As the USA and many world leaders continue the pursuit of “unreliable electricity”, from wind turbines and solar panels, that can only generate intermittent electricity at best from available breezes and sunshine, Russia, China, France, and Finland have emerged as the leaders in nuclear power generation to achieve continuous uninterruptible, affordable, and zero emission electricity.
According to recent reports, Russia and China are currently leading the world in nuclear electricity generation which also happens to be continuous uninterruptable zero-emissions electricity.
About 60 nuclear power reactors are currently being constructed in 15 countries, notably China, India, and Russia. Together, China and Russia account for 70 percent of new nuclear plants.
The United States, which once led the way in nuclear energy, now lags with only a handful of new reactors under construction. The dominance of Russia and China is likely to continue for the foreseeable future as they invest heavily in new technology and expand their nuclear power programs.
Many of the next generation nuclear plants will require a new form of enriched uranium – called High-Assay, Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU). Russia is currently the only country to produce HALEU which may not be comfortable for America’s national security. READ MORE...
Between 2009 and 2019, global consumption of renewable energy grew at an annual average of 13.4%. Over that time, renewable energy consumption grew from 8.2 exajoules (EJ) globally to 28.8 EJ.
Yet, global carbon dioxide emissions rose by more than 4 billion metric tons per year during that time, reaching an all-time high in 2019.
Between 2009 and 2019, global consumption of renewable energy grew at an annual average of 13.4%. Over that time, renewable energy consumption grew from 8.2 exajoules (EJ) globally to 28.8 EJ.
Yet, global carbon dioxide emissions rose by more than 4 billion metric tons per year during that time, reaching an all-time high in 2019.
The reason for this is that overall global energy consumption — while growing at an average annual rate of only 1.9% — rose by 92 EJ from 2009 to 2019. Renewables are growing at a much faster rate, but it will take decades at the current growth rates before renewables can make a serious dent in global carbon dioxide emissions.
That’s why nuclear power could play a critical supporting role in reining in global carbon dioxide emissions. Yet, nuclear power is concentrated in a handful of countries, and very few are growing their nuclear energy production.
The reason for this is that overall global energy consumption — while growing at an average annual rate of only 1.9% — rose by 92 EJ from 2009 to 2019. Renewables are growing at a much faster rate, but it will take decades at the current growth rates before renewables can make a serious dent in global carbon dioxide emissions.That’s why nuclear power could play a critical supporting role in reining in global carbon dioxide emissions. Yet, nuclear power is concentrated in a handful of countries, and very few are growing their nuclear energy production. READ MORE...
Defining nuclear and gas as sustainable has led to calls of greenwashing, threats of legal action from some EU countries and a lot of column inches dedicated to the obscurely titled 'taxonomy' system.
But what is all the fuss about?
On Wednesday, the European Commission is set to sign off on its latest plans for the EU’s taxonomy labelling system, which helps private investors identify which energy investments are sustainable.
The aim is to direct money into sustainable energy sources and help the bloc achieve its ambitious plan of being carbon neutral by 2050.
The current proposal has caused a stir by labelling nuclear and gas as sustainable sources of energy, something that has caused outrage from green activists and organisations.
When the Commission adopts the act, the Parliament and Council will have two months to raise any objections. Failing this, it will enter into force.
A majority of MEPs or 20 out of 27 member states could block the plans, but before that happens the arguments for and against marking the two energy sources as sustainable will have to be laid out.
Nuclear energy
For many, nuclear represents the perfect opportunity to maximise energy output, while minimising carbon emissions. For others, it symbolises just another environmental problem, with a solution to the disposal of radioactive waste yet to be found.
For French MEP Christophe Grudler, there is no other alternative but to include nuclear energy as a sustainable source.
“If we want to meet the Green Deal goals, we have no choice. We have to include nuclear in the taxonomy,” Grudler told Euronews.
“The question is, do we want to meet the Green Deal goals? If we want to do it, we need decarbonised energy, like nuclear. The Commission said we need around 15% of nuclear in the energy mix in 2050 to meet the goal.”
On nuclear waste, the European lawmaker – who is member of French President Emmanuel Macron’s ‘La République En Marche!’ party – says people are working hard to find an answer to the problem. READ MORE...
Fusion has an amazing future as a source of energy. Which is to say, in space craft beyond the orbit of Jupiter, sometime in the next two centuries. Here on Earth? Not so much. At least, that’s my opinion.
Nuclear electrical generation has 2.5 paths. The first is nuclear fission, the part that is the major electrical generation source that provides about 10% of the electricity in the world today. The 0.5 is radioisotope thermoelectric generator, where a tiny chunk of decaying radioactive material is used with a thermocouple to provide electricity to space probes. If you read or saw The Martian, that’s what he dug out of the pit and put in his jury-rigged long-distance Mars buggy.
And then there’s fusion. Where fission splits atoms, fusion merges them. Instead of radioactive fuel, there’s a lot of radioactive emissions from the merging of things like hydrogen-3, deuterium, and tritium that irradiates the containment structures. Lower radioactive waste that doesn’t last as long, but still radioactive waste for those who think that’s a concern.
Compared to CO2e emissions causing global warming, I don’t consider a few thousand tons of radioactive waste to be significant. Among other things, I spent enough time with epidemiologists building the world’s most sophisticated communicable disease and pandemic management solution that I ended up with a much better appreciation of the statistics of radiation and health. It’s not a big concern compared to coal or global warming.
But fusion generation of electricity, as opposed to big honking nuclear weapons using fusion, is a perpetual source of interest. When Lewis Strauss, then chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, talked about nuclear being “too cheap to meter” in 1954, he was talking about fusion, not fission. Like everyone since the mid-1950s, he assumed that fusion would be generating power in 20 years.
And so here we are, 67 years later. How is fusion doing? To read more about the future of fusion, CLICK HERE...
