You may also like...
In some quarters you will often hear some people say that nuclear energy is the solution to the climate crisis.
Where does nuclear energy fit in and what impact does it have on what we are trying to achieve – that is to reduce emissions and thus reduce global temperatures from rising?
Let’s take a look using the En-ROADS simulator.
The first thing you will notice about nuclear energy is that it is expensive. Look at its cost in electricity generation relative to the other energy sources.
The reason for this is that building nuclear plants is extremely expensive.
Now what would happen if we were able to subsidise nuclear energy, and there was some breakthrough in construction price reduction – thus making it cheaper? What impact would that have on the cost of electricity from nuclear energy, emissions and global temperatures?
Let’s take a look.
From the above you can see that the subsidy radically reduces the cost of electricty production, but it only has a small impact on emissions reduction and global temperature reduction.
Why is that?
Notice from the above that it almost has no impact on the source of the problem which is emissions from fossil fuels (the brown area)
So nuclear energy on its own even when highly subsidised and having a breakthrough in cost construction reduction will not solve the problem we are facing.
There is more needed.
If we combine nuclear energy with renewable energy, and we put a carbon tax on fossil fuels (thus making them more expensive thereby discouraging their use) and then electrify transportation and buildings with the renewable energy/nuclear combination we then see an impact on emissions and global temperatures.
In conclusion, does nuclear energy play a role in what we need to accomplish?
Yes it can, but only in combination with other actions – primarily those that end the burning of fossil fuels, the primary source of GHG emissions.