• 2 days Nuclear Bomb = Nuclear War: Saudi Arabia Will Develop Nuclear Bomb If Iran Does
  • 1 day Statoil Changes Name
  • 2 days Tillerson just sacked ... how will market react?
  • 1 day Russian hackers targeted American energy grid
  • 21 hours Is $71 As Good As It Gets For Oil Bulls This Year?
  • 2 days Petrobras Narrows 2017 Loss, Net Debt Falls Below $85bn
  • 2 days Proton battery-alternative for lithium?
  • 2 days Ford Recalls 1.38 Million Vehicles (North America) For Loose Steering Wheel Bolt
  • 22 hours Oil Boom Will Help Ghana To Be One Of The Fastest Growing¨Economies By 2018!
  • 1 day Country With Biggest Oil Reserves Biggest Threat to World Economy
  • 2 days I vote for Exxon
  • 22 hours HAPPY RIG COUNT DAY!!
  • 2 days UK vs. Russia - Britain Expels 23 Russian Diplomats Over Chemical Attack On Ex-Spy.
  • 2 days Why is gold soooo boring?
  • 2 days South Korea Would Suspend Five Coal - Fire Power Plants.
  • 22 hours Spotify to file $1 billion IPO
Another Oil-Backed Cryptocurrency Launches

Another Oil-Backed Cryptocurrency Launches

A New York-based investment company…

Alberta Ready To Fight For Trans Mountain Oil Pipeline

Alberta Ready To Fight For Trans Mountain Oil Pipeline

The Alberta parliament has voted…

Climate Change Fight Needs $80 Billion Investment In Nuclear Energy: IAEA Chief

Nuclear Power

Tackling climate change and achieving the Paris Agreement temperature rise target of 2 degrees Celsius by 2030 requires a hefty investment in nuclear power, a senior official from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Dohee Hahn, said at a conference. Hahn is the director of the Division of Nuclear Power, Department of Nuclear Energy.

Hahn said that the world needs between 10 and 20 new reactors to be built every year until 2030, which will require annual spending of some US$80 billion. By 2040, the world’s nuclear capacity must reach 862 GW, up from 376 GW in 2014.

Nuclear energy is hardly the first thing that comes to mind in the discussion of climate change and measures to take to keep global temperatures in check. Yet nuclear energy is much greener than fossil fuels. The obvious problems are the radiation-related risks, which cannot be underestimated. At the same time, the advantages also must not be underestimated.

In a recent paper Foratom, the European nuclear trade organization, warned that the European Union’s plans to decarbonize the block’s economy by as much as 80 percent by 2050 are impossible to achieve without nuclear power.

In another fresh example from Europe, the front-runner for France’s next president, Emmanuel Macron, might have to review his campaign promise to reduce the country’s dependency on nuclear power from 75 percent to 50 percent by 2025. According to an adviser who spoke to Bloomberg—a cut so deep and fast is impossible to implement.

Related: Is Canada’s Oil Industry Regaining Momentum?

The situation in the U.S. is also complicated. Besides the recent bankruptcy of giant Westinghouse, some states are subsidizing nuclear plants that would otherwise go under, as a way of diversifying their clean energy sources. Many of these plants are old, on the brink of closure, but the state governments want to save the jobs they create.

While the share of nuclear in the country’s energy mix is relatively constant, the cost of nuclear power generation is growing, challenged by cheaper gas, solar, and wind power.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Join the discussion | Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Don Clifford on April 28 2017 said:
    Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are the answer. Check YouTube, good video overviews explain the whole Thorium proposal.

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News