Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Climate Scientist James Hansen on, um, Religion. [View all]OKIsItJustMe
(21,994 posts)3. Commentary: Nuclear power must be part of New York's energy solution
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/Documents/Hansen.2022.Commentary.NuclearPowerNewYork.AlbanyTimesUnion.pdf
James E. Hansen April 11, 2022
New York is to be commended for adopting the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, legislation that calls for carbon-free electricity by 2040. However, future generations will judge us by results we achieve, not by our aspirations.
Tackling the climate crisis requires policies based on facts, not prejudice. Wind and solar power help with early decarbonization, where they can replace fossil fuels without need for large storage and transmission upgrades. However, systems overly dependent on intermittent, low-energy-density renewables as California and Germany have proven lead to skyrocketing electric rates, grid instability, and continued dependence on fossil fuels. Cost-optimized energy modeling reveals that nuclear power must ramp up for emissions to approach zero. In fact, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finds that nuclear generation in 2050 grows by two to six times 2010 levels for all four illustrative pathways consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Todays policies need to reflect this awareness and initiate multi-decadal plans to achieve reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy systems.
Significantly, many governments are beginning to understand that nuclear power is part of the answer. France, which decarbonized its grid with nuclear years ago, has announced support for a new generation of reactors. So have the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Canada. In our country, several states have taken steps to preserve their existing plants, while others like Wyoming are developing passively safe advanced nuclear technology for the future. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are on board, too. Highlighting federal enthusiasm, U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm recently said, We are very bullish on advanced nuclear reactors. Nuclear is dispatchable, clean baseload power, so we want to be able to bring more on.
New York belongs at the forefront of innovation, not on the sidelines. A brighter tomorrow is possible, but it requires setting politics and ideology aside. If New York is to meet its climate goals while providing ample, reliable energy essential for prosperity, it must engage in an inclusive discussion of solutions and craft a realistic plan that recognizes the value of nuclear power today and in the future.
I agree. Nuclear clearly must be part of the solution.
What does the IPCC say? (Sadly, the Seventh Assesment Report has not been released yet.)
Clarke, L., Y.-M. Wei, A. De La Vega Navarro, A. Garg, A.N. Hahmann, S. Khennas, I.M.L. Azevedo, A. Löschel, A.K. Singh, L. Steg, G. Strbac, K. Wada, 2022: Energy Systems. In IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.008.
James E. Hansen April 11, 2022
New York is to be commended for adopting the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, legislation that calls for carbon-free electricity by 2040. However, future generations will judge us by results we achieve, not by our aspirations.
Tackling the climate crisis requires policies based on facts, not prejudice. Wind and solar power help with early decarbonization, where they can replace fossil fuels without need for large storage and transmission upgrades. However, systems overly dependent on intermittent, low-energy-density renewables as California and Germany have proven lead to skyrocketing electric rates, grid instability, and continued dependence on fossil fuels. Cost-optimized energy modeling reveals that nuclear power must ramp up for emissions to approach zero. In fact, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finds that nuclear generation in 2050 grows by two to six times 2010 levels for all four illustrative pathways consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Todays policies need to reflect this awareness and initiate multi-decadal plans to achieve reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy systems.
Significantly, many governments are beginning to understand that nuclear power is part of the answer. France, which decarbonized its grid with nuclear years ago, has announced support for a new generation of reactors. So have the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Canada. In our country, several states have taken steps to preserve their existing plants, while others like Wyoming are developing passively safe advanced nuclear technology for the future. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are on board, too. Highlighting federal enthusiasm, U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm recently said, We are very bullish on advanced nuclear reactors. Nuclear is dispatchable, clean baseload power, so we want to be able to bring more on.
New York belongs at the forefront of innovation, not on the sidelines. A brighter tomorrow is possible, but it requires setting politics and ideology aside. If New York is to meet its climate goals while providing ample, reliable energy essential for prosperity, it must engage in an inclusive discussion of solutions and craft a realistic plan that recognizes the value of nuclear power today and in the future.
I agree. Nuclear clearly must be part of the solution.
What does the IPCC say? (Sadly, the Seventh Assesment Report has not been released yet.)
Clarke, L., Y.-M. Wei, A. De La Vega Navarro, A. Garg, A.N. Hahmann, S. Khennas, I.M.L. Azevedo, A. Löschel, A.K. Singh, L. Steg, G. Strbac, K. Wada, 2022: Energy Systems. In IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.008.
