Energy Choices For A Carbon Constrained World

Of all the mitigation options that have been considered for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), the one that elicits a diverse set of comments is the nuclear energy option, which incidentally has been included in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This was the first time that an IPCC Report assessed the role of nuclear power, and the Summary for Policymakers in the Working Group – III of the Fourth Assessment Report states the following, “Given costs relative of other supply options, nuclear power, which accounted for 16% of the electricity supply in 2005, can have an 18% share of the total electricity supply in 2030 at carbon prices up to US$ 50/tCO2-eq, but safety, weapons proliferation and waste remain as constraints.” Those who are against any role for nuclear energy as part of the solutions to reduce emissions of GHGs generally put forward the view that renewable sources of energy are a much more attractive and safer option for the world than the development of nuclear energy.

There is no doubt that renewable sources of energy have made substantial strides in recent years as, for instance, brought out by the Renewables 2007 Global Status Report compiled by the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21). For instance, wind power capacity increased in 2007 with an estimated 21 GW of capacity added during the year which represented a 28% increase over 2006. Grid- connected solar photovoltaic grew at an average of 60% annually for the period 2002-2006. REN21, in fact, identifies grid- connected solar photovoltaic as the fastest growing power technology in the world, with 50% annual increase in cumulative installed capacity in both 2006 and 2007. By the end of 2007, the total installed capacity grid connected was estimated at 7.8 GW. These numbers do not appear very large in relation to onventional technologies, but that is essentially because the base from which they grew was very small to begin with.

In my view nuclear versus renewable energy is not an ‘either’ ‘or’ choice, but a question of what would be most suitable under a given set of conditions. Clearly nuclear energy is not a universal solution, because the operation of nuclear plants requires a very high level of technical skills, regulatory institutions and safeguards and safety measures which cannot be compromised under any condition. Renewable energy is much more universal in its applicability though clearly, say in the case of solar energy or wind power capacity, these cannot be established in places where these resources are low. A country, therefore, has to look at all forms of energy, and if limiting emissions of GHGs is an important objective then renewables as well as nuclear would need careful consideration subject, of course, to the conditions mentioned above. It is obvious that despite the concerns related to nuclear energy, in the next few years this sector will show significant increase, and if the price of carbon is higher than $50 per tonne of CO2 equivalent then the share of nuclear by 2030 could even be higher than the 18% estimated by the IPCC for the $50 price. In the case of renewables government and the private sector need to make major investments in research and development so that costs can be brought down significantly. The elasticity of supply of renewables in relation to the price of carbon is likely, in my view, to be much higher than for nuclear energy. It would, therefore, make sense to invest at a much higher level than at present to bring renewables to a level where they can compete with conventional energy forms.