|
Holiday Greetings
From the president of SCGI
Media reports from COP28 early this month seemed to indicate a sea change regarding nuclear power. When SCGI coordinated an esteemed panel of climate scientists to argue the case for nuclear power at the 2015 Paris COP, pro-nuclear people weren’t even allowed into the main event. But this year at COP28, even the formerly aggressively anti-nuclear John Kerry ironically declared that we’ll need nuclear power to get to net zero. The big announcement was that the world should triple its nuclear power capacity by 2050. Reaction to that target from nuclear advocates ranged from delight to skepticism that it could be accomplished.
About a decade ago, SCGI’s founding board member Ron Gester put together this graph to illustrate a simple thought experiment about energy demand in pursuit of energy egalitarianism. In response to those who argued that Americans should respond to climate change by conserving energy, he proposed a 50% reduction in US per capita consumption by 2050 (the green segment) while bringing the rest of the global population to the same level of consumption by 2050. The increase in energy demand here is stunning, yet if anything, it is too conservative given that American per capita energy consumption is not declining as proposed.
The problem, of course, is that nearly 80% (77% in 2022) of the energy being consumed is from fossil fuels and this has changed little over the past decade (79% in 2014). Since the theoretical goal of the UN COP is to combat climate change, it is the proportion of fossil fuel consumption that is the essential issue. Let’s look at what it would mean to triple nuclear power generation by 2050.
Right now nuclear power supplies about ten percent of global electricity (that’s about 4% of global energy). But tripling that generation wouldn’t mean that in 2050 it would supply 30%, since energy demand is expected to at least double by then. Not only that, but the push to “electrify everything” would boost electricity demand to at least triple today’s figures. So tripling nuclear generation by 2050 means nothing more than running in place. Yet even that modest nuclear buildout aspiration is being seen as overly ambitious by some nuclear advocates.
One has to wonder, of course, which nations are truly up for this triple play. Did you notice that the tepid COP28 statement to work toward “transitioning away” from fossil fuels was not even signed by China, India, or Indonesia? Those are three of the biggest populations and all three are building coal plants like there’s no tomorrow. Even if the U.S. and EU countries all stopped burning coal today, it would be pretty meaningless in terms of global coal use and its attendant emissions.
Those of you who follow SCGI know that we’ve been supportive of Thorcon, a small company that has designed a ship-borne nuclear power plant concept that could be mass-produced in shipyards. If you haven’t followed our Thorcon coverage, check out this article and its embedded links. Thorcon is in the process of raising funds to build the first such system, which they’re ready to build—quickly.
One of the results of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been increased awareness among many nations that energy security is national security. That awakening has highlighted the fact that while gas and coal supplies can be interrupted in times of geopolitical stress, it’s easy to purchase (at very reasonable prices) and store (in quite a small space) sufficient fuel to keep nuclear reactors running for years. So interest in building nuclear power plants—often in countries that have never had them—is so intense that it’s transformed the formerly adamantly anti-nuclear debate at the COP event this year.
To my surprise, Dave Devanney, one of the founders of Thorcon, was invited to give a brief talk at COP28, something that was unheard of in previous years. I would encourage you to read it (here’s the link). He gets right to the point: Nuclear power plants have to be fast to build, safe, and cheap. And it can, indeed, be done. Thorcon’s aspirations—backed up by extensive industrial experience—make the tripling of nuclear capacity by 2050 look almost laughably anemic.
What happens if Thorcon’s plans (or something similar) end up being realized? A massive nuclear buildout is going to require a lot of fuel. While there’s no shortage of uranium in the world, enriched uranium to run most of the world’s reactors is seriously constrained. Russia has been producing much of it, and the USA has been buying much of our country’s nuclear fuel from them. Even with the war in Ukraine continuing, we’re still buying fuel from Russia. Efforts to build fuel enrichment capacity domestically are halting at best. For a good overview of how we got into this precarious situation and where we might go from here, I heartily recommend this episode of the excellent podcast series, Decouple.
In that podcast, there’s a brief discussion of the possibility of enriching uranium using lasers. For over a decade I’ve been involved with this technology in an attempt to solve the fuel problem on the horizon. I’m delighted to report that a project that promises to be effective is finally being implemented. Within a couple of years, we should know with certainty that it works and that it can be scaled to produce all the enriched fuel anyone needs.
The technology itself has been tricky enough, but there’s also the matter of proliferation risk because laser enrichment systems will be far smaller, cheaper, and more efficient than the current centrifuge technology. So the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) will certainly be looking to ensure the highest level of security when it comes to this tech. I’ll be consulting during the coming year with all the parties involved in hopes that the fuel problem can be solved while ensuring that it can be done with the utmost security precautions in place.
Some have characterized me as an incorrigible optimist. Guilty as charged. However, I try to be realistic in assessing the potential for modern technologies to solve thorny problems. I believe that both the Thorcon project and the laser project can be successful and brought to production in this decade, and if so that combination will utterly transform global energy, with the promise of global energy egalitarianism at long last.
As 2023 draws to a close, I’d like to thank all those who support our efforts at SCGI and assure you that we’ll continue to work diligently on these critical issues that can make a real impact on both social justice and environmental repair. Happy holidays!
Tom Blees
President, SCGI
If you agree that fission energy is a necessary part of our energy future, please support our continued efforts with a donation. Click here to donate.
|
The Science Council for Global Initiatives is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable organization. All contributions are tax-deductible.