Is nuclear energy the answer to a sustainable future? Experts are divided
Nuclear power has been touted as a proven, safe way of producing clean energy, but why isn’t it more widely adopted?
Sean Gallup | Getty Images News | Getty Images
As the world pushes toward its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, nuclear power has been touted as the way to bridge the energy gap — but some, like Greenpeace, have expressed skepticism, warning that it has “no place in a safe, clean, sustainable future.”
Nuclear energy is not only clean. It is reliable and overcomes the intermittent nature of renewables like wind, hydro and solar power.
“How do you provide cheap, reliable and pollution-free energy for a world of 8 billion people? Nuclear energy is really the only scalable version of that, renewables are not reliable,” Michael Shellenberger, founder of environmental organization Environmental Progress, told CNBC.
Governments have started to pour money into the sector after years of “treading water,” according to a report by Schroders on Aug. 8.
According to the report, there are 486 nuclear reactors either planned, proposed or under construction as of July, amounting to 65.9 billion watts of electric capacity – the highest amount of electric capacity under construction the industry has seen since 2015.
Only a few years ago, the International Energy Agency had warned that nuclear power was “at risk of future decline.” The report in 2019 said then that “nuclear power has begun to fade, with plants closing and little new investment made, just when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.”
Schroders noted that nuclear power is not only scalable, but much cleaner — emitting just 10-15 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour. That’s competitive with both wind and solar energy and substantially better than coal and natural gas.
Nuclear power is also the second largest source of low carbon energy after hydro power, more than wind and solar combined, Schroders said.
Shellenberger’s view is that renewable energy is reaching the limits of what it can achieve in many countries. For example, hydroelectric power is not viable in all countries, and those that have them are “tapped out,” which means they cannot exploit any more land or water resources for that purpose.
Nuclear power is a great alternative, with “very small amounts of waste, easy to manage, never hurt anybody, very low cost when you build the same kind of plants over and over again,” he added.
That’s the reason why nations are having a second look at nuclear power, Shellenberger said. “It’s because renewables aren’t able to take us where we need to go. And countries want to be free of fossil fuels.”
Nuclear safety
Twelve years after Fukushima, we’re just getting better at operating these plants. They’re more efficient, they’re safer, we have better training.
Michael Shellenberger
Environmental Progress
In an interview with CNBC’s “Street Signs Asia” last week, Adam Fleck, director of research, ratings and ESG at Morningstar, said the social concern around nuclear power is “somewhat misunderstood.”
While the tragedies in Chernobyl and Fukushima cannot be forgotten, using nuclear is one of the safest ways to produce energy, even taking into consideration the need to store the nuclear waste.
“Many of those [storage facilities] are highly protected. They’re protected against earthquakes, tornadoes, you name it. But there’s a reason why there hasn’t been a significant tragedy or concern related to storage of nuclear waste.”
Shellenberger said: “Twelve years after Fukushima, we’re just getting better at operating these plants. They’re more efficient, they’re safer, we have better training.”
There have been new designs for nuclear power plants that have also enhanced safety, “but really what’s made nuclear safe has been the kind of the boring stuff, the stuff of the trainings and the routines and the best practices,” he told CNBC.
Too expensive, too slow
So, if nuclear has been a tested, proven and safe way of generating power, why isn’t it more widely adopted?
Fleck said it boils down to one main factor: cost.
The extra time that nuclear plants take to build has major implications for climate goals, as existing fossil-fueled plants continue to emit carbon dioxide while awaiting substitution.
Greenpeace
“I think the biggest issue of nuclear has actually been cost economics. It’s very costly to build a nuclear plant up front. There’s a lot of overruns, a lot of delays. And I think, for investors looking to put money to work in this space, they need to find players that have a strong track record of being able to build out that capacity.”
But not everyone is convinced.
A report by global campaigning network Greenpeace in March 2022 was of the position that besides the commonly held concern of nuclear safety, nuclear energy is too expensive and too slow to deploy compared to other renewables.
Greenpeace noted that a nuclear power plant takes about 10 years to build, adding “the extra time that nuclear plants take to build has major implications for climate goals, as existing fossil-fueled plants continue to emit carbon dioxide while awaiting substitution.”
Furthermore, it points out that uranium extraction, transport and processing are not free of greenhouse gas emissions either.
Greenpeace acknowledged that “all in all, nuclear power stations score comparable with wind and solar energy.” However, wind and solar can be implemented much faster and on a much bigger scale, making a faster impact on carbon emissions and the clean energy transition.
Nuclear power is a “distraction” from the “answer we need” — such as renewables and energy storage solutions to mitigate the unreliability from renewables, said Dave Sweeney, a nuclear analyst and nuclear-free campaigner with the Australian Conservation Foundation.
“That’s the way that we need to go, to keep the lights on and the Geiger counters down,” he told CNBC’s “Street Signs Asia” on Friday.
Elon Musk has claimed that the Democratic party organized recent protests at Tesla locations worldwide. As he usually does with his wild claims lately, he hasn’t offered any proof whatsoever.
Over the last few weeks, there have been growing protests at Tesla locations around the word.
It started small with just a few locations in the US, but it has since grown to now dozens of locations every weekend, with sometimes hundreds of people at some locations.
