Download Fact And Fiction In Global Energy Policy: Fifteen Contentious Questions

The influential climate scientist Jim Hansen, [i] [ii] [iii] amongst others,[4] [v] [half-dozen] argues for a global shift towards nuclear power on grounds that associated greenhouse gas emissions reductions offer the all-time path to mitigate climate disruption [vii] As the International Diminutive Energy Agency put it in one of their flagship publications, "north uclear power tin make an of import contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions while delivering energy in the increasingly large quantities needed for global socioeconomic development." [8] Like projections showing large-calibration increases in nuclear generation also announced in the OECD International Energy Agency'south Energy Technology Perspectives, where nuclear power is projected (without technology breakthroughs), roughly to triple in aggregate worldwide chapters past 2050.[ix]

Others, however, contend that renewable sources of free energy are the best path towards a low-carbon free energy organisation. Armstrong writes that "renewables are essential" to a low-carbon future, but also that many countries will promote nuclear ability as a "depression-carbon technology that can mitigate climate change."[10] Morgan et al. argue that "achieving deep decarbonization of the energy system volition require a portfolio of every bachelor technology and strategy we tin can muster."[xi] Chu and Majumdar likewise note "nuclear power tin have an important part in efforts to decarbonize the product of electricity," but besides that "renewable energy is quickly becoming competitive with other sources of energy."[xii] Davis et al. concur and argue that a grandnine of nuclear and dispatchable renewable sources of energy are key to hereafter "net-zippo emissions" free energy systems.[thirteen] Research in Australia argues the electricity grid could arrange 100% renewable energy generation without a significant toll increase.[xiv] Other studies have noted the same for Ireland,[fifteen] Prc,[xvi] Canada,[xvii] Kingdom of denmark,[eighteen] Republic of macedonia,[xix] New Zealand[xx] and Portugal,[xxi] to name a few. Many of these analyses take into account the necessity, in order to attain carbon emissions reduction, for radical increases in generating capacity driven by electrification of transport infrastructures.

As a style to negotiate these contending positions, a frequent mantra is that energy strategies should seek to "practise everything" in order to address the climate disruption claiming.[xxii] But – as a number of commentators have noted – this would really be a highly irrational course of action.[xxiii] [xxiv] Where "doing everything" involves making investments that are slower or less toll effective than might otherwise be possible, which divert resources away from preferable options, or which in another style impedes them, then there would consequence a potentially disastrous slowing and diminishing of the efficacy of carbon emissions mitigation.

From whatever side of the debate they may come up from, and then, arguments that options should be pursued merely as a way to "practice everything" tin be generally recognized as irrational special pleading. Amidst many uncertainties, the real questions are about which specific investments offer the most cost-constructive and widely strategically beneficial ways forward in different contexts?

Our paper seeks to contribute towards this kind of debate.

Groundwork to the current article

Right at the outset, we should be candid about what is for us, a uniquely awkward characteristic of the groundwork to this nowadays article. Motivated (as now) past the serious oddity noted above – that systematic scrutiny has been so neglected for the relative efficacy of different options for addressing such a serious global problem – the nowadays pair from amidst the authors of the current article discussed in this blogpost, did make an earlier attempt to address this gap. Working with a third individual (non among the present authors) as the lead author, we undertook in 2016, a more than elementary quantitative analysis of relations between national carbon emissions mitigation efficacy and intensity of commitments to nuclear and renewable free energy.[xxv]

Unfortunately, 2 basic errors were fabricated in the processing and analysis of raw data by the first author of that article. Very embarrassingly – neither of the present two authors nor a number of referees (for a unlike leading climate policy journal) managed to observe this prior to publication. As a result, the finding in that before paper that nuclear power represents a less effective means to carbon emissions reduction than renewable free energy, was immediately best-selling by the authors to correspond an invalid conclusion based on flawed analysis. Information technology is a matter of constant regret that (for the simply time in our careers equally authors of a combined array of more than 500 peer reviewed journal articles), we had to undertake an author retraction of that earlier paper.

