JEREMY GORDON | OPINION


Now is the time for evolution. Nuclear has earned itself a seat at the table and it has high-level representation as well as scientific


results that vouch for its sustainability. There is no longer any serious pushback against mentioning nuclear energy. The missing piece of the puzzle is for countries that use nuclear power to recognise this explicitly in their national presences and statements


nuclear is surprisingly low and it seems that many people in the wider energy industry are no different from people in the street – they are curious about nuclear and ready to hear about its role. But these conversations do not happen unless nuclear turns up. Lacking continuous investment in representation, nuclear has been perpetually overshadowed and forgotten, but that vicious cycle has now been broken at the diplomatic level. The issue lingers on at the national level. At a COP meeting you will see images and models of wind turbines and solar panels everywhere you go as every country in the world vies to show off how much it is doing for clean energy. But you will barely see nuclear, even on the stands of countries relying on it and making it the backbone of their future energy plans. A full analysis would take too long, but this year Brazil


and Ukraine both omitted nuclear completely from their stands. So did China, despite it being host to the largest nuclear programme the world has ever seen. Nonetheless, China did manage to squeeze every other clean energy source onto a small diorama. South Korea considered nuclear too sensitive to mention, even though it is keen to export new reactors. France, the US, Canada and the UK all had some mention and at least one event. Host country Egypt had some events. Last year the UAE’s Barakah plant, which is decarbonizing 25% of its electricity, was given just one short sentence at the back of the stand; this year it got a picture as well. Why does this happen? When this issue occurs it is


usually because a country’s COP presence is managed by the environment ministry and not coordinated well enough with the energy ministry. Japan epitomises the issue. Its only mention of nuclear


energy came in the context of cleaning up the 2011 accident at Fukushima Daiichi, even though Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is urging the restart of reactors as quickly as possible to reduce costly LNG imports and get its emissions back down to where they were before the accident. Putting premature shutdowns in context, the Breakthrough Institute recently showed the ongoing closure of Japan’s reactors resulted in emissions equivalent to the total from at least 22 African countries. In reality, getting those reactors safely restarted is surely Japan’s biggest climate change project. Japan’s case may be understandable, but the phenomenon can even be deliberate. Sometimes one ministry may be anti-nuclear and deliberately thwarting the efforts of another. Just look at Belgium and Germany for


examples of how silly the political situation can be within a supposedly single government. In both of these countries Greens in a governing coalition insisted on controlling energy and environmental policy. They then pursue an anti-nuclear agenda while the majority of lawmakers accept this just as the way things are – the price of doing politics. But when push comes to shove Greens have been overruled in the national interest with premiers enjoying the support of the majority of lawmakers. Why is one marginal group allowed to control the issue when the political scene is predominantly pragmatic about nuclear? The time for that is over; the issue is too big now. As I noted above, the whole point of COP is for everyone and everything to be present for discussion. Now is the time for evolution. Nuclear has earned itself a


seat at the table and it has high-level representation as well as scientific results that vouch for its sustainability. There is no longer any serious pushback against mentioning nuclear energy. The missing piece of the puzzle is for countries that use nuclear power to recognise this explicitly in their national presences and statements. Now is the time for evolution. Nuclear has earned itself a


seat at the table and it has high-level representation as well as scientific results that vouch for its sustainability. There is no longer any serious pushback against mentioning nuclear energy. The missing piece of the puzzle is for countries that use nuclear power to recognise this explicitly in their national presences and statements. I’m not arguing to put nuclear in a position that


dominates the conversation, but simply to be depicted according to its true role. While nuclear may be only 5% of the global energy market, it is 27% of the clean portion of the world’s energy generation portfolio. Even a small fraction of the airtime given to renewables would still be many times more than nuclear is receiving currently. The normalising effect of nuclear simply being visible should not be underestimated. The next COP presents the perfect opportunity. The host


country, the UAE, is said to be planning to place its Barakah project front and centre and promotional graphics already show Barakah’s APR1400 domes sprouting up as part of a dream team with wind and solar. As COP27 is wrapped up and countries sow the first seeds of planning for COP28, energy ministries in pro-nuclear countries need to reach out to colleagues in environmental ministries and make sure it really is a Conference of all the Parties. ■


www.neimagazine.com | December 2022 | 15


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45