From world-nuclear.org site -link http://www.world-nuclear.org/harmony:
"...Harmony is the global nuclear industry's vision for the future of electricity. To meet the growing demand for reliable, affordable and clean electricity, we will need all low-carbon energy sources to work together as part of a diverse mix. Achieving this means nuclear energy capacity must expand and we have set the goal of supplying 25% of electricity in 2050 through the construction of 1000 GW of new nuclear capacity. The Harmony programme provides a framework for action, helping industry reach out to key stakeholders so that barriers to growth can be removed."
Your opinions?
Seems not realistic to me. This would mean building twice as much nuclear plants as there are existing right now. Or, considering that most of the existing plants would have to be replaced by 2050, even triplicating the builds. Which could be only possible if supported by a broad public or in non-democratic societies.
My personal bet is, that Chinese new builds will for some time more or less cancel shutdowns in other parts of the world, so we will probably keep about 10% of electricity worldwide as nuclear for quite a long time.
Eric Strub! Thank you for your opinion!
P.s. I did not expect that there would be such interesting answers with different opinions :)
The Harmony initiative launched by WNA provides for an increase in the share of nuclear power from 11% of global electricity today to 25% in 2050 (roughly 1000GWe new nuclear capacity to be constructed). WNA recognizes that there are strong barriers standing in the way of achieving the Harmony goal.
The IEA meeting Nuclear Energy: Today and Tomorrow, held in Paris this year highlighted how, under current policy frameworks, and with limited investment in new plants, the contribution of nuclear to the power mix in mature markets is set to decline significantly. Asia, with China and India are responsible for over 90% of net growth to 2040, while nuclear power generation in developed economies is set to decline 20% by 2040.
Dear Mikhail,
that is very difficult to answer your question with some short sentences influenced by emotional feelings. That will not give a clear view and interpretation od the pros and cons.
First of all you should have a look to existing studies which helps to sort the fact. Indeed the conclusions of such studies must be seen differenciated.
For the first see the following study from Massachusetts Institute of Technology . It is based on the facts on 2003.
https://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-summary.pdf
Since that time a lot of new aspects were coming in the focus. These new facts needs special attention. They will give you the critical points to answer your question seriously.
With best regards
Michael
Florian Glodeanu and Mishyaq Ahmad and Michael Heine! Thank you for your answers!
In context of this question, I somehow remembered the laws of Myrphy:
1. All terms of delivery obligations must be multiplied by a factor of 2.0.
2. All expectations of customers of the new machine should be multiplied by a factor of 0.25.
Therefore, we must set unattainable goals in order to have to do at least something useful:)?
Also an interesting study, more phenomenological orientated: https://www.worldnuclearreport.org
Dear Erik,
that is very interesting study! Very helpful for further dicussions and contributions within this context here about the "Future of Nuclear Technology".
With best regards
Michael
Your 'world harmony programme' is ideal if and only if hydrogen fusion power becomes viable in the near future... and provided humanity survives in the short-term[1]...
[1] Relevant Reference Link:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_are_humans_a_self-destructive_species
Interesting opinions! It remains to wait for the year 2050 :)
yes because it is very difficult to ask our government to build NPP
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Energy