farm is about 16%. With an EU loan guarantee, that rate drops to about 4%. Smart global financing is the difference between accomplishing these climate goals and not accomplishing these climate goals.
The Paris agreement was adopted by consensus during the meeting of government ministers, but it doesn't mean all 196 countries will approve it. Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius of France, President of the Conference, had the authority to declare if a consensus had been reached, and on Saturday decided that it had. 55 countries, representing at least 55% of the total global greenhouse gas emissions, must now ratify or approve the agreement in their respective countries.
But all good intentions aside, the world is not on track for any of this. To limit the rise in global mean temperatures to 2°C, the global power sector will need to be virtually decarbonized by mid-century. The only way to do this is with a mix of technologies including nuclear and renewables.
Nuclear power is already a mature technology. The barriers to a more rapid deployment are political and social, not technical, nor safety, nor scientific. Nuclear energy currently produces 11% of global electricity, the second‑largest source of low‑carbon power after hydro (16%). Globally, nuclear avoids over 2 billion metric tons of CO2 from being emitted into the atmosphere each year. Hydro is about the same.
After a decade of intense promotion, tax incentives and investment, wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass altogether are still only 2%, and together avoid only 0.1 billion metric tons of CO2 from being emitted into the atmosphere each year.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that, in order to meet any desired emissions goals, the share of nuclear energy in global electricity production needs to rise from about 400 GW to 1,000 GW by 2050, producing about 9 trillion kWhs/year, at a construction cost of about $8 trillion. This also assumes wind and solar reach about 2,000 GW each, producing a combined 10 trillion kWhs/year, over the same time period, at a construction cost of about $20 trillion.
So expanding nuclear at reasonable build rates could provide almost half of our emissions reduction target necessary for atmospheric CO2 to drop to a concentration of 350 ppm by around the end of this century.
Nuclear power was discussed in Paris as a major climate mitigation option, appearing as a significant component of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) of major emitters including China, the United States and India. But nuclear was not discussed as often as it should have been in the main hall.
We know how to solve the nuclear waste problem, we have new, even safer, even more efficient reactors, the life-cycle carbon emissions are as low as wind, and the life-cycle costs for nuclear are now as good as natural gas. It’s just that the public doesn’t know that, and the media keep recycling old, wrong information. But many world leaders are afraid to discuss nuclear for fear of anti-nuclear activists.
In Paris, American Nuclear Society President Gene Grecheck said that “policymakers need to not be afraid to say they support nuclear technology at conferences such as COP21” because every serious look at the energy technologies required to mitigate climate change has concluded that large amounts of nuclear energy must be part of the mix.
Grecheck and ANS Director of Communications Tari Marshall were in Paris, serving as ambassadors for nuclear energy and as part of the Nuclear for Climate coalition, supporting the flow of information to UN delegates on how nuclear is an critical option in reducing emissions and helping all nations meet their carbon-reduction goals.
During those discussions, it was pointed out that just last year reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, the UN Sustainable Solutions Network and the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate argued for a tripling of nuclear energy, requiring over a thousand new reactors to stabilize carbon emissions.
Even more persuasive, four of the world’s top climate scientists, Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Tom Wigley, Dr. Ken Caldeira and Dr. Kerry Emanuel, issued a stark challenge about nuclear energy to world leaders and environmental campaigners at a COP21 press conference on December 3.
The group presented new research showing the increasing urgency of fully decarbonizing the world economy, and they also showed that renewables alone cannot meet the goal of limiting global warming to 2°C. They stressed that a major expansion of nuclear power is essential to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system in this century.
The four scientists outlined how only a combined strategy of employing all the major sustainable clean energy options, including renewables and nuclear, and efficiency and conservation, can prevent the worst effects of climate change by the end of this century - effects like the loss of coral reefs, severe damages from extreme weather events, large-scale human migrations as eco-refugees, and the destruction of biodiversity and ecosystems worldwide.
In light of the new urgency of reigning in global warming, the four scientists challenged environmental leaders who still hold anti-nuclear positions to wake up and support development and deployment of safe and environmentally-friendly nuclear power.
For example, the Climate Action Network, representing all the major environmental groups, still insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that “nuclear has no role to play in a fully decarbonized power sector.”
Drs. Hansen, Wigley, Caldeira and Emanuel declared that the anti-nuclear position of these environmental leaders is causing unnecessary and severe harm to the environment and to our planet’s future.
To ignore the leading climate scientists at the leading climate conference is foolish. And stupid. And risky.
Dr. James Conca is an expert on energy, nuclear and dirty bombs, a planetary geologist, and a professional speaker. Follow him on Twitter @jimconca and see his book at Amazon.com