While I have degrees in geology and worked as an environmental consultant for more than 30 years, I know next to nothing about climate change (or climate crisis, as we’ve seen here today). So I am trying to change that. One thing I see debated here and elsewhere is what role (if any) nuclear energy has in future carbon reduction.
I haven’t read widely but I understand that, while there’s been some ambiguity, the Green New Deal largely wants to reduce, rather than increase, nuclear energy. I also note that Inslee’s climate plan acknowledges that we must keep all low- and zero-carbon technologies on the table, including nuclear, and that O’Rourke’s climate plan doesn’t rule out nuclear energy.
So when I see differences of opinion my typical inclination is to go see what the experts say.
I was aware that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a major report recently so I decided to see what they say on this subject. When I googled “what IPCC says regarding nuclear energy expansion”, one of the first articles I clicked on was this one.
And in it I saw this statement “Nuclear power is essential if the world is to keep global warming to below 1.5 degrees, according to the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) [sic]. Indeed, for electricity generation, the share of nuclear will need to increase significantly in order to meet global targets”.
So I thought, “okay, that’s not really a surprise to me”, but then I noticed the article was by the power industry.
So then I clicked on this article. And in it I saw this statement “”Nuclear energy,” write IPCC authors, “can increase the risks of proliferation, have negative environmental effects (e.g., for water use), and have mixed effects for human health when replacing fossil fuels.”.
So then I thought “well shit, those are two different summaries of the same report”.
So I decided to read the IPCC’s October 2018 report, but once I found that it’s basically 500 pages, I didn’t read it. I did search the report for “nuclear” and read what those hits said (many were in tables summarizing modeling) and confirmed the narrative cited in the Forbes article linked above.
Next, I saw this “open letter” to Macron et al from numerous climate scientists written after the IPCC report came out chiding the IPCC for what the authors call the IPCC’s “persistent anti-nuclear bias”.
As I say above, I’m mostly uninformed when it comes to climate change, and I’m not trying to start a Bernie vs. Hillary-type battle here of nuclear energy proponents and opponents, I’m just trying to better educate myself.
Is it basically correct that, while it cautions about the safety and environmental risks associated with nuclear energy, the October 2018 IPCC report does acknowledge that it will be difficult to keep global warming to less than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels without an expansion of nuclear energy?