nuclear undone
  • blog
  • about
  • contact

undo your thinking

listen to the facts

absorb new ideas

Sustainable Development vs Climate Change at COP22

11/16/2016

2 Comments

 
Picture
British Columbia’s electricity is generated by 98% renewable energy, predominately from hydro. It’s great that they have this vast natural resource but developing countries in arid regions – like South Africa – don’t. Getting to 100% carbon-free generation is not possible with only renewables.
 
Mandy Rambharos (Climate Change and Sustainable Development Manager at Eskom in South Africa) was one of the first people I heard at COP22 to speak pragmatically about climate change and sustainable development issues. South Africa generates over 80% of its electricity from coal. It doesn’t have water resources for hydro; it does have vast coal and uranium resources. The country is still developing and has a 45% unemployment rate. It needs cheap electricity to continue to develop but also realizes the very real threats of climate change. How can developing countries like South Africa manage the competing issues of sustainable development  and climate change?
 
In the delusional policymaking world of COP22, Mandy is a breath of fresh air. She speaks pragmatically about the issues facing developing countries. It’s not just about climate change; it’s also about poverty, clean water, development, jobs, etc. South Africa needs low-carbon AND low-cost solutions for power generation. They are looking at nuclear energy and carbon capture and sequestration – both “unpopular” technologies, according to Mandy.

​“Mandy Rambharos laid out a passionate pro-human vision for South Africa’s future. We need more climate change leaders like her.”
- Eric Meyer of Generation Atomic at COP22
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change runs the Conference of the Parties and I’m currently at the 22nd conference – hence COP22. The UN and COP have continually ignored the essential contribution that nuclear energy – and other technologies like carbon capture and sequestration – can make in reducing emissions from the energy sector. The UN does not promote specific technologies but allows for the 100% renewable message to be spread, a goal that is not possible for many countries to attain and thus counterproductive to climate change mitigation efforts.
 
The UN also has a set of Sustainable Development Goals, some of which are at odds with climate goals. How can we expect countries like South Africa to develop sustainably without access to cheap electricity? We need to use ALL available technologies to reduce the cost of clean energy. The UN and its member countries need to take leadership roles in advancing all low-carbon technology, including nuclear energy.

-Lenka Kollar
2 Comments
Tim
11/16/2016 07:41:26 am

It appears that South Africa is best suited with sticking to their game plan (https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2016/CN.817.2016-Eng.pdf). The United States and Mexico submitted official strategies on 11/16/16 (http://unfccc.int/focus/long-term_strategies/items/9971.php) with Canada planning on implementing a carbon tax that increases over 5 years. Although Gen II and Gen III nuclear are included, since Gen IV technology is not ready for implementation at this time it is not included in the official documentation.

Reply
Maury Markowitz link
11/24/2016 08:55:58 am

For better or for worse, nuclear energy in the former Soviet Union will forever be reduced to a single word, "Chernobyl". In Ontario, it's "Darlington". In South Africa, that word is "Pelindaba".

That's the site where the minority Apartheid government used the US's Peaceful Nuclear Explosions program to cover development of its own nuclear bomb arsenal. That reached a peak of six weapons, before the upcoming change to an ANC government led to their disassembly and the country's eventual signing of the NPT.

One might imagine that the average South African citizen has a highly suspicious view of any "purely civilian" nuclear program. Overcoming this will require much more than Eskom's kind words and claims that they are "pro human".

In contrast, the country does have a lot of open land and a downright amazing solar resource, among the best in the world - a 15 degree tilt panel in Joburg gets >1900 kWh/kWp/year (representing a CF around 21%), compared to about 1250 for Toronto. It also has a relatively good, and almost completely undeveloped, wind resource on the west coast.

Given current CAPEX numbers, I feel safe in saying the potential for new reactors in SA at this point is essentially zero, all due respect to Rambharos.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture

    Archives

    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013

    Categories

    All
    American Nuclear Society
    Climate Change
    Diversity In Stem
    Energy
    Environmentalists
    Fuel Cycle
    I'm A Nuke
    International
    IYNC
    Navy
    Nonproliferation
    Nuclear Energy
    Nuclear Energy
    Nuclear Engineers
    Nuclear Technology
    Policy
    Radiation
    Reactors
    Science Education
    Sustainability
    UAE
    Women In Engineering

    RSS Feed


    Follow on Bloglovin
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photos from Idaho National Laboratory, Jim.Richmond, Idaho National Laboratory, IAEA Imagebank