Climate change gains more from nuclear substitution than from conservation

摘要

We show the massive reduction achievable, in both emissions and climate change impact, from enhanced nuclear energy use on the forecasts of future world energy use and its associated environmental impacts. A range encompassing the major scenarios for the World's energy demand have been analyzed using the latest version of the climate-modeling MAGICC/SCENGEN software (Version 4.1). We have updated and predicted the impacts of 80% substitution with CO_2-free sources (likely predominantly nuclear) for coal-fired electricity (by 2030) and for transportation fuel (by 2040). For transportation, hydrogen produced by CO_2-free sources would replace gasoline and diesel fuels. In this paper, to bracket the range of futures, we simply focus on two scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC), one (A1FI) that is energy-profligate and one (B2) that is energy-conserving. The results show that, interestingly, projected average global temperatures for all scenarios are fairly similar until about 2035 (a further rise beyond the 1990 average temperature of +0.75 ± 0.1 K) regardless of energy usage and its sources. However, by 2050, the different IPCC scenarios diverge markedly. Understandably, A1FI is projected to have noticeably stronger effects than B2 on average global temperatures (about 0.3 K more in 2050) but the effect is much stronger over land at mid and high latitudes (up to almost 1 K more). What is most striking is that the substitution of CO_2-free sources gives projected average temperature rises in 2050 over key land areas (North America and China) that are very similar for the two energy-use scenarios—typically 1-1.5 K because A1FI's additional energy is predominantly supplied by nuclear. In contrast, projected rises with the unaltered cases are markedly different being about 2.5 K for A1FI and 1.5-2 K for B2. The projected changes in rainfall distribution show similar patterns, especially for the expected increases in higher latitudes. With the assumption of no additional policies for substitution of energy sources beyond 2040, temperature divergence between the two scenarios of relative energy profligacy or conservation grows in the latter half of the 21st century, even with substitution. However, the early substitution of nuclear energy and hydrogen appears to buy time and is not crucially dependent on severe, near-term curtailment of energy use. Near-term curtailment is too difficult to implement at a time of rapid industrialization of major emerging economies. Of course, proportionately larger deployments of CO_2-free energy sources are needed for more energy-intensive scenarios. Nuclear power must dominate as the source of CO_2-free energy since it is proven, dependable, available on a large scale, and economic. Social objections to nuclear energy in some countries and quarters are seen as well-meaning but misguided distractions from solving the energy and environmental crises that are now facing world sustainability. The time for real technical, social and political action is now.