Protestors have different reasons for wanting to disrupt Tesla, but they are mostly centered around seeing the company as Elon Musk’s piggybank and they are upset at his involvement in the government through his financial contribution to Trump’s election and his role at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Musk took to X today to comment on the situation, and he made the claim that the protests at Tesla locations are funded by ActBlue:
An investigation has found 5 ActBlue-funded groups responsible for Tesla “protests”: Troublemakers, Disruption Project, Rise & Resist, Indivisible Project and Democratic Socialists of America. ActBlue funders include George Soros, Reid Hoffman, Herbert Sandler, Patricia Bauman, and Leah Hunt-Hendrix. ActBlue is currently under investigation for allowing foreign and illegal donations in criminal violation of campaign finance regulations. This week, 7 ActBlue senior officials resigned, including the associate general counsel.
ActBlue is a political action committee (PAC) used by the Democratic Party.
Musk did not elaborate on what “investigation” he was referring to nor did he provide any proof to back up his claim. In fact, he even asked for people to help provide information:
“If you know anything about this, please post in replies.”
Musk directly named Reid Hoffman, his former Paypal Mafia friend turned foe due to political differences, who was quick to deny any involvement:
Just one more of Elon’s false claims about me: I never funded anyone for Tesla protests. I don’t condone violence. But it’s clear Americans are angry at him – it’s easier to explain away their anger, than to accept that actions have consequences.
While the Democratic Party could be sympathetic to the Tesla protestors, there’s no evidence that they started the “Tesla Takedown” movement or have any significant involvement.
As we previously reported, it started as a grassroots movement with some posts on BlueSky, an X competitor, last month.
It has since gained considerable momentum, and they are now using Action Network, an open platform, to organize. As it grew, some groups have gotten involved to organize local protests, like The Disruption Project, which claims to stand “against the unjust systems of racial capitalism, the hetero-patriarchy, white supremacy and settler colonialism.”
In Seattle, The Troublemakers, a local environmentalist group, has also been helping organize.
The biggest blow to Musk’s claim is that there have also been protests outside the US, including in Canada and Europe. It’s unlikely that the US Democratic party would be involved in those.
There are currently six protests planned in Europe by the “Tesla Takedown” in the coming weeks:
Musk has also been involved in European politics, promoting far-right parties throughout Europe.
Along with the claims about the Tesla protests, Musk also retweeted someone linking several Cybertrucks burning down at a Tesla location in Seattle to “Democrat NGOs”:
Again, this claim is without evidence. In fact, the fires are still under investigation and it hasn’t yet been confirmed if it was arson.
Electrek’s Take
Could the Democratic Party be involved in some of the protests? It wouldn’t shock me, but you can claim that without proof.
I think most people involved in the protests are just mad at Elon for any of the hundreds of stupid things he has done or said in the last few months, including doing a couple of Nazi salutes at Trump’s inauguration.
He prefers to think that there’s some grand conspiracy against him because that’s easier to swallow than people hating home for being a compulsive liar, oligarch dork with the sense of humor of a maladjusted 13-year-old.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
U.S. could reach deal with Canada that avoids oil and gas tariffs, energy secretary says
HOUSTON — The U.S. could reach an agreement with Canada that avoids tariffs on imports of oil, gas and other energy resources, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said Monday.
Wright said such a scenario is “certainly is possible” but “it’s too early to say” in response to a question from CNBC during a press conference at the CERAWeek by S&P Global. The U.S. is in “active dialogue” with Canada and Mexico, the energy secretary said.
President Donald Trump has paused until April 2 tariffs on Mexican and Canadian imports that are compliant with the agreement which governs trade in North America. Trump originally imposed broad 25% tariffs on goods from both countries as well as lesser 10% tariffs on energy imports from Canada.
It’s unclear, however, how much of the oil, gas and other energy that the U.S. imports from Canada is compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Wright declined to provide specifics when CNBC asked how much of those imports are USMCA compliant.
“I’m going to avoid the details for now,” Wright said. The energy secretary said, “We can get to no tariffs or very low tariffs but it’s got to be reciprocal” in an interview with CNBC’s Brian Sullivan.
Canada’s energy minister, Jonathan Wilkinson, warned last week that energy prices will rise in the U.S. if the tariffs on energy imports go into full effect.
“We will see higher gasoline prices as a function of energy, higher electricity prices from hydroelectricity from Canada, higher home heating prices associated with natural gas that comes from Canada and higher automobile prices,” Wilkinson told CNBC’s Megan Cassella in an interview.
The U.S. has been the largest producer of crude oil and natural gas in the world for years. But many refiners in the U.S. are dependent on heavy crude imported from Canada. The U.S. imported 6.6 million barrels of crude oil per day on average in December, more than 60% of which came from Canada, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Wright acknowledged that the tariffs are creating uncertainty in energy markets as negotiations continue.
“We’re in the middle of negotiations for where things are going to go with tariffs, so that feels frightening and gripping right now but this time will pass,” Wright said. “Deals will be made, we’ll get certainty and we’ll have a positive economic environment for Americans going forward.”
U.S. crude oil fell more than 1% Monday to close at $66.03 per barrel, while global benchmark Brent closed at $69.28 per barrel. Crude oil futures have pulled back substantially as Trump’s trade policy creates uncertainty and OPEC+ has confirmed that it plans to gradually bring back 2.2 million barrels per day of production beginning next month.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports11 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway