Mankind faces a major challenge: stopping a climate crisis otherwise it will lead us to a catastrophic scenario. A few days ago, the United Nations denounced that the expected production of oil, gas and coal, that is, of dirty energy, is twice as much as it would take to contain global warming to 1.5 degrees in 2040. Governments’ environmental commitments do not correspond to the plans of their economies. So if we really want to take on that challenge, we have to start by being honest about the instruments that we actually have to make it.
We can’t cheat the loner. The bet in favor of renewables is unquestionable, but we must also know its limitations. And the main one is that they produce intermittent energy. When there are peaks in demand, either because it is too cold or too hot, often not enough wind blows, and in winter there are few hours of sun or in summer the hydraulic production is low, at least in Mediterranean countries like Spain. But it is also that, when the weather conditions are favorable, its energy surplus cannot be stored for now. In short, we are far from being able to replace fossil fuels with 100% renewable energy, both for the material impossibility of meeting the demand of its manufacturing components (lithium, rare earths, etc.), as well as its current limitations to generate energy.
To stop the climate crisis is It is essential to move towards a decarbonized economy. But the costs of this transition are high, we are already suffering it, and they can create new social inequalities. As much as we gain in energy efficiency and we reduce some consumption patterns, what we cannot is strangle economic growth. It is evident that only with renewables we will not cover the demand, Therefore, the question at this key crossroads is which is the best ally to accompany an energy transition that will be long and in which the main objective is to reduce CO2. Well, the answer is clear, unlike coal, gas or oil, nuclear energy does not contribute to global warming. It is true that it is not completely clean energy, because it generates radioactive waste, and it needs a fuel, uranium, which is not infinite either and it is not cheap. Nevertheless, the renewable + nuclear energy ‘mix’ is the most ecological bet what we can do to stop climate change in time.
Related news
However, nuclear energy is unpopular, particularly in Spain and other European countries, where from the end of the 70s a campaign against him took root, associating it with the arms race and the fear of atomic destruction. Subsequently, the disasters of Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011 did the rest. But they were totally exceptional accidents, unrepeatable today; neither can we forget that right now there are more than 400 reactors operating in the world without any notable problem. A paradigm shift on nuclear energy is therefore needed. Stop seeing it as dangerous, because if it is expensive it is precisely because the security protocols are very strict, and associate it with a decided commitment to green.
This paradigm shift would not go badly for the European Union because the dependence we have on the gas we import, from Russia or Algeria, makes us vulnerable and will prevent us from achieving the goal of reducing emissions. Germany, with the closure of almost all nuclear plants after Fukushima, has already missed its goal and the new government will have to review the entire strategy. In Spain specifically obsolete plants in operation would have to be renewed, Well, despite the political discourses that stigmatize them, they will remain open beyond 2035. On the other hand, France is the example. President Macron has just announced a commitment to small modular reactors of 1 billion euros, easier to mass-build and transport for assembly, and they generate a third of the energy of a traditional plant. The nuclear debate is very complex, but we must overcome old taboos and accept its advantages if we are really determined to avoid climate disaster.
Reference-www.elperiodico.com