There’s a gradual, but a
rising tide of rational, enviro-progressive scientists
out there who are committed to solving some of the world’s biggest
problems. Many of these problems involve touchy subjects, including ways
to reduce poverty while improving or maintaining high standards of
living elsewhere, the means for ‘sustainable’ electricity generation,
and how to limit the human population’s over-consumption and
over-production.
Inevitably,
however, many well-intentioned, but grossly misinformed
environmentalists (‘enviro-conservatives’?) object to technical
solutions based on emotional or ideological grounds alone. As
self-professed enviro-progressives (but also scientists who base
decisions on evidence, logic and balancing trade-offs as part of our
everyday work) , we hope to reduce this backlash by providing the data
and analyses needed to make the best and most coherent decisions about
our future.
-----
Reference paper:
Hong,
S., Bradshaw, C.J.A. & Brook, B.W. (2013) Evaluating options for
the future energy mix of Japan after the Fukushima nuclear crisis.
Energy Policy, doi:
10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.002
to phase out its nuclear power generation by 2040. Of course,
electricity demand would have to be supplied by both renewable energy
and fossil fuels to respond the public unwillingness for nuclear power.
But is this most environmentally sound, safest and economically rational aim? In
a new paper
we’ve just had published in the peer-reviewed journal
Energy Policy, we set out to test Japan’s intentions the best way we know – using empirical data and robust scenario modelling.
Before
the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, Japan produced 25% of its total
electricity consumption from nuclear power, 63% from fossil fuels
(mostly coal and liquefied natural gas), and 10% from renewables
(including hydro). Originally, the Japanese government had planned to
increase nuclear power up to 45% of supply, and include new renewables
builds, to combine to make major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by
2030 and meet or exceed their Kyoto targets. However, the original plan
could reduce emissions by the energy sector from 1122 Mt CO2e in 2010 to < 720 Mt CO2e by 2030 (< 70% of 1990 emission levels).
After
the accident, the National Policy Unit in Japan hinted that the
original plan was likely to be scrapped in favour of a new scenario,
whereby the nuclear target was to be reduced to somewhere between 0–35%
and the renewables target increased to 20–30%. These new plans,
obviously, will not be able to meet the original emission reduction
targets (Cyranoski, 2012; Normile, 2012). Our
paper
examines the implications of these different energy mixes.
Why do many people think ‘an anti-nuclear policy’ is environmentally friendly or sustainable?
No comments:
Post a Comment