http://time.com/5547063/hans-blix-nuclear-energy-environment/

https://theweek.com/articles/827690/nuclear-necessity

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Should-We-Rethink-Nuclear-Power.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11/it-sounds-crazy-but-fukushima-chernobyl-and-three-mile-island-show-why-nuclear-is-inherently-safe/#5da2c1171688

@MikeN

I answered your question. At length. So… ?

MikeN

First, I’d have to question the premise:

Google’s boldest energy move was an effort known as RE<C, which aimed to develop renewable energy sources that would generate electricity more cheaply than coal-fired power plants do.

That’s the false equivalence between $/MWh from low carbon generation tech and the $/MWh from a coal plant – ignoring the externalised cost of coal (climate change, particulate air pollution). But yes, the cost of energy will probably have to increase.

We decided to combine our energy innovation study’s best-case scenario results with Hansen’s climate model to see whether a 55 percent emission cut by 2050 would bring the world back below that 350-ppm threshold.

K&F don’t quantify in this article what this means:

Our calculations revealed otherwise. Even if every renewable energy technology advanced as quickly as imagined and they were all applied globally, atmospheric CO2 levels wouldn’t just remain above 350 ppm; they would continue to rise exponentially due to continued fossil fuel use.

The rate of CO2ppm increase is driven by emissions (we’ll ignore carbon cycle feedbacks for peace of mind), so the hint at the assumptions underlying the scenario is useful:

Our study’s best-case scenario modeled our most optimistic assumptions about cost reductions in solar power, wind power, energy storage, and electric vehicles. In this scenario, the United States would cut greenhouse gas emissions dramatically: Emissions could be 55 percent below the business-as-usual projection for 2050.

While a large emissions cut sure sounded good, this scenario still showed substantial use of natural gas in the electricity sector.

Which is why scaling energy storage with VRE is vital. Gas really is a bridge to nowhere.

That’s because today’s renewable energy sources are limited by suitable geography and their own intermittent power production. Wind farms, for example, make economic sense only in parts of the country with strong and steady winds.

Until you invest in HVDC transmission capacity that connects the W&S resources to high demand centres. Which again adds to the cost of a transition to renewables and returns the focus to the false equivalence between $/MWh from low carbon generation tech and the $/MWh from a coal plant – ignoring the externalised cost of coal.

So our best-case scenario, which was based on our most optimistic forecasts for renewable energy, would still result in severe climate change, with all its dire consequences: shifting climatic zones, freshwater shortages, eroding coasts, and ocean acidification, among others.

It does seem likely that the degree of failure to avoid climate impacts is the future. We’re going to hurt, but how much depends on what happens next. Which is why apples and oranges cost comparisons between FFs and low carbon tech – including nuclear – are not a constructive way of thinking about the energy problem.

Our reckoning showed that reversing the trend would require both radical technological advances in cheap zero-carbon energy, as well as a method of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering the carbon.

I’d agree with all of that.

BBD, I may have asked you before, but do you disagree with any of this?

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

Further discussion:

MIT Technology Review: Relying on renewables alone significantly inflates the cost of overhauling energy:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610366/relying-on-renewables-alone-would-significantly-raise-the-cost-of-overhauling-the-energy/

I link to it here so you know what bullshit looks like.

I could say much the same about various studies published by well-known proponents of 100% renewables but I won’t because I don’t think it’s useful.

Given the scale of the challenge of deep decarbonisation, rhetoric aimed by one camp at the other isn’t just unhelpful at this point, it’s dangerous.

https://atomicinsights.com/fission-heated-gas-turbines-address-mit-future-of-nuclear-challenges-easier-straighter-less-costly-path/