World Nuclear Association Blog

In recent years one reason given for opposing electricity generation from nuclear power is to say that "nuclear can't contribute to a low carbon economy because if you decide to build nuclear reactors today it will be too late and too little to make a difference. We need to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions this decade and new nuclear power stations won't come on line until the 2020s." 

This argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny.  

For a start, to suggest that any contribution from nuclear energy to combating global warming will come too late ignores the plain fact of its significant contribution today. Already around 15% of the world's electricity is supplied by nuclear power, avoiding the emission of more than two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. New renewables (wind, solar, biomass, as opposed to large hydro) generate only around a quarter of that amount of electricity, although certainly that is no reason to suggest we shouldn't be expanding the use of these low carbon electricity sources too.

It is true to say that if a government makes a policy decision today to support new nuclear build then it may take a decade to turn that commitment into a practical response of operational nuclear power plants.  

It is also true that to effectively tackle climate change and meet our needs for secure supplies of low carbon electricity we need to be bringing in new generation capacity this decade. But it is wrong to think investment in new nuclear capacity is beginning today from a standing start. There are currently over fifty nuclear reactors with a capacity of just under 50,000 MWe under construction. These reactors will collectively avoid the emission of an additional 350 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. These reactors are coming online throughout this decade, some will start this year. (See our Reactor Database for where these are being built). Still more are already in the planning stage with construction due to start soon. In China alone there are plans to increase nuclear generation capacity sixfold to 60,000 MWe by 2020. 

So nuclear energy is already making a major global contribution to providing secure and affordable electricity supplies of electricity today and many new nuclear power plants will add to that contribtion over the next few years.  

But even if we were to put aside this immediate contribution from nuclear power is it right to say that the time taken to build new nuclear power plants mean they are irrelevant to the purpose of fighting climate change, just because greenhouse gas emission growth needs to be halted in the next few years?

Again the answer is a clear 'no'. We live in a world starved of electricity. Only a small, fortunate minority of the global population benefits from a reliable supply of electricity. The fast-growing economies of major developing countries such as India and China are driving an increasing global demand for electricity. The world's population is expected to grow from just under 7 billion at present to 9 billion by 2050.

Even if developed countries can stabilise or reduce their electricity demand through increased energy efficiency the growing need of  the rest of the world driven by economic growth and increased population will mean conventional electricity demand is likely to rise to three or four times the current level over the next 40 years.

Shifting from today's world of electricity poverty to one where we meet the needs of all will take decades.Yes, it can take time to bring new nuclear power plants online and that means that we need to now make a commitment to nuclear energy as part of a clean energy future.. But it is ridiculous to say that nuclear power isn't part of the long term solution to climate change because new plants can't come on stream until 2020. The majority of electricity generation capacity required in 2050 won't be needed in 2020.  Nuclear energy is part of the solution today, new nuclear power plants already under construction will be starting up throughout this decade and nuclear energy can be a major component in meeting our long-term global electricity needs.

Bill Gates talks at the TED conference on the need to reduce to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Gates identifies population, energy services, efficiency and the carbon intensity of energy generation as the factors determining future carbon dioxide. Population growth and increasing demand for energy services will drive up GHG emissions. Energy efficiency will help reduce emissions, but Gates identifies the need to switch to zero-emission energy generation as the key need.

Gates identifies five technologies as the best prospects to be "Energy Miracles" to achieve this aim - carbon capture and storage, nuclear power, wind turbines, solar voltaic and solar thermal. Gates identifies challenges for each technology, and points out areas where he thinks innovation can help address those challenges. For more information on some of the issues that Gates raises please see WNA's Information Papers on  Economics of Nuclear Power,  Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors,  Radioactive Wastes - Myths and Realities,  Renewable Energy and Electricity and  'Clean Coal' Technologies. 

Morocco 's inclusion of plans to build two nuclear power plants as part of its Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action submission  to the COP 15 Copenhagen Accord is an indication of how international climate change policy has developed over the last decade from one where nuclear energy was treated negatively to one where nuclear enegy is now being recognized as a key element of global efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to  Morocco 's plans, China's declaration that it will seek to reduce the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 15% by 2020, is dependent on a significant contribution from nuclear power.  China 's plans for its fast-expanding nuclear generation capacity to increase to around 60GWe by 2020.  South Korea 's declaration that it will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% from business as usual projections is similarly dependent on its ambitious programme of nuclear build.

