Someone asked me the other day why I think we shouldn't be letting nuclear plants close early, and I want to flesh it out a little bit, because...well, it's less to do with nuclear than you might think. A very short thread, I promise! W /ref to @EmberClimate 2020 elec review...

If you look at how nuclear power generation around the world has changed since the year 2000, only two countries have a clear *decrease* since then (filtering out countries w/ no nuc): Japan, and Germany (also just highlighted China for the pure wow of its recent build-out)

If we look at what happened in Japan, it's pretty clear. As nuclear power shut down, coal and gas (mostly gas) increased. That is slowly being reversed, with reductions in demand and fast solar growth cancelling out coal and gas' gains. But wow: it's bad stuff.

What this shows is an important principle: it is entirely possible that when nuclear power leaves a grid, the gap is filled by very, very bad things.

Okay - but let's confound that a little. In Germany, the other big bulk of nuclear drop since 2000, falls in nuclear power (and coal) have been replaced by a mix of (mostly) wind and solar, some gas, and biomass.

Well...okay. That's a mixed bag. But not clear-cut bad like Japan.

Here's what seems pretty clear to me: when power stations like nuclear plants shut down, what fills the gap depends very, very much on the local, state and country-level political, corporate and social variables.

In America, I think those variables are pretty damn clear-cut. Look at this freaking horror chart: gas has gone absolutely gang-busters. It sold itself using some "transition fuel" nonsense and it's become *everything*.

If nuclear shuts down in the US, we *know* what will rise.

Renewables have made *incredible* strides in the past few years, but gas continues to play a really major and very undesirable role in growth around the world. Since 2010, it has grown the most, in global annual power generation (followed by wind)

And jeez, just look at the pipeline for new gas-fired power stations in the US. It won't all get built but come on. Absolutely mind-blowing to me that these are even being considered; but there it is. It's just wild.

https://escholarship.org/content/qt6s95x3cw/qt6s95x3cw.pdf?t=qj897j

Here's the other thing: nuclear isn't immortal. The root problem here is that when they each inevitably retire around the world, we need to have *really* solved the problem of ensuring that the gap-fillers are zero carbon with total certainty.

Whatever zero carbon option fills that gap will be, hopefully, decided through a healthy process that prioritises cost, justice, function, environment, social preferences and general good vibes

My key point: we are so far from that, not because nuclear is good/bad or because RE is good/bad, but because fossil fuels (mostly gas) are wildly corrupt, heavily subsidised (through a lack of carbon pricing or just actual freaking subsidies) and V V GOOD AT BEING BUILT.

Sometimes, nuclear folk in my mentions are stunningly bad at recognising just how bad the fossil fuel industry is (as if the "gas and renewables: the perfect pair!" adverts are sincere.....). Some even *advocate* for fossil gas as the second-best to nuclear!

And honestly: me, and all of my renewable friends, we have too often been pretty bad at acknowledging how far there is to go - well beyond 'it's cheap now!!' - to make renewables the proper fossil fuel killers they ought to be; in a way that lasts, and gest faster.

So yeah. That's the reason why I support campaigns to sweat nuclear as long as we can. We are up against a fossil fuel industry that has been forged into a perfect planet-killing weapon. It is immense, incumbent, and growing. That fear - not a love for a machine - drives my view.

The end