In seeking to handle this retraction in the most immediate, open, rigorous and professional person fashion, the present ii authors of that earlier flawed analysis immediately and proactively contacted the periodical to undertake an author retraction. We besides immediately reported the outcome to our dwelling university in order to initiate an contained research into the circumstances. A third firsthand footstep was to as well proactively contact the specialist public interest organization Retraction Watch, in order to ensure full disclosure and critical scrutiny of this retraction and solicit communication on how to minimize adverse effects on wider debate.

In that procedure, the first author of that earlier paper did personally admit their ain responsibility for committing the errors in practiced organized religion in a rush to come across deadlines. The present two authors accepted total responsibility for our own failures as 2d and tertiary authors to check sufficiently thoroughly, the office of the assay and data transcription undertaken by the first author. Contained in-depth examination of the handling of this author retraction found (in the case of the university investigation), that the mistake was an honest error that had been handled appropriately. The Retraction Watch review concluded that this case was an example of a well-managed author retraction. Commentators in this highly-charged field who had previously rightly criticized that flawed paper, likewise commended the present authors for being and then open and proactive in this retraction.[xxvi]

Noting that broadly like conclusions to those initially drawn erroneously in that earlier paper are at present confirmed with far more detail and greater rigor in this present paper (now, we trust, correctly), we promise (peculiarly given the proactive acknowledgement of this issue in this nowadays blogpost – and whatever broader views might be taken on issues at pale) that we will be recognized to accept washed what we can to admit and correct our before errors. Either way, this blogpost does at least allow us to continue our practise of full disclosure.

Reflexivity and rigor in "independent" policy research

A problem with this kind of real-world background – of uncertainties and errors, divergent interpretations and clashing interests – is that it makes information technology hard in practice to achieve the sorts of comprehensive prioritizing analysis called for at the starting time of this blogpost. In the idealized world of "prove based policy", by contrast, energy and climate policy would only proceed after comprehensive research apropos every relevant positive or negative aspect of all possible energy resources. The resulting cocky-evident "facts" would be examined by objective analysts and any uncertainties that exist cumulatively eliminated, until a signal where a singular unambiguous 'truth' is determined – with grateful policy makers so proceeding to adopt the emerging prescribed optimal free energy pathway or portfolio.

Expedient as this storyline is to the justification of policy, this is not like the existent world. Across various areas of energy debates – and non restricted to whatever particular political constituency – crucial roles are often played past deliberate mis-representation of data, by manipulation of discourse in expedient means, by co-option of leading opposing voices, by straight subversion of opponents and by stifling of meaningful public debate.

Nether conditions similar this, the line betwixt advocacy and scholarship (porous at the best of times) can get especially loose when analysts get passionate about their topic. Reasons for such passion can exist as picayune and proximate as disciplinary identities or sectoral interests, or as deep and expansive as wider political ideologies. Either mode, "theorizing" can on all sides thereby be reduced merely to a search for validation and "investigation" to the selective collection of data.

Energy debates in particular currently suffer gravely from these syndromes. "Energy evangelists"[xxvii] on all sides, are convinced they have found "the solution" to societies' energy problems—whether this be solar free energy, hydrogen fuel cells, or nuclear reactors. The intensity of this advancement (and the scale of the interests oftentimes behind it) can lead to rhetorics in which everyone else's solutions are treated as if sacrilegious. So, exchanges of ideas can get hostile battlefields where proponents are unable to reconcile their underlying differences.

Open nigh the ways in which our own analysis over many years has informed a generally disquisitional perspective on nuclear ability (when compared with alternative low carbon options), each of the states have experienced bruising consequences from the resulting polarization. There seems to exist an specially pernicious asymmetry in this field, where those whom comparative analysis leads to exist generally critical of nuclear power are labelled "anti-nuclear", whilst no such generally-established terminology exists to the same degree for those who are (entirely legitimately – if debatably) critical of particular features of renewable energy. The situation is aggravated by so much enquiry in this field being (unlike our own) funded (directly or indirectly) past organizations with prior entrenched interests on ane side or some other.

Despite this disproportion and polarization, however, the present ii authors have each also often institute valued opportunities to span the divide with those analysts who hold "opposing" views on particular aspects, but with similar open mindedness and good faith.

