Call it deception. Nuclear power interests in the aftermath of the COP28 climate conference in Dubai this month crowed about a “recommendation” for a tripling of worldwide nuclear capacity to reduce carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions. The claim involves considerable slight-of-hand.
The UN conference endorsed tripling non-CO2 generating technologies, specifically renewables such as wind and solar. Almost as an afterthought, the text mentioned nuclear in passing. Nowhere did it call for tripling nuclear. It was the first mention of nuclear in any of the previous 27 COP reports.
Outside of the official COP proceeding, a group of 22 countries, including the U.S. and France, met separately in Dubai touting tripling nuclear capacity. The COP report had provided an opportunity for deliberate fakery.
Here’s Maria Korsnick, CEO of the U.S. Nuclear Energy Institute: “Demand for nuclear is surging around the world because it is clean, reliable, and affordable. As I meet with world climate leaders this week in Dubai for COP28, I am heartened to see this momentum clearly reflected in the dialogue taking place.
Today, government leaders from around the world called for a tripling of nuclear capacity by 2050 because it is critical for meeting our global climate goals—an imperative echoed by my fellow industry leaders.” Not a lie, but rhetorical smoke and mirrors.
Here’s the International Atomic Energy Agency’s press release headline: “Nuclear Energy Makes History as Final COP28 Agreement Calls for Faster Deployment.” Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said, “Nuclear energy‘s inclusion in the Global Stocktake is nothing short of a historic milestone and a reflection of how much perspectives have changed.”
The U.S. Department of Energy press release headline was the most blatant: “At COP28, Countries Launch Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050, Recognizing the Key Role of Nuclear Energy in Reaching Net Zero.”
A deliberate nuclear three-card monte. But the IAEA press release further down turned over the correct card: “But the inclusion of nuclear, together with a separate declaration made last week at COP28 by more than 22 countries to advance the aspirational goal of tripling nuclear power capacity by 2050, as well as statements by the IAEA and the nuclear industry, underscored the momentum building behind the world’s second largest source of clean electricity.”
Notice the word “aspirational.” That’s the key. It’s a letter to Santa Claus, not a policy direction.
Here’s the list of the countries that signed onto the wish list, in addition to the U.S.: Armenia, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Ghana, Hungary, Jamaica, Japan, Republic of Korea, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and United Kingdom.
Among the 176 nations that did not sign on are China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Germany, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, South Africa. All, according to the World Nuclear Association, have civilian nuclear power plants, and the list is not exhaustive. No African nations other than Ghana and Morocco signed on to the tripling aspiration.
The desired tripling of world nuclear capacity drew raspberries from many of those who follow nuclear power developments around the world. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists called it “COP28 and the nuclear energy numbers racket.”
“It seems like an impressive and urgent call to arms. On closer inspection, however, the numbers don’t work out.” Sharon Squassoni
Writing in the Bulletin, Sharon Squassoni, research professor at the Institute for International Science and Technology Policy, Elliott School of International Affairs at the George Washington University in Washington, wrote, “It seems like an impressive and urgent call to arms. On closer inspection, however, the numbers don’t work out. Even at best, a shift to invest more heavily in nuclear energy over the next two decades could actually worsen the climate crisis, as cheaper, quicker alternatives are ignored for more expensive, slow-to-deploy nuclear options.”
The tripling idea, Squassoni notes, “is not new. In fact, it was one of eight climate stabilization ‘wedges’ laid out in Science magazine in 2004 in a now-famous article by Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala of Princeton University….Given the stagnation of the nuclear power industry since then, the build rate now to reach wedge level would need to be 40 per year.”
Physicist Edwin Lyman, who follows nuclear power issues for the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, tweeted, “In reflecting on the absurdity of this ‘aspirational goal’: In the U.S., it would mean, in addition to maintaining the entire existing fleet, about 190 GW of nuclear would have to bw added over 25 years. That would mean the equivalent of 7 Vogtle units starting up PER YEAR.”
–Kennedy Maize