Is nuclear energy necessary to address climate change?

(resources) The costs and benefits of using nuclear energy have been a hot topic of debate in recent years for a number of reasons, related to the need to cut gas. carbon emissions and nuclear energy leaks at the Fukushima plant in Japan.

Opponents argue that nuclear energy is not only dangerous but also necessary for addressing climate change. Meanwhile, backers argue that the risks are small and that not using nuclear energy even creates a bigger and more costly challenge.

One thing that can be seen is that the use of low-carbon energy is essential to combat climate change. Even assuming that great efficiency in electricity use can be achieved, the world's electricity demand by 2050 will increase by about twice that of the present. The problem is, most of the electricity generated is from coal (40%) and gas (20%), along with hydropower (16%) and nuclear power (13%) so far as the source. producing electricity with the lowest amount of carbon. In Europe, most of the electricity generated is wind power.

In China, the largest electricity consumer in the world, coal is the main source of electricity production, although it is also the biggest investor for the nuclear and wind power industries. Worldwide, coal and gas are most used in electricity production.

This situation needs to be solved immediately to realize the goals that world leaders set out in Copenhagen in 2009, which is to keep the temperature of the earth up to a maximum of 2 degrees Celsius. Thus, most electricity must be produced from low carbon sources.

Solutions for low-carbon power generation are hydroelectric, wind, nuclear power, and biofuels; coal and gas in plants that can be seized and stored carbon emissions. The use of hydro, wind or solar power depends on the conditions of each region, each country. Wind and solar power are not always available and cannot be used for these two energy sources. Biofuels depend on the availability of plant materials. For these reasons, combining the use of energy resources is necessary and every place in the world will have different options.

Carbon capture and storage technology (CCS) is the only option outside nuclear power to produce low-carbon waste electricity in areas with no conditions to develop hydropower or produce electricity from fuel. biological. CCS can replace nuclear energy if successfully applied.

The cost of using nuclear power compared to other types of energy is still uncertain. A recent study in the UK estimated that the cost of using nuclear power is higher than low-cost energy such as hydroelectric or bioelectric, but lower than using CCS or offshore wind power. Solar energy use is costly but now this cost is falling sharply and being competitive with nuclear power. CCS technology is feasible, but the cost of this technology is only known when it is put into use.

After the disaster of the Fukushima nuclear power plant, most developing countries and many developed countries plan to build a nuclear plant that continues to implement the project. However, Germany, where nuclear power accounts for 23%, has decided to completely eliminate nuclear power by 2020 while looking for ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below 40% in 1990. . Germany is expected to be a pioneer in the use of renewable energy sources, but some analysts are skeptical about the costs incurred for the additional use of the thermal power plant.

Unsurprisingly, researchers do not make the same assumption in the question of which type of low-carbon technology is most needed by 2050. The International Energy Agency intends to make nuclear power 20%. electricity produced, while the International Institute of Analytical and Applied Systems put forward three comments, 2 out of 3 that predict the amount of nuclear power produced will be significant, similar to the estimate of The International Energy Agency, another prediction that nuclear power will be removed.

After all, there is no simple answer to this problem. If we believe that nuclear energy should be completely eliminated and with commitments from governments, this can be done to meet the requirements of fighting climate change. However, the fact that the process of reducing carbon emissions to achieve the goal of preventing the global temperature rise by more than 2 degrees C is still far away. The balance between anti-climate change effects and the harmful effects of nuclear energy is problematic.