Nuclear Pact Between America and China; Could This Save the Planet from Climate Change?

Nuclear power currently provides over 11% of the world's electricity, but we'll need much, much more. Source: Wikimedia Commons//Stefan Kuhn

Climate change is perhaps the most challenging and daunting problem facing humanity. While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report stating that the world needs to limit warming to just 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels to limit irreversible harm to the planet, recent analysis argues even that won't be enough. Sure, but haven't major world powers poured hundreds of billions of dollars into renewable technologies in recent years? And isn't humanity making real progress in slashing the rate of increases in carbon dioxide emissions?

Yes, but unfortunately, even the current rate of progress in renewables and "low-carbon" natural gas won't be enough to avoid or significantly delay the catastrophic consequences of climate change. That fact was recently echoed by James Hansen, the former Chief Climate Scientist at NASA, who called for a significant increase in investment in carbon-free nuclear power. Hansen even called for a global research and development alliance between the United States and China and for the rapid deployment of next-generation technologies, such as those from General Electric Company (NYSE: GE  ) and Hitachi. Could he be right?

Investment lacking
Hansen recently laid out his reasoning in a study titled Assessing "Dangerous Climate Change": Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature. It's pretty simple. If we are to meet the globally agreed upon goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, then we must turn to nuclear power. Atomic energy may have an image problem, but it remains the safest source of electricity generation. You can complain about used nuclear fuels (waste) and the soaring costs of building nuclear power plants, including the two new reactors at Southern Company's (NYSE: SO  ) Plant Vogtle. But have you ever stopped to think about why those two problems exist?

A major contributing factor is a lack of investment in new technologies in recent years. First, consider that the monetary cost of nuclear power plants is heavily skewed to construction. That makes headlines about the inability of Southern Company to corral construction costs seem worrisome, but once built, the two new reactors will enjoy relatively stable uranium prices over the long term. We can't say the same for natural gas-fired power plants.

Second, consider that Southern Company is utilizing Generation III nuclear reactors for the plant addition. That's not to say the reactors aren't the latest and greatest of their kind, but when you realize that the first Generation III reactors built have been operating since 1996, you can catch a glimpse of the slow pace of research and development.

That brings us to our third point. While General Electric and Hitachi currently wield two of the 10 approved Generation III reactor designs globally, they are also marketing the world's first Generation IV reactor that runs on used nuclear fuels. In fact, it can reduce global waste stockpiles by 96%. If such game-changing technology exists, why aren't we using it on a massive scale (or at all)?  

Source: GE Hitachi.

The innovation from General Electric and Hitachi is exactly the kind of technology the world needs to invest in if it wants to succeed in reaching climate goals. Countries could race each other to develop independent and competing solutions, but an alliance between the United States and China (and/or other major nuclear energy leaders) would greatly expedite commercialization. As Hansen summarized:

If we don't help China by cooperating in nuclear power technology development and deployment, they will do it themselves. That will be unfortunate, for two reasons. It will be slower and thus it will include a lot of coal use, such as building of many syngas plants. And it will make them the leaders in nuclear technology. Too bad, it should have been the U.S.

It's a powerful message and one that is difficult to disagree with.

Foolish bottom line
You may not support nuclear energy for fear of the consequences of a rare catastrophe, but many more people have died from health complications caused by burning coal and natural gas than have ever died from radiation exposure from a nuclear disaster. The only difference is that air pollutants from coal and natural gas aren't sensationalized by the media or pop culture because they're silent killers. Unfortunately, they'll become much louder this century by compounding the dangerous effects of climate change. If the world doesn't come together to invest in next-generation nuclear technologies from companies such as General Electric, then it's likely impossible for the world to reach its climate goals.

We need nuclear, but the world is still in love with oil

If you can't possibly invest in a company working in the nuclear industry, then consider the investing opportunities elsewhere in the energy sector. Imagine a company that rents a very specific and valuable piece of machinery for $41,000... per hour (that's almost as much as the average American makes in a year!). And Warren Buffett is so confident in this company's can't-live-without-it business model, he just loaded up on 8.8 million shares. An exclusive, brand-new Motley Fool report reveals the company we're calling OPEC's Worst Nightmare. Just click HERE to uncover the name of this industry-leading stock... and join Buffett in his quest for a veritable LANDSLIDE of profits!


Read/Post Comments (4) | Recommend This Article (2)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 1:39 AM, AndyA wrote:

    It will be impossible to solve Climate change and here's why. Republicans don't believe in Climate change so therefore it does not exist. Since we've now determined that it doesn't exist, ergo, it can't be solved. Well, I guess I did kind of solve it but I'm way to modest to take credit.

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Puahia wrote:

    Another writer that did not listen in Science class. Earth has never had a period without climate change. It is always happening. Sometimes slow, sometimes fast. Technically we still in an Ice Age with almost 10-15% of land covered in ice. The question is only if human activity makes the warming up of the planet faster and that seems to be the case. "Only" 2% of carbon emissions are from human activity. The rest is from volcanoes, microbes ...

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 2:46 PM, macjon55 wrote:

    When perfectly good Nuclear Plants are being closed because they can't sell their power (Kewaunee Plant) because Fossil Fuel is cheaper the only way Nuclear will work is if it subsidized by the government either with direct help or allowing it to charge a premium price over fossil fuel generated power or fossil fuel generated power will need to be taxed to make it more expensive than Nuclear. Bottom line is more expensive energy.

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 2:50 PM, TMFBlacknGold wrote:

    @macjon55

    Not necessarily. The next generation of nuclear power plants will be smaller and utilize smaller, modular reactors. That will result in lower construction and overhead costs, although geography will always play a part in energy generation.

    Maxxwell

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2820330, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 12/19/2014 8:06:07 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement