by John Klar
Lost in the recent climate summit at COP28 in Dubai was the shift by environmentalists and governments toward a nuclear energy future. Calls to eliminate fossil fuels and cows predominated as usual, and John Kerry demanded that all coal-fired plants be banned. But a very substantial lane change took place as well: nuclear-powered options were granted a seat at the climate table.
Observers of climate summits may be forgiven if they’re confused over the direction the world is being led to combat the alleged climate-change Armageddon – clearly, the attendees are. Envoys to Dubai flew to the summit conspicuously in jets, dined on meat, and condemned China for its coal-fired plants while calling to manufacture more solar panels and EVs – which are heavily dependent on Chinese coal energy. In the shuffle to redistribute energy resources, it is inevitable that relatively cheap and clean nuclear power would eventually poke its head cautiously into the climate fray.
A Nuclear “Renaissance”?
Environmental purists have long scoffed at nuclear power as an ally against greenhouse gas emissions, but it appears the failure of the renewable energy pathways to deliver the promised salvation has induced the climate obsessives to reassess their Utopian objectives. In what is being diplomatically whitewashed as a nuclear “renaissance” rather than an about-face reversal, global and industry leaders are openly embracing the “nuclear option.” An international agreement signed by 22 nations while at COP28 pledged to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050. Signatories included the US, Canada, Britain, and the UAE, which touted its own massive investments in nuclear reactors at the climate summit.
This dramatic shift in official climate policy may be driven by the recognition of the frightful shortcomings of renewable energy manufacturing or numerous claims that humanity is already past the point of no return from global warming impacts. Yet a forceful reality for conference attendees – and the world – is that China and other nations are proceeding full steam ahead with nuclear capacity. Perhaps Western nations are fathoming the consequences of being left behind on energy.
China Is Ascendant
Greta Thunberg howls against fossil fuels while demanding more renewable manufacturing – dependent on fossil fuels. The one-issue obsession with carbon dioxide has clouded futurist visions to “save” the world, into what may well prove to be a sort of modern collective energy suicide. Banning oil, natural gas, and coal before the alternatives have been created and implemented is dubious policy. Yet the carbon-focus foible means toxic chemicals spewing from Chinese manufacturing plants have been ignored, as have the consequences of shutting down oil and gas production and distribution. Also overlooked are the economic impacts of reckless government spending.
The most dramatic oversight of the climate agenda, though, may be national security. China is an amused partner at the table – pledging climate policy commitments while ramping up coal-fired plants and nuclear power. China views coal as a national security resource, as it has enormous quantities of black gold. It also understands the power and profitability inherent in nuclear energy, and is currently constructing all six types of fourth-generation nuclear reactors determined by an international consortium to be safer than traditional reactors.
Nuclear Utopia?
Dreams of Utopia invariably crash down with earthly gravitation. Few but the most extremist environmental groups now insist that nuclear power is off the table, especially as new inroads into nuclear fusion are developed. Proponents of climate change action are increasingly coming to terms with the factual reality that renewable energy manufacturing cannot possibly provide the baseload of power the world requires. This leaves nuclear power as not only a viable option, but the planet’s only known hope for anthropogenic rescue from alleged human-caused global warming.
The author is a Brookfield best-selling author, lawyer, farmer and pastor.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Energy, Environment
Riddle me this – all that money sent to Iran – well documented – and the US/UK now firing missiles into Yemen, who is backed by Iran. There are many nukes covered in that sand over there-aimed to and fro. China placing war ships into Taiwan’s range after their selection determines an act of war to China and the USA is defending which side now? Nuclear power appears to be locked, loaded and ready for launch – and our Adminstration and leadership is out to lunch. Where is our Secretary of Defence? Where is The Biden? Hello? How does a multi-front war perpetrated by NATO with nuclear weapons ready and able reconcile with the green new deal? Anyone?
This is a great intro Mr. Klar. I’d be most interested in both the 4th generation differences/improvements and the spent fuel rod re-harvesting technology. If you aren’t going to cover that, do you have a good source for info appropriate for the lay person?
