Is nuclear power the best way to deal with climate change? | | Nuclear Energy News

As the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) draws to a close and countries are planning to spend a lot of money to destroy their economies, the debate over the role that nuclear power must play in achieving its goals.

Nuclear power plants have been around since the 1950’s. This technology is very important: Atoms split and the energy released by water evaporates to form a steam that drives a power plant.

Of course, when things go awry with 20th-century technology – either because of nature or human error – it can be very wrong. Chernobyl. Fukushima. Three Mile Island.

Nuclear power is also known for its high cost and is very expensive compared to renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.

But other nations are increasingly using nuclear energy. China – the world’s largest emitter – is planning to produce at least 150 nuclear weapons in the next 15 years, according to Bloomberg News.paywall). This is more than what the whole world has built in the last thirty and a half years.

French President Emmanual Macron said this week that his country would “revive the nuclear arsenal” for the first time in decades to achieve its goal.

United States Secretary of State Jennifer Granholm reportedly told COP26 that the US was “in the hands of nuclear weapons” as part of its clean energy plans.

There are also A-listers who throw their weight behind nuclear power. Through the companies of TerraPower and PacifiCorp, billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are battling a type of high-performance micro-weapon (SMR) known as the “fast” Natrium reactor.

While the UN is throwing its support behind SMRs with advanced reactor technology, appreciating its advantages in recent technology (PDF).

So, should the nations go to the nuclear plant to save the world?

Allison Macfarlane is a professor and director of the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia. Prior to that, he was chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

He wrote an article on Foreign Affairs (paywall) this summer on nuclear power and climate change goals. His opposition led to a backlash (paywall) when international leaders arrived in Glasgow, Scotland at COP26.

Macfarlane describes himself as a supporter or opponent of nuclear power, but an expert who prefers to provide “enlightening answers” to questions surrounding nuclear power.

He recently shared his thoughts with Al Jazeera Digital Business Manager Patricia Sabga about countries developing more nuclear weapons to address the climate crisis.

This interview is designed to be clear and concise.

Patricia Sabga: Nuclear power advocates say they play a key role in decarbonization. Does the world need nuclear power plants to tackle climate change?

Allison Macfarlane: About 19 percent of the power [in the United States] they are currently being developed by nuclear power. It is carbon-free. It’s really helpful. We don’t want to turn it off right now. But I live in a world where people find it relatively easy to understand. And I don’t think, in the next 10 or 20 years, nuclear power will have a significant impact on carbon dioxide emissions because we will not be able to build new plants faster.

PS: And why? Why can’t we build new crops quickly?

AM: It’s complicated. These are major projects, and require good management and software management that is not available in many other industries. And while people may encourage new reactor designs to be easier to manufacture in factories, if we look at industrial-generated reactors – for example, built in Georgia, the Vogtle plant. [where two additional reactor units are under construction] – what happened in the factory was not good.

The factory that made the modules for the Georgia plant was wrongly built for many years. They were welded incorrectly and had to be replaced. That factory destroyed Westinghouse.

We cannot build new plants quickly.

PS: You mentioned the new reactor design. What are these designs and what are the challenges?

AM: First of all, most of them are not new. Most of these artefacts are 70 years or older. But based on this, there are new twists and turns in some of these designs.

Many of them are found only on paper, or as small examples. And the way engineering works is that you create something – nowadays, powered by computers – and then you make scales. When you create a scale, you see when you are wrong on your computer system, and then you fix this. Then you need to make a complete design. And when you do climb up again, there will be things that you did wrong in the scales, and you have to fix it.

And as a result, many of these products, we are still in the computer model. We did not take any other steps. And those steps take years. And when you get to the full color, it is very expensive. Where does the money come from?

PS: Let’s talk about money. In terms of cost, how much of a nuclear power could say the wind or the sun?

AM: It is very expensive. Yes, it depends on what the sun is saying. But if you look A recent Lazard analysis about the amount of energy costs [an analysis that takes into account how much it costs to finance and build a power plant and to keep it running throughout its lifetime and then divides that cost by how much energy it kicks out each year] and you look at solar PV [photovoltaic] essentials, and wind, are much cheaper than nuclear.

This is not true on the roof of solar PV. They are more expensive or more expensive than nuclear.

These plants are very expensive to build.

PS: Why is nuclear energy so expensive compared to wind and solar energy?

AM: Funds are driven by capital investment. These plants are very expensive to build. I think we have at least $ 14bn making Vogtle seeds in Georgia. It is capable of producing a thousand gallons. They just really cut and take a long time to build. And so you do not have the capital of the plant to build the plant, but you do have the interest rate on the capital, which becomes a huge tree.

That’s exactly what hurts nuclear. Now there are claims made by small modular reactors that they will be cheaper. But because no one has ever built them, and no one has ever put chains on them to bind and use them, we do not know what will destroy them.

PS: You wrote an article in Foreign Affairs in July. Later, you were criticized by Armond Cohen [of the Clean Air Task Force] and Kenneth Luongo [of the Partnership for Global Security] comparing the lifetime cost of nuclear power with the lifetime cost of wind and solar because wind and solar are not always “always” on powerful generators, where nuclear is located.

AM: There is a theory that the wind and the sun are passing, and nuclear is not. I think the big question is, how important is flexibility now?

Ten years ago, it was a very big thing. It’s getting smaller, I think. The interesting thing is that when you talk to support companies, they want the seeds to follow [responding to surges and ebbs in power demand]. They lead themselves in dealing with intermittency. But that means they need a plant that can grow and descend quickly. Nuclear weapons cannot do that. Existing nuclear vessels would not do that. They are on fire or out, and it takes a long time for them to climb to full potential.

PS: What about conserving energy, since it is still expensive? There has never been a need to make reliable sun and wind 24-7. Is that too much to worry about?

AM: It is a matter of legitimacy. But there are storage options that you can go buy right now and build for the next few years. But with this kind of fast construction and the ability to have the items available on the shelf, get rid of it right now, there is no [for nuclear energy], especially for high-reactor reactors.

There are recommendations for smaller modular reactors to make them cheaper.

PS: What about multiplication? Do you think that this should provoke controversy if nuclear power is to become part of the new nuclear power plant to tackle the climate crisis?

AM: Absolutely. We need to consider the proliferation and integration of nuclear weapons when we consider nuclear power. We must be working on reducing nuclear weapons. That means getting rid of them. But we need to be careful. And there is an international body set up to do this through the International Atomic Energy Agency and international security agreements.

So there is a plan. It has been happening for centuries. But we must know this. The light water reactors available in most countries today do not have a high risk of overheating. But some of the new technologies being discussed could produce materials that could be applied directly to nuclear weapons. And so we have to be very careful, and have a good understanding of what is going on, and make sure there are safeguards to ensure that weapons are not diverted.

PS: In what area do you see nuclear power operating in the future, not only in the United States but around the world?

AM: It currently plays an important role in generating electricity in several countries. I think this will continue for many years. And then we’ll see what happens. I do not know. I do not have a good crystal ball. I’m just telling you we are going through a big change. I do not know if there is a will, globally, to come from the original oil and as quickly as we would like. We have to do it yesterday. And nuclear power would be a part of this mix, perhaps, if we really were, deep down. But it does mean a lot of money. Then one has to pay for this.