Nuclear power vital to cutting CO2 emissions: report

Jun 16, 2010
Cooling towers the nuclear power station in Gundremmingen, southern Germany on June 4. Roughly a quarter of global electricity could be generated by nuclear power by 2050, requiring a tripling in nuclear generating capacity but making a major contribution to reduced CO2 emissions, a report said Wednesday.

Roughly a quarter of global electricity could be generated by nuclear power by 2050, requiring a tripling in nuclear generating capacity but making a major contribution to reduced CO2 emissions, a report said Wednesday.

A study by the International Energy Agency, which seeks to coordinate energy policies in industrialised nations, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development described such a target as "ambitious but achievable."

"Nuclear is already one of the main sources of low-carbon energy today," said Luis Echavarri of the OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency.

"If we can address the challenges to its further expansion, nuclear has the potential to play a larger role in cutting ."

While no major technological breakthroughs will be needed to reach the goal, "a clear and stable policy commitment (by governments) to nuclear energy as part of an overall energy strategy is a pre-requisite," the report said.

Equally critical will be efforts to win greater public acceptance of programs, it added.

at present provides 14 percent of global electricity.

Explore further: Solar-powered two-seat Sunseeker airplane has progress report

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Nuclear puts renewable energy at risk

Apr 14, 2006

A new report from Dr Catherine Mitchell and Dr Bridget Woodman of Warwick Business School at the University of Warwick in the UK, examining the contribution nuclear power could make to the UK's energy 'mix', says that if ...

Nuclear cannibals

Mar 04, 2008

Nuclear energy production must increase by more than 10 percent each year from 2010 to 2050 to meet all future energy demands and replace fossil fuels, but this is an unsustainable prospect. According to a report published ...

Recommended for you

Switch on sunlight for a brighter future

20 hours ago

Imagine sitting in a windowless room yet having the feeling of the sun shining on your face. This unique experience is now possible thanks to the COELUX EU-funded project which recreates the physical and ...

US urged to drop India WTO case on solar

Apr 23, 2014

Environmentalists Wednesday urged the United States to drop plans to haul India to the WTO to open its solar market, saying the action would hurt the fight against climate change.

Is nuclear power the only way to avoid geoengineering?

Apr 23, 2014

"I think one can argue that if we were to follow a strong nuclear energy pathway—as well as doing everything else that we can—then we can solve the climate problem without doing geoengineering." So says Tom Wigley, one ...

User comments : 8

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gunslingor1
5 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2010
"Smoke rises from the cooling towers the nuclear power station in Gundremmingen, southern Germany on June 4. Roughly a quarter of global electricity could be generated by nuclear power by 2050, requiring a tripling in nuclear generating capacity but making a major contribution to reduced CO2 emissions, a report said Wednesday."

WHAT!!! You got to be kidding. That isn't smoke you moron, its steam! What would a nucleaer plant be burning?!
Shootist
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2010
Carbon or not, nukes are the only way to ease dependence on terrorism oil.
Ronan
5 / 5 (1) Jun 17, 2010
I don't know overmuch about the International Energy Agency; just what I could glean from Wikipedia, and the only criticism mentioned there was their overly-optimistic approach towards Peak Oil. I'd need to look into the effects of nuclear power, direct and indirect, before being sure, but...well, I'm all for it if it'll cut carbon dioxide emissions. Meltdowns are rare enough that the risk can be tolerated (and really, in comparison to some of the oil and coal industries' calamities, Chernobyl was pretty minor) Nuclear proliferation is worrisome, but the worst case scenario for global warming beats the worst case scenario for terrorists with nukes (Of course, Great Dying part two trumps pretty much anything). And in any case, as Shootist points out, nuclear power would result in less money being funneled towards such terrorists in the first place. Nuclear power can be nasty, no doubt about it. But we're backed into a corner. We can't afford to be picky.
Tan0r5
not rated yet Jun 17, 2010
Yes nuclear energy is wonderful. A little fuel goes a long way. Yet until all nuclear wastes are recycled again and again as fuel, not buried in caverns, nor stored in a pool, and no new uranium is mined, nuclear energy will be a poor choice for the environment.
Sepp
not rated yet Jun 17, 2010
Yeah - let's just exchange one disastrous choice for energy generation with another disastrous choice.

With political will, solar alone COULD supply our energy needs, not to talk about natural gas, biogas, wind and the sea (waves, tides). What is so difficult to understand about that?
Sepp
not rated yet Jun 17, 2010
Tribal lands make up only five percent of the United States' total land area, but represent enormous potential for the production of renewable energy. The 55 million acres of land across the nation controlled by Native American tribes can potentially produce an estimated 535 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity from wind power and more than 17 trillion kilowatt-hours from solar energy. These projections are equivalent to more than four times the amount of electricity generated annually in the United States.

(from another physorg article just a bit down the time line) just to make the point.

http://www.physor...810.html
Ashibayai
5 / 5 (1) Jun 20, 2010
^ That's hilarious, expensive, and cruel.

I almost like it...
gaza2008
not rated yet Jun 24, 2010
To look at only the benefit of CO2 reduction is totally irresponsible in the long term, where one is passing on the responsibility to the generations over the next several hundred thousands years to safely store the dangerous radioactive garbage by products. I am not a Greenie, but it seems so short sighted and ridiculous that short term money gain should rule over long term costs. I really don't like the idea of future generations paying for potential long term costs, where BP's oil spill could like a picnic in the park.

yeah sure, dump it in the ground in containers and concrete, or whatever it is they actually do. How many times will the containers have to be replaced over the several hundred thousand years. What are the potential long term hazards such might happen with an unexpected earthquake. What is the overall long term inherited costs, so that only a hand full can make money today.

More news stories

Google+ boss leaving the company

The executive credited with bringing the Google+ social network to life is leaving the Internet colossus after playing a key role there for nearly eight years.

Facebook woos journalists with 'FB Newswire'

Facebook launched Thursday FB Newswire, billed as an online trove of real-time information for journalists and newsrooms to mine while reporting on events or crafting stories.

Genetic legacy of rare dwarf trees is widespread

Researchers from Queen Mary University of London have found genetic evidence that one of Britain's native tree species, the dwarf birch found in the Scottish Highlands, was once common in England.