Chapter 6: Energy systems
Executive Summary
Warming cannot be limited to well below 2°C without rapid and deep reductions in energy system carbon dioxide (CO₂) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In scenarios limiting warming to 1.5°C (>50%) with no or limited overshoot (2°C (>67%) with action starting in 2020), net energy system CO₂ emissions (interquartile range) fall by 8797% (6079%) in 2050. In 2030, in scenarios limiting warming to 1.5°C (>50%) with no or limited overshoot, net CO₂ and GHG emissions fall by 3551% and 3852% respectively. In scenarios limiting warming to 1.5°C (>50%) with no or limited overshoot (2°C (>67%)), net electricity sector CO₂ emissions reach zero globally between 2045 and 2055 (2050 and 2080). ( high confidence) {6.7}
Prices have dropped rapidly over the last five years for several key energy system mitigation options, notably solar photovoltaics (PV), wind power, and batteries. From 2015 to 2020, the prices of electricity from PV and wind dropped 56% and 45%, respectively, and battery prices dropped by 64%. Electricity from PV and wind is now cheaper than electricity from fossil sources in many regions, electric vehicles are increasingly competitive with internal combustion engines, and large-scale battery storage on electricity grids is increasingly viable. ( high confidence) {6.3, 6.4}
Global wind and solar PV capacity and generation have increased rapidly. Solar PV grew by 170% (to 680 TWh); wind grew by 70% (to 1420 TWh) from 2015 to 2019. Policy, societal pressure to limit fossil generation, low interest rates, and cost reductions have all driven wind and solar PV deployment. Solar PV and wind together accounted for 21% of total low-carbon electricity generation and 8% of total electricity generation in 2019. Nuclear generation grew 9% between 2015 and 2019 and accounted for 10% of total generation in 2019 (2790 TWh); hydroelectric power grew by 10% and accounted for 16% (4290 TWh) of total generation. In total,low- and zero-carbon electricity generation technologies produced 37% of global electricity in 2019. ( high confidence) {6.3, 6.4}
Multiple energy supply options are available to reduce emissions over the next decade. Nuclear power and hydropower are already established technologies. Solar PV and wind are now cheaper than fossil-generated electricity in many locations. Bioenergy accounts for about a tenth of global primary energy. Carbon capture is widely used in the oil and gas industry, with early applications in electricity production and biofuels. It will not be possible to widely deploy all of these and other options without efforts to address the geophysical, environmental-ecological, economic, technological, socio-cultural, and institutional factors that can facilitate or hinder their implementation. ( high confidence) {6.4}
Executive Summary
Warming cannot be limited to well below 2°C without rapid and deep reductions in energy system carbon dioxide (CO₂) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In scenarios limiting warming to 1.5°C (>50%) with no or limited overshoot (2°C (>67%) with action starting in 2020), net energy system CO₂ emissions (interquartile range) fall by 8797% (6079%) in 2050. In 2030, in scenarios limiting warming to 1.5°C (>50%) with no or limited overshoot, net CO₂ and GHG emissions fall by 3551% and 3852% respectively. In scenarios limiting warming to 1.5°C (>50%) with no or limited overshoot (2°C (>67%)), net electricity sector CO₂ emissions reach zero globally between 2045 and 2055 (2050 and 2080). ( high confidence) {6.7}
Prices have dropped rapidly over the last five years for several key energy system mitigation options, notably solar photovoltaics (PV), wind power, and batteries. From 2015 to 2020, the prices of electricity from PV and wind dropped 56% and 45%, respectively, and battery prices dropped by 64%. Electricity from PV and wind is now cheaper than electricity from fossil sources in many regions, electric vehicles are increasingly competitive with internal combustion engines, and large-scale battery storage on electricity grids is increasingly viable. ( high confidence) {6.3, 6.4}
Global wind and solar PV capacity and generation have increased rapidly. Solar PV grew by 170% (to 680 TWh); wind grew by 70% (to 1420 TWh) from 2015 to 2019. Policy, societal pressure to limit fossil generation, low interest rates, and cost reductions have all driven wind and solar PV deployment. Solar PV and wind together accounted for 21% of total low-carbon electricity generation and 8% of total electricity generation in 2019. Nuclear generation grew 9% between 2015 and 2019 and accounted for 10% of total generation in 2019 (2790 TWh); hydroelectric power grew by 10% and accounted for 16% (4290 TWh) of total generation. In total,low- and zero-carbon electricity generation technologies produced 37% of global electricity in 2019. ( high confidence) {6.3, 6.4}
Multiple energy supply options are available to reduce emissions over the next decade. Nuclear power and hydropower are already established technologies. Solar PV and wind are now cheaper than fossil-generated electricity in many locations. Bioenergy accounts for about a tenth of global primary energy. Carbon capture is widely used in the oil and gas industry, with early applications in electricity production and biofuels. It will not be possible to widely deploy all of these and other options without efforts to address the geophysical, environmental-ecological, economic, technological, socio-cultural, and institutional factors that can facilitate or hinder their implementation. ( high confidence) {6.4}
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
23 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
This is true. I went to a lecture last night by a scientist last night which focused on getting people to...
NNadir
Friday
#2
Dr. Hansen and I agree on nuclear energy. I disagree that so called "renewable energy" is worth the land and money...
NNadir
Friday
#4
In response to this question, I would like to state that a mirror is useful device.
NNadir
3 hrs ago
#22
He's right about one; wrong about the other. It is inexcusable to spend trillions of dollars on so called...
NNadir
Saturday
#8
IEA: Rapid clean energy deployment displaces fossil fuels and lowers emissions
OKIsItJustMe
Saturday
#11
Copenhagen Atomics is an interesting little company with which I have passing familiarity. I'm mostly amused...
NNadir
Saturday
#9
A Candu would not need HALEU in the case where it is started by plutonium. Outgassing Xe will change...
NNadir
Yesterday
#18
A world economy powered by renewable energy may have been plausible fifty years ago...
hunter
Saturday
#12
It hasn't been possible since the 19th century, which was when it was abandoned for a reason.
NNadir
Saturday
#13
I say plausible because the actual capabilities of renewable energy were still unknown.
hunter
Yesterday
#15
It's just getting started. Approaching 'critical mass' and it's Fun to watch it happening now.
thought crime
12 hrs ago
#20