Nuclear at COP 21 - Part 1

Nuclear energy has been relatively subdued within the COP 21 conference in Paris (Hyams 2015). With the majority of draft documents not mentioning nuclear as a solution to climate change (Jouette 2015). The focus has been mainly on the traditional renewables of solar, wind etc. – however arguably nuclear has to be integrated into discussions and decisions if the carbon reduction objectives are going to be fulfilled. A short interview with Jean-Pol Poncelet during COP 21, who is the General Secretary for the pro-nuclear, European Nuclear Society – can be listened to here. He highlights the dependency Europe in particular already has on nuclear, in particular within France. The low-carbon procedure in preparing the fuel is partnered with the 0 emission energy production, therefore if the 2C increase boundary is going to be prevented then the nuclear potential must be considered strongly! Other low-emission sources are not disregarded, with nuclear being suggested as a necessary component of the overall mix. Perhaps nuclear can be used as a stop-gap for other renewables to develop further, this may have to be the case if the uranium supply is as restricted as many claim. The pro-nuclear stance was supported by Elon Musk (2015), who promoted nuclear as a suitable carbon-reducing option – however not on a global scale, but only in areas that are not prone to natural disasters such as France. This therefore places nuclear as “one of many” energy requirements needed on a global level to challenge climate change.

COP 21 in Paris has the ultimate goal of creating an international legally binding agreement on climate, aiming to keep warming below 2°C (COP 21 2015).

These challenges were made clear to be following the experience of the COP 21 workshop we recently undertook, which involved role-play negotiations etc. What became clear to me was the vast magnitude of changes required in order to prevent the 2C increase, and even if that is succeeded then sea-level rise will still have major implications. Therefore nuclear is not the full answer – the extreme changes that are needed will require all possible technologies and strategies available to reduce the threat of climate change. Whilst also ensuring economic viability persists.

One nation which is backing nuclear energy at COP 21 is India, with overall goals to produce 40% of their energy with 0 emissions – with nuclear playing a major role in fulfilling this percentage. India plans to have 63 gigawatts of nuclear by 2032, whilst also benign central to increasing the potential for a global expansion. Funding will also be placed into research to enable a greater level of nuclear accessibility in developing nations – highlighting their outlook on the potential for nuclear to achieve climate goals (Taylor 2015).

India's Additional Secretary Susheel Kumar speaking at the National Resources Defence Council panel at COP 21, 4th December (Taylor 2015).

The Compact of States and Regions is a scheme that is supported by the UN, which primarily reports on greenhouse gas production. The Scheme’s governance includes 18 countries, with around 1/8 global economy and >12% global emission represented by the group. At COP 21 the group announced it was aiming to cut its emissions by more than the annual Chinese production by 2030 – with even greater claims of cutting emission by the equivalent of the total global greenhouse production of 2012, by 2050! The way in which they see these highly ambitious targets to be reached – nuclear! They do support other renewables; however the fact that solar and wind do not produce energy 24 hours of the day, highlights how such energy resources can not be trusted in isolation (Casey 2015).

The first report from the Compact of States and Regions. It is the first single, global account of greenhouse gas reduction targets made by national and regional governments (The Climate Group 2015). 

The fear from many at COP 21 is that anti-nuclear positions may cause a fall back to fossil fuels if the renewable energy sector has not progressed to a level which can provide national requirements (Connor 2015). Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington again reiterates the point I have made about the need for change immediately, that nuclear can provide 0 carbon NOW – there is simply not enough time to wait until renewables are available at the necessary scale. The longer we delay action, the greater the warming and the more devastating the results to our biosphere. That not using all fossil fuel alternatives at this stage of urgency would be “crazy” (Connor 2015)!

However the nuclear presence at COP 21 is not all positive, with movements such as “Don’t Nuke the Climate” appearing within the conference centres everyday of COP 21. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service has booths within the centres and meeting points, attempting to communicate with government representatives to prevent both fossil fuels and nuclear energy from being in their plans to fight climate change (NIRS 2015). The movement looks to Germany as the example, with the emissions in 2014 reducing over 4% from 2013 levels - with a complete absence of nuclear. As previously mentioned Germany closed multiple nuclear stations after the Fukushima disaster (Harding 2011), with the nation still maintaining a strong anti-nuclear stance .

"Don't Nuke the Climate" logo (NIRS 2015).

The Director of the World Nuclear Association, Agneta Rising, promotes nuclear within COP 21 claiming:

"To implement the goals of an ambitious COP 21 agreement governments need to develop policies that encourage investment in low carbon generation, especially nuclear energy. We need 1000 GWe of new nuclear capacity by 2050 to combat climate change" (WNA 2015).

This level of nuclear production will be essential to drop electricity emissions by 80% by 2050 to prevent the 2C threshold from being breached (WNA 2015).

If the COP 21 targets are going to be met, nuclear must be involved – all options must be used to their capacity to overcome the urgency and magnitude of the issues that are being faced in the modern world.