Editing Nuclear power (section)

====Speed of transition and investment needed====
Analysis in 2015 by professor [[Barry Brook (scientist)|Barry W. Brook]] and colleagues found that nuclear energy could displace or remove fossil fuels from the electric grid completely within 10 years. This finding was based on the historically modest and proven rate at which nuclear energy was added in France and Sweden during their building programs in the 1980s.<ref name="journals.plos.org">{{cite journal|title=Potential for Worldwide Displacement of Fossil-Fuel Electricity by Nuclear Energy in Three Decades Based on Extrapolation of Regional Deployment Data|first1=Staffan A.|last1=Qvist|first2=Barry W.|last2=Brook|date=13 May 2015|journal=PLOS ONE|volume=10|issue=5|pages=e0124074|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0124074|pmid=25970621|pmc=4429979|bibcode=2015PLoSO..1024074Q|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.discovery.com/dscovrd/tech/report-world-can-rid-itself-of-fossil-fuel-dependence-in-as-little-as-10-years/ |title=Report: World can Rid Itself of Fossil Fuel Dependence in as little as 10 years |work=Discovery |access-date=2019-01-31 |archive-date=2019-02-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190201120207/http://www.discovery.com/dscovrd/tech/report-world-can-rid-itself-of-fossil-fuel-dependence-in-as-little-as-10-years/ |url-status=live }}</ref> In a similar analysis, Brook had earlier determined that 50% of all [[world energy consumption|global energy]], including transportation [[synthetic fuels]] etc., could be generated within approximately 30 years if the global nuclear fission build rate was identical to historical proven installation rates calculated in [[Gigawatt|GW]] per year per unit of global [[GDP]] (GW/year/$).<ref name="brook_could_2012">{{cite journal |author=Brook |first=Barry W. |year=2012 |title=Could nuclear fission energy, etc., solve the greenhouse problem? The affirmative case |journal=Energy Policy |volume=42 |pages=4–8 |bibcode=2012EnPol..42....4B |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.041}}</ref> This is in contrast to the conceptual studies for [[100% renewable energy]] systems, which would require an order of magnitude more costly global investment per year, which has no historical precedent.<ref name="loftus_critical_2015">{{cite journal |last1=Loftus |first1=Peter J. |last2=Cohen |first2=Armond M. |last3=Long |first3=Jane C. S. |last4=Jenkins |first4=Jesse D. |date=January 2015 |title=A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility? |url=https://www.qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/articolo-doc/wcc324-1.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=WIREs Climate Change |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=93–112 |bibcode=2015WIRCC...6...93L |doi=10.1002/wcc.324 |s2cid=4835733 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190806203759/https://www.qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/articolo-doc/wcc324-1.pdf |archive-date=2019-08-06 |access-date=2019-12-01}}</ref> These renewable scenarios would also need far greater land devoted to onshore wind and onshore solar projects.<ref name="brook_could_2012" /><ref name="loftus_critical_2015" /> Brook notes that the "principal limitations on nuclear fission are not technical, economic or fuel-related, but are instead linked to complex issues of societal acceptance, fiscal and political inertia, and inadequate critical evaluation of the real-world constraints facing [the other] low-carbon alternatives."<ref name="brook_could_2012" />

Scientific data indicates that&nbsp;– assuming 2021 emissions levels&nbsp;– humanity only has a [[carbon budget]] equivalent to 11 years of emissions left for limiting warming to 1.5{{nbsp}}°C<ref>{{cite news |last1=Neuman |first1=Scott |title=Earth has 11 years to cut emissions to avoid dire climate scenarios, a report says |url=https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1052267118/climate-change-carbon-dioxide-emissions-global-carbon-budget |access-date=9 November 2021 |work=NPR |date=4 November 2021 |language=en |archive-date=30 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220530100806/https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1052267118/climate-change-carbon-dioxide-emissions-global-carbon-budget |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Friedlingstein |first1=Pierre |last2=Jones |first2=Matthew W. |display-authors=etal |date=4 November 2021 |title=Global Carbon Budget 2021 |url=http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/17620/1/essd-2021-386.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=Earth System Science Data Discussions |pages=1–191 |doi=10.5194/essd-2021-386 |s2cid=240490309 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211124190932/http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/17620/1/essd-2021-386.pdf |archive-date=24 November 2021 |access-date=26 November 2021 |doi-access=free}}</ref> while the construction of new nuclear reactors took a median of 7.2–10.9 years in 2018–2020<!--average time between the start of construction and grid connection was 10 years in the past decade-->,<ref name="statusreport"/> substantially longer than, alongside other measures, scaling up the deployment of wind and solar&nbsp;– especially for novel reactor types&nbsp;– as well as being more risky, often delayed and more dependent on state-support.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tromans |first1=Stephen |title=State support for nuclear new build |journal=The Journal of World Energy Law & Business |date=1 March 2019 |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=36–51 |doi=10.1093/jwelb/jwy035}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Nuclear power is too costly, too slow, so it's zero use to Australia's emissions plan |website=[[TheGuardian.com]] |date=18 October 2021 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2021/oct/19/nuclear-power-too-costly-too-slow-so-its-zero-use-to-australias-emissions-plan |access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref><ref name="slowexpensive"/><ref name="gates2"/><ref name="10.5281/zenodo.5573718"/><ref name="worldnuclearreport">{{cite web |title=Renewables vs. Nuclear: 256-0 |url=https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Renewables-vs-Nuclear-256-0.html |website=World Nuclear Industry Status Report |access-date=24 November 2021 |language=en |date=12 October 2021 |archive-date=24 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211124190925/https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Renewables-vs-Nuclear-256-0.