It is in this spirit that the present analysis is offered. We are open about the groundwork and limitations to this present work. We acknowledge that our evidence does not compel just one supposedly definitive interpretation. We are articulate nigh the particular conditions fastened to our own interpretations. By publishing our total dataset and the detailed procedures undertaken in our regression analyses, we offer a firm basis for others to falsify our findings.

Nonetheless we nonetheless remain accountable by advancing an interpretive argument that may itself be criticized in relation to this complex context. If this analysis is successful in stimulating reactions in the same vein, then the cause of scientific scrutiny is reinforced. If on the other hand, an intervention is greeted by less qualified assertions and ad hominen labelling, then the chance of bridging the polarized divides is sadly macerated.

Findings about nuclear power and renewable energy

To turn on this footing, then to the details of our analysis, we can summarize the post-obit. Our paper focuses specifically on situations in which existent-globe constraints mean that strategic choices have to be made between resource allocations towards prioritizing either nuclear or renewables-based electricity supply investments. Exploring this dilemma retrospectively, by reference to past patterns in relative attachments of different countries to nuclear or renewable strategies, our paper addresses three hypotheses:

Beginning, a "nuclear climate mitigation" hypothesis: that the relative scale of nuclear attachments in electricity supply will tend to vary negatively with overall national carbon emissions.

Second, a "renewables climate mitigation" hypothesis: that the relative scale of attachments to renewables in electricity supply will tend to vary negatively with overall national carbon emissions.

Third, a "crowding out" hypothesis: that the relative calibration of nuclear attachments will tend to vary negatively with the scale of renewables attachments, and vice versa.

What we notice in this written report in relation to international patterns every bit a whole, is that the "nuclear climate mitigation" hypothesis is non sustained by the bear witness at an appropriate level of statistical significance. The renewable climate mitigation hypothesis is confirmed with substantial significance. And the crowding out hypothesis is also significantly sustained.

What might explain these patterns? Technologically, nuclear systems have been prone over the past few decades to greater construction cost overruns, delays, and longer pb times than similarly sized renewable energy projects (see Effigy i). Thus, per dollar invested, the modularity of renewables projects offers quicker emissions reductions than big-calibration, filibuster-prone, nuclear projects.[xxviii]

Figure 1: Construction pb times and opportunity costs for nuclear and renewable power plants

Source: Authors, modified from [xxix] [30]

Furthermore, renewables tend to display higher rates of "positive learning" where increased deployment results in lower costs and improved performance[xxxi], especially for wind farms[xxxii] and solar free energy parks.[xxxiii] This contrasts with the experience of nuclear ability in France which has been decumbent to "negative learning,"[xxxiv] rising costs or reduced functioning with the next generation of technology. In terms of policy, after each of the serious incidents or accidents at 3 Mile Isle (1979), Chernobyl (1986), and Fukushima (2011), regulatory requirements were significantly tightened for nuclear reactors both operational and nether construction. Finally, wider social factors may likewise work confronting nuclear energy, and for renewable energy, facilitating faster credence, permitting and deployment.[xxxv]

Of course, these are only informed speculations, beyond the telescopic of the newspaper itself. Others volition favor contrasting interpretations. But here, perhaps the near important issue – especially given the prominence of the topic and the scale of what is at stakes – is that this kind of analysis has been so remarkably neglected over recent years. Given how highly charged and hotly contested is the associated policy controversy, it is rather strange that there does not exist a large body of work on these questions. Either way, the many open questions and issues of detail acknowledged in the nowadays paper show that much work remains to be washed.

Nevertheless, the implications for now of this present work are that renewable-based strategies may reasonably exist accounted to exist significantly more than effective than nuclear strategies at addressing pressing global challenges of climate disruption – and that worldwide pursuit of nuclear strategies actually risks not simply consuming resource that might otherwise be more effective, but may also have an actively suppressive effect on the uptake of renewable energy.

