Can totally empathize with info overload—so here are the relevant sections:
“current generation nuclear might be better than using coal power and would reduce emissions in advanced economies.
But, crucially, continued reliance on old technology does not lead to technology innovation spillovers in emerging economies. Current nuclear technology, for instance, will not play a big part in preventing climate change because:
It’s not infinitely powerful: It only contributes 5% to the world’s energy supply[169] and even in China, where regulation is lax and public opposition to nuclear is not as big an issue for policy-makers, few reactors are currently being built.
It carries safety risks.[170] While advanced nuclear power in some advanced economies might actually reduce nuclear proliferation risk by using up nuclear material, in other countries, nuclear power might increase proliferation risks.[171]
It will not be used in many emerging economies.[172] There is not much nuclear power in Africa to start with and only additional 1–5 countries in Africa currently plan to have commercial nuclear power, with many countries being away at least 10 years away from starting construction on nuclear plants.[173]
Continued reliance on outdated nuclear technology might not have the same crucial global technology spillovers as investments in other clean energy (including advanced nuclear). Since the best path towards global decarbonization is through global technology spillover into emerging economies, the actors that have the best emissions score may, surprisingly, not be the most effective actors at reducing the global rate of emissions in the future. This has some counterintuitive implications. Consider that Germany has higher carbon emissions than France even though it has invested more heavily in solar than its neighbor, which uses much more nuclear. Should advanced economies like Germany leave their nuclear plants running? Perhaps, but it will not make a very large dent in global emissions because 75% of all future emissions will come from emerging economies, which will not adopt the kind of (non-advanced) nuclear power currently in use in Germany.”
“I relied on the scientific consensus on this topic. Also, unlike other analyses, we did not compare the effectiveness of different energy sources. For instance, is nuclear really good and its drawbacks are overstated?[87] Are renewables like solar underestimated?[88] Can coal perhaps be made clean through carbon capture?[89] We intentionally steered clear of these controversies and have not engaged with these questions on a deep level. There seems to be no expert consensus on whether any one technology is superior and unreasonably neglected than others. Instead, we feel there is some mild consensus amongst energy experts that the world’s future energy supply must come from a diverse mix of energy sources[90] and it is best to opt for ‘technology neutrality’[91], i.e. being agnostic with regards to which low-carbon technology is best. We assume that clean energy R&D budget increases will either lead to all technologies becoming better across the board or one technology will emerge more readily as the ‘winner’.”
Thanks, that helps too. I still intend to read everything in full later. It’s not like it’s something I don’t know when I’d ever do. It’s only that I’ve got other tasks I’ve got to complete I need to prioritize before I get to this and I’m not sure how long those other tasks will take. Please feel free to ping me by the end of November if I’ve not followed up by then.
Can totally empathize with info overload—so here are the relevant sections:
“current generation nuclear might be better than using coal power and would reduce emissions in advanced economies.
But, crucially, continued reliance on old technology does not lead to technology innovation spillovers in emerging economies. Current nuclear technology, for instance, will not play a big part in preventing climate change because:
It’s not infinitely powerful: It only contributes 5% to the world’s energy supply[169] and even in China, where regulation is lax and public opposition to nuclear is not as big an issue for policy-makers, few reactors are currently being built.
It carries safety risks.[170] While advanced nuclear power in some advanced economies might actually reduce nuclear proliferation risk by using up nuclear material, in other countries, nuclear power might increase proliferation risks.[171]
It will not be used in many emerging economies.[172] There is not much nuclear power in Africa to start with and only additional 1–5 countries in Africa currently plan to have commercial nuclear power, with many countries being away at least 10 years away from starting construction on nuclear plants.[173]
Continued reliance on outdated nuclear technology might not have the same crucial global technology spillovers as investments in other clean energy (including advanced nuclear). Since the best path towards global decarbonization is through global technology spillover into emerging economies, the actors that have the best emissions score may, surprisingly, not be the most effective actors at reducing the global rate of emissions in the future. This has some counterintuitive implications. Consider that Germany has higher carbon emissions than France even though it has invested more heavily in solar than its neighbor, which uses much more nuclear. Should advanced economies like Germany leave their nuclear plants running? Perhaps, but it will not make a very large dent in global emissions because 75% of all future emissions will come from emerging economies, which will not adopt the kind of (non-advanced) nuclear power currently in use in Germany.”
of course, future nuclear might be a true game-changer—see a review of small modular reactors
[...]
Generally on which energy source is best:
“I relied on the scientific consensus on this topic. Also, unlike other analyses, we did not compare the effectiveness of different energy sources. For instance, is nuclear really good and its drawbacks are overstated?[87] Are renewables like solar underestimated?[88] Can coal perhaps be made clean through carbon capture?[89] We intentionally steered clear of these controversies and have not engaged with these questions on a deep level. There seems to be no expert consensus on whether any one technology is superior and unreasonably neglected than others. Instead, we feel there is some mild consensus amongst energy experts that the world’s future energy supply must come from a diverse mix of energy sources[90] and it is best to opt for ‘technology neutrality’[91], i.e. being agnostic with regards to which low-carbon technology is best. We assume that clean energy R&D budget increases will either lead to all technologies becoming better across the board or one technology will emerge more readily as the ‘winner’.”
Thanks, that helps too. I still intend to read everything in full later. It’s not like it’s something I don’t know when I’d ever do. It’s only that I’ve got other tasks I’ve got to complete I need to prioritize before I get to this and I’m not sure how long those other tasks will take. Please feel free to ping me by the end of November if I’ve not followed up by then.