Article  Low hanging fruit: replace coal with nuclear power plants

#1
C C Offline
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/low-hanging-fruit

INTRO: Climate policy focused on reducing emissions often looks like a Rube Goldberg device, with complexity built upon complexity such that policy levers may or may not impact the intended outcome — which is reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels all the way to net-zero.

Today, I share a simple proposal that would reduce global carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels by 25% by 2035, and at a cost far less than the emissions reductions expected under the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). My analysis below is in round numbers, and please feel free in the comments to challenge my work and offer your own math for emissions or economics.

In a 2021 paper, Grant et al. concluded that just 5% of the world’s coal power plants were responsible for about 73% of carbon dioxide emissions from global electricity generation. With about 3,000 coal power plants globally in their analysis,1 that equates to about 150 power plants being responsible for ~25% of total global emissions from the burning of fossil fuels (assuming electricity makes up ~35% of global total emissions).

If the world committed to replacing those ~150 +/- coal plants with nuclear power plants by 2035 — perhaps negotiated under the provisions of the Paris Agreement — that would reduce total global emissions by ~25%, or almost 9 gigatonnes carbon dioxide (GtCO2), from the 2022 level of >34.3 GtCO2. That’s huge.2

How much would the replacement generation cost? (MORE - details)
Reply
#2
Syne Offline
We would have likely had many more nuclear power plants decades ago if it weren't for the leftists eco-nuts screaming about nuclear waste.

I guess if scaring these morons about the supposed imminent end of the world will get them to rethink that idiot position, it might be worth something after all.
Reply
#3
confused2 Offline
Looking at UK data [for one supplier].. coal is the only used at times of high demand, renewables supply as much of the baseload as possible. Nuclear power stations can't be turned up and down very quickly so in the UK more nuke power would tend to replace renewables rather than coal.
Live data for a UK power distributor, the lower graph shows 'carbon intensity':
https://agile.octopushome.net/dashboard

eidt .. the prices are for a homeowner (not wholesale buyer)
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Research Heated up: 56 million years ago, plants stopped working properly + Big burp C C 0 68 Dec 1, 2025 07:34 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Low orbit satellites releasing metals into atmosphere as hundreds burn up C C 0 209 Nov 2, 2025 07:05 AM
Last Post: C C
  Research Power plants may emit more pollution during government shutdowns C C 0 251 Oct 12, 2025 09:31 PM
Last Post: C C
  Research Despite progress, China remains tethered to coal as climate change pressures mount C C 0 486 Oct 8, 2024 02:55 AM
Last Post: C C
  Article Closing coal plants for health vs climate reasons: Which scores more virtue points? C C 0 360 Jan 19, 2024 05:15 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Original sin + Plants might absorb more CO2 from human activities than expected C C 4 1,051 Nov 20, 2023 02:50 AM
Last Post: C C
  Sea level rise a FL hazard + Indonesia still clings to coal despite phaseout pledge C C 1 554 Sep 13, 2021 04:33 AM
Last Post: Leigha
  Half of US faces apocalyptic summer + Unexpected: desert plants struggle in high heat C C 0 433 Jun 25, 2021 07:53 PM
Last Post: C C
  As our planet gets greener, plants are slowing global warming C C 10 2,139 Feb 6, 2020 11:56 PM
Last Post: Syne
  China's runaway construction of coal plants both domestically & in countries abroad C C 0 619 Nov 21, 2019 08:12 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)