A landmark deal
Recently, at COP21, more than 195 nations came together to deliver a ‘landmark deal’ on climate change. With the global community in agreement, the deal proposes to reduce greenhouse emissions to a level that will limit the global average temperature rise to only 2.0°C (3.6°F). The emission targets are not binding but determined by each nation themselves. So far, 187 out of the 195 signatories have submitted their targets or Intended National Determined Contributions (INDCs). However, there is one issue; the submitted INDCs will restrict the global temperature rise to 2.7°C and not 2.0°C as was the intent of the Paris Agreement. Are the Paris accords already a failure? The impediment lies with the fact that developing economies are reticent to encumber economic growth by adhering to any treaty.
Nuclear energy is green energy
Many believe that dependence on fossil fuels to drive industrial growth has led to the rise in carbon emissions over the past century. Electricity is a prerequisite for the industrial and economic progression of any nation. With the rising number of developing economies powering forward, sustainable and clean sources of energy are required to supplant fossil fuels, and thereby curb carbon emissions. Advocates of green and renewable energy have been pushing for the replacement of fossil fuels with wind and solar power as the solution to global warming. But the problem lies in the understanding of how these energy sources works.
[via Nine Mile]
Renewable and reliable?
Solar, wind, and hydro sources are not considered ‘base load’ power sources. A base load source has the ability to generate electrical power consistently with very minimal hindrance. Fossil fuels have been the source of choice due to society’s early applications and their ability to serve as a base load source. With societies becoming more aware of the negative consequences of fossil fuel usage, nuclear energy, supplemented by other renewable sources, seems the most viable path forward.
Nuclear nightmares
In the 1950s, it appeared the world was entering the dawn of the nuclear age. However, this came to a screeching halt with the Three Mile Island incident in the United States and the Chernobyl accident in the former Soviet Union. With the media sensationalism surrounding the accidents, the political culture in most countries became markedly less receptive to the idea of nuclear energy. France was one exception. Worldwide investment into research and development for nuclear energy came to a halt. As a result, innovation in the field of nuclear energy slowed down. As oil prices started to rise in the early 2000s, a nuclear renaissance seemed destined to occur. These whispers were silenced by the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Ever since, there have been renewed fears of a nuclear disaster. On the contrary, nuclear energy has been rated as the safest energy form of all energy sources including solar. In addition, the latest generation of nuclear fleets are much safer, through the integration of greater safety mechanisms.
Another barrier to the widespread implementation of nuclear energy is the cost. The initial investment required to build a large power plant is relatively large. Despite this, over the lifetime of the plant, nuclear energy proves to be among the cheapest energy sources. Furthermore, the issue of high capital costs has been resolved to an extent, with the creation of small modular reactors (SMRs). These reactors have a flexible and cost-efficient design, reducing the capital outlay significantly. As societies continue to clamour for a reduction of carbon emissions and demand for electricity grows; nuclear energy can no longer be ignored or dismissed but must be a preponderant part of any developing nation’s energy portfolio. Nuclear power is the only way societies can have their cake and eat it.