Conclusion

Returning to the issues raised in the introduction of this blogpost, one message is articulate despite the necessity for further research. With the stakes so loftier and the complexities so stark, currently mutual "practise everything" rhetoric is revealed not only to exist simplistic, but also potentially dangerous. In a world where the averting of catastrophic climate disruption is so imperative, such clumsy simplifications are no longer credible. Energy diversity can play many crucial roles in achieving carbon emissions mitigation, but diversity comes in many forms and modes.[xxxvi] [xxxvii]

The "truth" of our report is in this sense not something arrived at by particular analysts claiming individually-transcendent authority, but past contrastingly-oriented analysts contending with each other in an open and pluralistic way, such every bit to arrive at collectively more robust understandings. This is the organized skepticism of contained scientific discipline.

The dilemma for club more widely, is not about whether or not to pursue any unmarried loudly-advocated option, simply about diversifying in relation to the relative viabilities and collective compatibilities of a diversity of dissimilar options. Otherwise, significant opportunity costs will be incurred, delaying carbon emissions reductions (as well equally other benefits). Therefore, the claiming is not 1 of "doing everything" in directions conditioned by any entrenched interest, merely about societies rigorously, democratically, and deliberately "choosing what to do". In light of this analysis, the implication for electricity planning is that diverse renewables are mostly proving in the real world to be significantly more effective than nuclear power at reducing climate disruption.

References

[i] J. Hansen, "Nuclear Power Must Make a Comeback for Climate's Sake: James Hansen and other climate scientists argue for more reactors to cut coal consumption," Sci. Am., vol. Dec 4, pp. 0–5, 2015.

[ii] J. Cao, A. Cohen, J. Hansen, R. Lester, P. Peterson, and H. Xu, "China-U.S. cooperation to advance nuclear power," Scientific discipline (80-. )., vol. 353, no. 6299, 2016.

[iii] P. A. Kharecha and J. E. Hansen, "Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power," Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 20, no. 3, p. 4889−4895, 2013.

[iv] D. Stover, "Kerry Emanuel : A climate scientist for nuclear free energy," Bull. At. Sci., vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 7–12, 2017.

[v] Due west. C. Sailor, D. Bodansky, C. Braun, Due south. Fetter, and B. Van Der Zwaan, "A Nuclear Solution to Climate Modify ?," Scientific discipline (lxxx-. )., vol. 288, no. 5469, pp. 5–ix, 2005.

[6] B. Westward. Beck and C. Bradshaw, "Brave New Climate An Open Letter of the alphabet to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy," pp. 1–16, 2015.

[vii] Hansen, J., et al. "Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?" Open Atmospheric Science Periodical, 2, 217–231, 2008.

[viii] International Atomic Energy Agency, Climate change and Nuclear Power (Vienna: IAEA, 2013).

[ix] International Energy Agency, Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 (Paris: OECD, 2012).

[x] Armstrong, Robert C et al. The frontiers of free energy. Nature Free energy ane(1) Commodity 15020, pp. 1-8.

[xi] Morgan, M. Granger, Ahmed Abdulla, Michael J. Ford, and Michael Rath. "U.s. Nuclear Power: The Vanishing Low-Carbon Wedge." Proceedings of the National University of Sciences, June 27, 2018, 7184-7189.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804655115

[xii] Steven Chu & Arun Majumdar, Opportunities and challenges for a sustainable energy futurity, Nature 488 (August sixteen, 2012), pp. 294-303.

[xiii] Stephen J Davis et al., Net-goose egg emissions energy systems, Science 360, 1419 (2018)

[xiv] Elliston, B., One thousand. Diesendorf, and I. MacGill, Simulations of scenarios with 100% renewable electricity in the Australian National Electricity Market. Energy Policy, 2012. 45(0): p. 606-613.

[xv] Connolly, D., et al., Modelling the existing Irish energy-system to identify future energy costs and the maximum wind penetration viable. Energy, 2010. 35(5): p. 2164-2173.

[16] Liu, W., et al., Potential of renewable energy systems in Cathay. Applied Energy, 2011. 88(2): p. 518-525.

[xvii] Valentine, S.V., Canada's ramble separation of (current of air) power. Energy Policy, 2010. 38(iv): p. 1918-1930.