I grew up with Three Mile Island, “The China Syndrome ” and Chernobyl. So, I’m leery of having one on my backyard. Although we did move here with Vermont Yankee in full operation, I did audibly sigh with relief when it closed despite knowing the financial and energy outcomes. I would really like to hear more, because Fukushima wasn’t inspiring.
john kerry////.322 skull and bones/// ops just an opinion///
Serious question: What do you do with the waste, which, as I understood during a 1990 symposium on the subject, is toxic for 100,000 years?
My understanding is the new reactors use the waste that we already produced. Too bad Vermont, once a leader in the nuclear industry, allowed the dimwits to succeed and close down Vt Yankee.
The risk is too high. The current state of nuclear is illogical. You have engineers design plants to specifically provide a specific set of parameters, and then years later when the demand increases, you have politicians vote on if they can keep it running past it’s engineered design specifications, and at a higher capacity than originally designed for. You have several leaking plants, and when the leak alarm goes off, they just turn off the sirens. There are always things out of our control that could cause melt down, and enemies could easily attack them. They are even bold enough to connect these things up to the internet! They don’t even know what to do with the waste. When the technology first came out, they said by the time it’s ready to shut it down we would have the technology to dispose of it.
I’m all for nuclear technology that is risk free, but time and time again they have proven to find the cheapest, most profitable thing they can get away with, and lobby government to allow it to be that way. There is no accountability when you are permitted to be destructive.
Good old VT Yankee dumping the radiation in the CT river. OOPS!
You are all for nuclear technology that is risk free?? There is no such thing as a risk-free energy technology. It is a matter of risk/benefit analysis. If the benefits of an energy source out way the risks then it will likely be useful to us. Nuclear electric generation is the safest of all forms of electric generation per MWh produced. Nuclear waste? Yes, it is a problem but it is a political problem not a scientific/engineering problem. In contrast to our decades-long politicization of the waste problem in the Yucca Mtn. site in Nevada, Finland has just opened its first deep-geologic nuclear waste repository. France is in the process to accomplish the same soon. Petroleum fracking technology has given us the ability to drill several miles deep, way below any water sources, and then horizontally to provide chambers for on-site waste storage. This would obviate any need to transport hazardous wastes long distances to any long term storage facilities.
“Nuclear electric generation is the safest of all forms of electric generation per MWh produced.” Your statement doesn’t make your case, and doesn’t refute my case.
You are free to your opinion, but 100,000 years is quite a long while to wait if you are wrong, and my examples already exist as the current reality.
I was trying to be short saying “risk free”. Obviously just breathing has risks, but there are safer nuclear power technologies that use an acceptable level of nuclear fuel concentrations that we will never see because there are mad hatters all about in the government permit industry.
Too many people listen to misinformation or lies and believe them to be true. There are many successful and safe Nuclear generation plants. Lake Dardanelle, AR is one of many, do your factual research not second hand lies and falsehoods. Accidents that occurred were rare and unnecessary, they will not happen again with new plants in the proper locations. The CHINA SYNDRONE was a fictional movie, it never happened, or could.
I agree “Skippy” and I am fully aware that “China Syndrome” was a fictional movie. The point, if I may have a moment to clarify, was to state my personal cultural experience with nuclear energy. I am actually in favor of this energy over all else. I was just stating that whether I like it or not, I am leery of this in my back yard. I literally live within the 20 mile radius of VT Yankee. That’s all. I don’t believe I implied anything else as my words were… “I grew up with Three Mile Island, “The China Syndrome ” and Chernobyl. So, I’m leery of having one on my backyard. ”
I am fully aware and was/still am prepared for a nuclear “accident”. But I would welcome new technology in nuclear fuel in my backyard once I had a chance to examine it closely and ask questions. And I would still be leery. Both can exist at the same time.
But I also understand people. And people do some fairly dumb things on a regular basis and since the dumbing of our country, this concerns me even more since they will be the ones designing, building and running this structure. See why I’m leery?
Thank you for reading, if indeed you did. I appreciate your allowing me the opportunity to clarify my words. Because if one person has a misunderstanding then usually, so do others.
Respectfully,
Pam Baker
Call your neighbors, john, see how many
… want a new plant burning nuke waste in brookfield.