The conclusion of the Copenhagen COP 15 climate change conference must be seen as an underachievement. Although many have pointed to the Copenhagen Accord not being a legally binding document as a key concern leading politicians had long announced that they did not think that such an outcome was possible from Copenhagen.

However, what was hoped for was a strong political declaration that would set a path to a legally binding document that would be agreed over 2010. In the end, the rushed Accord developed by a small number of heads of state set some admirable objectives, but appeared almost separately from the two weeks of negotiations and the two years of preparation that had led up to COP 15.

One sign of optimism was the almost complete agreement from governments, from richest to poorest, that climate change poses a serious threat and urgent and substantial action is  needed to address it. It can only be hoped that future intergovernmental meetings can agree on what action to take.

The participation of civil society in COP15 is in question as the UN announced that the numbers of NGOs able to access the Bella centre will be severely restricted as the second week of the COP 15 conference proceeds.

The President of the COP 15, Connie Hedegaard, told NGO delegates that she wanted civil society to keep up the pressure on politicians, but then had to acknowledge it would be hard for that to be achieved if the NGO delegates were unable to access the conference centre.

There are now estimated to be around 25,000 NGOs in Copenhagen trying to get into the Bella Centre. NGOs are the Non Governmental Organizations – Business, Trade Unions, Environmental Groups, and Research Institutes amongst others.

On top of this there are 5,000 registered press delegates and 10,000 registered as government delegates, who are being given priority. 

The Bella Centre itself can only admit 15,000 people

On Monday 10,000 people, the ones who have arrived to attend this week’s second part of the conference, have been waiting to be registered. Some delegates have been queuing since 8am and are now being told, six hours later, that registration has been closed for today and has been sent back to their hotels.

Today and Wednesday less than a third of the NGO delegates will be let in, on Thursday this will be reduced to 1000, just 4% of those wanting to get in. By Friday, maybe only 90 NGOs will be allowed in at all. The 15,000 limit of the Bella Centre will almost entirely be taken up by Government delegations and the Press.

These restrictions are likely to serious disrupt the civil society activities being held this week. Those with exhibition stands in the second week of the conference face having to take them down again on Wednesday barely halfway into their allotted time. Those with 'sidebar' presentation events will struggle to get their speakers into the conference centre and find there is no audience for them.

These reductions in NGO numbers will likely not be noticed too much by government delegates at the meeting. The conference centre will remain full and negotiations are ongoing. It has to be wondered how so many government delegates can be actively involved in the negotiation process.

With some irony, the first heads of state delegates arriving today are being greeted by heavy snowfalls.

A new draft text released by one of the UN groups in Copenhagen this afternoon sets out the options that delegates will negotiate next week to reach a deal to combat climate change.

The Ad Hoc Working Group for Long Term Action under the Convention is discussing steps necessary to reach the ultimate goal of the UNFCCC to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that does not harm the environment.

The options on offer include:

• Limiting global average temperature rises, compared to pre industrial levels, to 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celcius.
• Reducing global emissions, compared to 1990, by 50%, 85% or 95 %  by 2050.
• Developed country emissions to fall by 75-85%, 80-95% or more than 95% by 2050.

The document also lays out targets for 2020:

• Developed country emissions to fall by 25-40%, 30%, 40% or 45% by 2020 in comparison to 1990 levels.
• Developing countries shall undertake plans, supported by developed countries, to substaintially deviate emissions from business as usual, possibly by 15-30% 

All these options are up for discussion, and there is no commitment to even the lowest levels of reductions at this stage.

The Copenhagen COP 15 climate change conference has got underway with more than 35,000 people registered to attend a meeting where the conference centre can only accept 15,000 people. The Bella conference centre is already very busy and may not be able to cope with the additional delegates expected to arrive next, when Heads of State are due to attend.

Plans are already in place to issue a much smaller number of "super passes" and to close at least parts of the Conference Centre to most delegates during the high level segment next week.

The leaking of a "Danish Text" has provoked much outrage, but the document had been discussed informally for some time and other groups had developed their own proposals for a final "Copenhagen Agreement". Some of those outraged are probably angry that the Danish government's text got leaked first, giving it a greater prominence.

The WNA has exhibition stand at the COP, one of two hundred booths. We've had a lot of interest and good questions, from both NGO and government delegates. More information is available on the WNA climate change  portal or on WNA's Twitter stream.

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) have covered the issue of the electricity and gas industry at Copenhagen. You can watch the report below or see their webpage.