AVERTING DISASTER
More nukes, less oil needed to slow climate change, a new report says.
WASHINGTON — How can humankind slow the pace of climate change? Maybe start with more nukes and less oil and gas.
Two studies relased last week concluded that shifts in the energy mix are crucial to achieving the goals of dramatically cutting — if not eliminating — carbon emissions and holding the increase in global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius, as set out the Paris climate accords.
A report from scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that getting the power grid to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 would be far less costly if nuclear power, along with wind and solar energy, can be expanded, according to scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
John Reilly, co-director of MIT’s Joint Program on Global Change, and other scientists warn the cost of powering the grid primarily with the intermittent renewables would prove very costly and require a high tax or fee on carbon emissions. But if scientists and engineers can lower the cost of nuclear energy by about one-third, that would reduce the need to overhaul the grid and reduce any carbon taxes or fees by about two-thirds.
“Continued focus on lowering the cost of baseload generation from low-carbon sources such as nuclear would make achieving deep reductions in carbon emissions much less costly,” the scientists wrote in a September report.
Under MIT’s scenario, the United States could achieve a 90 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. Wind and solar energy would provide about 40 percent of the electricity on the power grid — four times what they provide now. The remainder would could from nuclear power, natural gas plants and hydroelectric dams.
“The additional system costs of wind and solar are minimal until they reach about 40 percent of power supply,” the report said. “After that level, these extra costs rise, making room for other power technologies such as nuclear, which can significantly reduce the carbon price needed to achieve deep decarbonization in the U.S.”
Scientists have worked for years to create a safer and cheaper form of nuclear energy, experimenting with materials such as molten salt and liquid metal to cool reactors, instead of water. But so far the cost of the technology remains too high for power companies to adopt.
Out of line
Advances in nuclear and other carbon-free technology, meanwhile, would likely come at the expense of fossil fuels. A separate report, by the London think tank Carbon Tracker, which is funded by environmentally-minded charities including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Bloomberg Philanthropies, estimated that major energy companies would need to cut their oil and gas production by more than one-third by 2040 in order to stay within international carbon reduction goals, according to a new analysis.
The study also found that no major oil and gas company is yet aligned with the United Nations’ Paris agreement goal to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius with a target of 1.5 degrees. Oil and gas companies would need to cut 35 percent of the sector’s current and planned oil and gas production and 40 percent of the sector’s current and projected emissions to stay within the targets by 2040.
The amount individual companies would need to cut production to meet the Paris guidelines varies widely, according to the analysis. For example, Shell would need to cut production by 10 percent, while ConocoPhillips would need to cut production by 85 percent, according to the report.
Reductions in emissions varied widely as well. Exxon Mobil would need to cut 55 percent of emissions by 2040, while Chevron would need to cut 35 percent, according to the analysis.