Counterpunch's strange claims regarding Nuclear Power

Where does Mark Jacobson get his numbers from?

There's likely no energy source that faces more criticism, hatred and counter-propaganda than nuclear power. It remains unclear to me why any technology should be the target of such intense scrutiny that is capable of mobilizing entire political movements against it, and why the political left, in particular in America and Germany, is so opposed to a technology whose development requires some form of state driven expansion.

In a recent CounterPunch article, the Stanford academic and civil engineer Prof. Mark Jacobson reiterated some long-standing arguments against nuclear power. Notably that it is “too slow to deploy” and that “it costs too much”.

A shift to invest more heavily in nuclear energy over the next two decades could actually worsen the climate crisis, as cheaper, quicker alternatives are ignored for more expensive, slow-to-deploy nuclear reactors.

While I also would question the wisdom of any country to pursue 100% nuclear power, it's important to highlight that Jacobson's assertions do not withstand scrutiny. Historically, nuclear power has scaled at a faster pace than renewables once it reaches mass production. As of 2023, solar power may have potentially surpassed this historical trend globally (though not necessarily at the local level).

But what stood out to me in Jacobson’s article is the numbers that he throws around without checking it against International Benchmarking and Audited Accounts.

Nuclear costs are prohibitively high: It’ll cost $15 trillion to triple nuclear capacity, assuming existing reactors continue to function, which will not be the case, raising this big bet well over $15T. Who’s putting up $15T?

A small matchbox calculation shows just how ridiculous Jacobson’s claim is.

The world’s current installed nuclear capacity (as per a quick google search) is 371GWe. To triple the world’s capacity, we need to add double that i.e. 2 x 371GWe = 742GWe.

The nth of a kind cost of a nuclear power station is around $3billion/GWe (based on historical data from mass builds in France, the USA, China, South Korea, Japan and India).

In fact in China it’s already $2billion/GWe!

Therefore to triple the world’s installed capacity, the world needs roughly.

2 x 371GWe x $3billion/GWe =$2,226 trillion and not $15trillion as he claims.

If the world hits the Chinese mass production levels then,

2 x 371GWe x $2billion/GWe =$1,484 trillion and not $15trillion as he claims.

Jacobson's claim is based on the premise that nuclear power would cost $15 trillion

$15trillion/(2 x 371 GWe) = $20billion/GWe.

Essentially, Jacobson asserts that every power station worldwide would incur costs that are more expensive than Vogtle Power Station (the most expensive example at roughly $13billion/GWe), and that there would be absolutely no learning curve during a mass build.

Is this a realistic assumption?

---

Jacobson further cites Mycle Schneider as a purported "nuclear expert," relying on him as a source.

Nuclear expert Mycle Schneider, the lead author of the prestigious World Nuclear Industry Status Report (500 pgs.) now in in its 18^th edition known for its fact-based approach on details of operation, construction, and decommissioning of the world’s reactors was recently interviewed by the Bulletin: Schneider’s publication is considered the landmark study of the industry.

It's essential to highlight that Mr. Schneider lacks formal qualifications in nuclear power and describes himself as a 'self-taught energy consultant.' Schneider has built a career around opposing nuclear power, and his organization, the 'World Nuclear Report,' has significant affiliations with Greenpeace. An organisation that is banned in India, whose registration has been twice refused in New Zealand, and whose founder admitted to using propaganda to influence public opinion.

It’s also worth noting that Schneier’s report claims to be independent, yet it is co-funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection. Furthermore, the World Nuclear Energy Report relies on assumptions from the flawed financing agency Lazard and utilizes the LCOE metric—simplistic tools that are inherently flawed.

Are these credible claims from a credible source?

---

I do concur with Jacobson that achieving a threefold increase in nuclear power by 2050 is unrealistic. But I take it a step further by asserting that achieving net-zero emissions is also entirely a fantasy and that COP28, much like the previous IPCC conferences will achieve absolutely nothing, other than facilitating more corruption in the developing world.

My skepticism stems from the belief that nations might understandably choose to expand their reliance on coal if it remains their only available energy source. Nations broadly speaking have three priorities in energy: energy security, cost and equity and then environmental concerns such as decarbonisation. The latter will only follow if the first two conditions are met.

As Africa is poised for further development in this century, it is likely that there will be an expansion of hydrocarbons that include oil, liquefied natural gas and “dirty” king coal.

The climatistas can protest and complain as much as they like, they unfortunately won’t make a dent to the expansion of coal, simply because it is the least constrained of all the major 7 energy sources.

Consequently, achieving a policy of reaching net zero appears to be an even more distant fantasy than tripling the world’s nuclear capacity. It will require a command economy that is likely to be rejected by the citizens of the free world.

Note: 1GWe = 1 Gigawatt electrical

Remark: One of my subscribers informed me that Mark Jacobson completed his Ph.D. thesis under the supervision of Richard Turco, who along with Carl Sagan, popularized the concept of the "nuclear winter scare during The Cold War."