World Nuclear Association Blog

The role of nuclear energy in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is once more a topic of discussion at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations, the latest of which are taking place this week in Accra, Ghana. Proposals are being made to reintroduce nuclear projects into both the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation (CDM and JI).

Meanwhile, Dr R.K. Pachauri, the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stated yesterday that "nuclear energy is the best option to curb carbon emissions".

The Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions for the period 2008-2012, included the CDM and JI mechanisms, which were designed to allow developed countries to get credit for carrying out emissions-reduction projects in developing and other developed countries. At the end of fractious negotiations, the delegates decided to place heavy restrictions on the use of credits arising from nuclear projects, effectively excluding nuclear energy projects from the Kyoto Mechanisms.

Delegates are now negotiating what regime should follow for the second commitment period, starting in 2013. The reintroduction of nuclear projects is under discussion, alongside projects involving carbon capture and storage (CCS) and emissions save through changes in land use and forestry.

In previous negotiations some of the key concerns raised have been due to the potentially large contribution that nuclear energy could make to emissions reductions. The amount of emissions saved from nuclear energy projects by 2030 is estimated to be larger than the entire annual supply of credits expected to be generated annually over the next five years, leading to a lowering of the price of CDM credits. In addition, there are concerns that nuclear CDMs could be so successful in reducing emissions in developing countries that the sponsoring developed countries would need to put a lot less effort into reducing their own emissions.

Such concerns seem perverse. If the inclusion of nuclear energy projects can reduce the cost of emissions reductions isn't that a good thing? With many countries looking like they will struggle to meet their modest targets for 2008-12 it hardly seems likely that long-term over-achievement is a serious proposition. If the inclusion of nuclear projects will make it so easy to reduce emissions then that will allow the international community the opportunity to set more challenging emissions targets, which are likely to be needed if we are to successfully combat climate change.

Lawrence Kidd, a visiting Research Officer at the World Nuclear Association, has written an article, published in Nuclear Engineering International, on the production and application of artificial radioisotopes. These isotopes have vital roles in medicine, agriculture, food production and industry, for example most types of medical equipment from syringes to contact lenses can be sterilised with gamma radiation froma cobalt-60 source to kill bacteria.

A blog from Normandy  from the BBC's Mark Mardell, on the construction of the Flamanville 3 EPR. While protesters do get some attention, Mr Mardell concludes that "most French don't seem disturbed by their reliance on nuclear energy, particularly at a time when the intellectual fashion is swinging back that way".

There's an interesting article on research at the Desalination Division of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, published in the International Journal of Nuclear Desalination. Meenakshi Jain of Positive Climate Care says that "Nuclear energy seawater desalination has a tremendous potential for the production of freshwater."

Nuclear desalination is taking an increasing role in meeting  the world's growing demand for fresh, clean water. A plant in Yuhuan County in Zhejiang province in China can produce 374,400 gallons of water every hour.

At the recent G8 meeting in Japan the International Energy Agency presented their latest Energy Technology Perspectives, that made a clear and convincing case for a significant contribution from nuclear energy to meeting the global need for more electricity and less greenhouse gas emissions. The various communications issued by the G8 and other countries represented at the meeting largely endorsed this support for nuclear energy, the UK Minister declaring that "we are on the verge of a new nuclear age."

However, the official communication statements  were couched in the usual politic-speak on nuclear, where the support for nuclear was qualified as being only from those countries that supported the use of nuclear energy. Indeed, the statement from the G8 made no reference to nuclear energy at all.

Such qualified support is typical of G8 statements, where a minority opposition to nuclear energy has to be dealt with. Press speculation unsurprisingly pointed to Germany as the source of the opposition to outright support for nuclear energy. To be fair, the G8 statements have improved somewhat, at least now they recognise the value of nuclear energy, where in the past they have often chosen to ignore it altogether.

However, only a few days after the meeting the German chancellor Angela Merkel signalled her Christian Democratic Union party would oppose the nuclear phase-out policy of the previous government, pointing to how nuclear energy helps contribute to affordable energy prices.

So it appears that the G8 meeting texts pandered to a nuclear phase-out policy that isn't even supported by the leader of that country.

A trio of high-level politicians made supportive statements for nuclear energy last week. European Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs outlined the facts about nuclear energy in his blog post 'Discussing nuclear without taboos'. 

In the Netherlands, Stockhouse.com reported that economics minister Maria van der Hoeven not envisage a nuclear-free future if the government was to meet its CO₂ targets. Meanwhile, the Hugarian environmental minister Imre Szabo, expressed support for expansion of the Paks nuclear power plant.

The WNA Nuclear Energy Index, designed to serve as a fair, impartial and transparent measure of the performance of the global nuclear energy industry, has received positive reviews from two publications. Check out the Washington Post and Seeking Alpha articles. the latter saying "The WNA Nuclear Energy Index is a clear winner over the S&P 500."