[xviii] Lund, H. and B.Five. Mathiesen, Energy arrangement assay of 100% renewable energy systems--The case of Kingdom of denmark in years 2030 and 2050. Energy, 2009. 34(five): p. 524-531

[xix] Ćosić, B., G. Krajačić, and N. Duić, A 100% renewable free energy system in the year 2050: The case of Macedonia. Energy, 2012. 48(1): p. 80-87.

[20] Mason, I.G., Southward.C. Page, and A.G. Williamson, A 100% renewable electricity generation organization for New Zealand utilising hydro, air current, geothermal and biomass resources. Energy Policy, 2010. 38(8): p. 3973-3984.

[xxi] Krajačić, 1000., North. Duić, and M.d.G. Carvalho, How to achieve a 100% RES electricity supply for Portugal? Applied Energy, 2011. 88(2): p. 508-517.

[xxii] Stirling, A. (2014) 'Transforming power: Social scientific discipline and the politics of energy choices', Energy Research & Social Science. Brighton: Elsevier Ltd., one, pp. 83–95. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.001.

[xxiii] Barrett, S. (2005) 'Kyoto Plus', in Helm, D. (ed.) Climate Change Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[xxiv] Bradford, P. (2010) 'Love, I Shrunk the Renaissance: Nuclear Revival, Climate change, and Reality', Electricity Policy, pp. 1–9.

[xxv] Lawrence, A., Sovacool, B. and Stirling, A. (2016) '[RETRACTED] Nuclear energy and path dependence in Europe's "Energy union": coherence or continued divergence?', Climate Policy, 16(5), pp. 622–641. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2016.1179616.

[xxvi] Oramsky, I. (2016) Authors retract paper linking nuclear power to slow action on climate change, Retraction Lookout. Bachelor at: https://retractionwatch.com/2016/xi/28/authors-retract-paper-linking-nuclear-ability-slow-action-climate-alter/ (Accessed: 31 Baronial 2020).

[xxvii] Sovacool, BK, MA Brown, and SV Valentine. Fact and Fiction in Global Free energy Policy: 15 Contentious Questions (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Printing, 2016), p. 358.

[xxviii] A. Gilbert, B. K. Sovacool, P. Johnstone, and A. Stirling, "Cost overruns and financial risk in the construction of nuclear power reactors: A critical appraisal," vol. 102, pp. 644–649, 2017.

[xxix] Sovacool, BK, D Nugent, and A Gilbert. "An International Comparative Cess of Construction Cost Overruns for Electricity Infrastructure," Energy Inquiry & Social Science three (September, 2014), pp. 152-160

[30] Gilbert, A, BK Sovacool, P Johnstone, and A Stirling. "Cost Overruns and Financial Risk in the Construction of Nuclear Ability Reactors: A Critical Appraisal," Energy Policy 102 (March, 2017), pp. 644-649.

[xxxi] IRENA Renewable Toll Database and Auctions Database. Abu Dhabi: IRENA, December, 2017.

[xxxii] Peter H. Kobos, Jon D. Erickson, Thomas Due east. Drennen, Technological learning and renewable free energy costs: implications for Us renewable energy policy, Free energy Policy, Book 34, Effect 13, 2006, Pages 1645-1658

[xxxiii] GF Nemet, Beyond the learning curve: factors influencing cost reductions in photovoltaics, Energy policy 34 (17), 3218-3232

[xxxiv] Arnulf Grubler, The costs of the French nuclear scale-upwards: A case of negative learning by doing, Free energy Policy, Volume 38, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 5174-5188.

[xxxv] A. Verbruggen, Due east. Laes, and Due south. Lemmens, "Assessment of the actual sustainability of nuclear fission ability," Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 32, pp. xvi–28, Apr. 2014.

[xxxvi] A. Stirling, "Diverseness and Ignorance in Electricity Supply Investment: addressing the solution rather than the problem," Energy Policy, vol. 22, no. three, pp. 195–216, 1994.

[xxxvii] Stirling, A. (2010) 'Multicriteria diversity analysis: A novel heuristic framework for appraising energy portfolios', Free energy Policy. Elsevier, 38(4), pp. 1622–1634. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.02.023.

DOWNLOAD HERE

Posted by: gamezsweeprive53.blogspot.com

Download Fact And Fiction In Global Energy Policy: Fifteen Contentious Questions UPDATED