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.013"/>{{citekill|date=December 2024}} Researchers have cautioned that novel nuclear technologies&nbsp;– which have been in development since decades,<ref>{{cite news |title=UK poised to confirm funding for mini nuclear reactors for carbon-free energy |url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/15/uk-poised-to-confirm-funding-for-mini-nuclear-reactors-for-green-energy |access-date=24 November 2021 |work=The Guardian |date=15 October 2021 |language=en|quote=Small modular reactors were first developed in the 1950s for use in nuclear-powered submarines. Since then Rolls-Royce has designed reactors for seven classes of submarine and two separate land-based prototype reactors.}}</ref><ref name="10.5281/zenodo.5573718"/><ref name="10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.015"/> are less tested, have higher [[Radioactive waste#Proliferation concerns|proliferation risks]], have more new safety problems, are often far from commercialization and are more expensive<ref name="10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.015"/><ref name="10.5281/zenodo.5573718"/><ref name="10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.012"/><ref name="adva1">{{cite web |title="Advanced" Isn't Always Better {{!}} Union of Concerned Scientists |url=https://ucsusa.org/resources/advanced-isnt-always-better |website=ucsusa.org |access-date=25 November 2021 |language=en |archive-date=25 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211125145228/https://ucsusa.org/resources/advanced-isnt-always-better |url-status=live }}</ref> – are not available in time.<ref name="sol1">{{cite journal |last1=Muellner |first1=Nikolaus |last2=Arnold |first2=Nikolaus |last3=Gufler |first3=Klaus |last4=Kromp |first4=Wolfgang |last5=Renneberg |first5=Wolfgang |last6=Liebert |first6=Wolfgang |title=Nuclear energy - The solution to climate change? |journal=Energy Policy |date=1 August 2021 |volume=155 |page=112363 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112363 |s2cid=236254316 |language=en |issn=0301-4215|doi-access=free |bibcode=2021EnPol.15512363M }}</ref><ref name="mil1"/><ref>{{cite web |title=Small Modular Reactors – Was ist von den neuen Reaktorkonzepten zu erwarten? |url=https://www.base.bund.de/DE/themen/kt/kta-deutschland/neue_reaktoren/neue-reaktoren_node.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220606000505/https://www.base.bund.de/DE/themen/kt/kta-deutschland/neue_reaktoren/neue-reaktoren_node.html |archive-date=6 June 2022 |access-date=24 November 2021 |website=BASE |language=de}}</ref><ref name="gates2"/><ref name="10.1080/00963402.2021.1941600">{{cite journal |last1=Makhijani |first1=Arjun |last2=Ramana |first2=M. V. |title=Can small modular reactors help mitigate climate change? |journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |date=4 July 2021 |volume=77 |issue=4 |pages=207–214 |doi=10.1080/00963402.2021.1941600 |bibcode=2021BuAtS..77d.207M |s2cid=236163222 |issn=0096-3402}}</ref><ref name="natgeo">{{cite news |title=The controversial future of nuclear power in the U.S. |url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/nuclear-plants-are-closing-in-the-us-should-we-build-more |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210504162222/https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/nuclear-plants-are-closing-in-the-us-should-we-build-more |url-status=dead |archive-date=May 4, 2021 |access-date=25 November 2021 |date=4 May 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Can Sodium Save Nuclear Power? |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-sodium-save-nuclear-power/ |access-date=24 November 2021 |work=Scientific American |language=en |archive-date=29 July 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210729090905/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-sodium-save-nuclear-power/ |url-status=live }}</ref>{{citekill|date=December 2024}} Critics of nuclear energy often only oppose nuclear fission energy but not nuclear fusion; however, fusion energy is unlikely to be commercially widespread before 2050.<ref name="ITERorg"/><ref name="fusion2">{{cite news |title=A lightbulb moment for nuclear fusion? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/27/nuclear-fusion-research-power-generation-iter-jet-step-carbon-neutral-2050-boris-johnson |access-date=25 November 2021 |work=The Guardian |date=27 October 2019 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="fusiongua">{{cite news |last1=Turrell |first1=Arthur |title=The race to give nuclear fusion a role in the climate emergency |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/28/the-race-to-give-nuclear-fusion-a-role-in-the-climate-emergency |access-date=26 November 2021 |work=The Guardian |date=28 August 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="fusion3">{{cite journal |last1=Entler |first1=Slavomir |last2=Horacek |first2=Jan |last3=Dlouhy |first3=Tomas |last4=Dostal |first4=Vaclav |title=Approximation of the economy of fusion energy |journal=Energy |date=1 June 2018 |volume=152 |pages=489–497 |doi=10.1016/j.energy.2018.03.130 |s2cid=115968344 |language=en |issn=0360-5442|doi-access=free |bibcode=2018Ene...152..489E }}</ref><ref name="fusion4">{{cite journal |last1=Nam |first1=Hoseok |last2=Nam |first2=Hyungseok |last3=Konishi |first3=Satoshi |title=Techno-economic analysis of hydrogen production from the nuclear fusion-biomass hybrid system |journal=International Journal of Energy Research |date=2021 |volume=45 |issue=8 |pages=11992–12012 |doi=10.1002/er.5994 |s2cid=228937388 |language=en |issn=1099-114X|doi-access=free |bibcode=2021IJER...4511992N }}</ref>