Renewables are not only the environmental answer to climate change, they are
the economic answer too.
by Michael Mariotte
Renewables are not only the environmental answer to climate change, they are
the economic answer too.
This is a short piece about a much longer piece that you will want to take a
bit of time to read.
Actually, it is unfair to describe it as a “piece.” It’s a study, by Mark
Cooper, who for years has been writing extensively about the transition to a
clean
energy future from an economist’s perspective.
Cooper examines three recent studies taking different approaches to
achieving deep decarbonization of our electrical system, two that reject
nuclear power
as part of the means of attaining massive carbon reductions and one that
accepts nuclear power and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage (CCS)
as
pieces of the approach. He then lays over that two recent studies of the
economics of electricity generation, along with the political structure for
attaining
carbon reductions established by the COP 21 climate agreement, to reach his
conclusions.
The central finding is this: the best way to achieve a carbon-free future
from an environmental perspective is also the best way from an economics
perspective.
And the best way means rejecting nuclear power entirely.
In other words, a nuclear-free, carbon-free approach to a clean energy
future is not only environmentally preferable–avoiding radioactive waste
generation,
environmental damage from uranium mining and the rest of the nuclear fuel
chain, proliferation concerns, and the constant threat of more Chernobyls
and
Fukushimas, and so on–it is cheaper as well.
You probably already knew this–at least in your gut. Now you have the facts
and figures to back it up.
Titled The Economic And Institutional Foundations Of The Paris Agreement On
Climate Change: The Political Economy Of Roadmaps To A Sustainable
Electricity
Future, the paper is academic-oriented, with 63 footnotes, and can be at
times rather dense. While not light reading, it is readable and
well-supported.
Cooper places these findings in the context of the COP 21 agreement and
argues that the nuclear-free, carbon-free approach (though he never uses
that tagline)
fits in perfectly with the agreement. Moreover, as the agreement stresses
the urgency of addressing climate change and reducing carbon emissions, so
does
Cooper argue that from a purely economics perspective nuclear power cannot
possibly meet that urgency. Therefore, expending resources on nuclear power
(and CCS) would be counterproductive at reducing carbon emissions.
We’ve been saying that for years. Our thanks to Mark Cooper for providing
the numbers, analysis and context that conclusively demonstrates that and
points
the way to our clean energy future.
You can download the study for free here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2722880
