EU Declares Nuclear to be one of 17 Strategic Decarbonization Technologies

The Council of EU member states and the European Parliament agreed to label nuclear power as a strategic technology together with 16 other technologies declared strategic for the EU’s decarbonization, following months of negotiations in Brussels over the Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA).

The NZIA aims to speed up the deployment of technologies that can contribute to meeting the EU’s net-zero emissions target. This is seen as a direct response by the EU to the Biden Administration's Inflation Reduction Act and efforts by other countries, including China, to become global leaders in the manufacturing of clean technologies like batteries, heat pumps and solar panels.

The NZIA aims to accelerate permitting procedures for industrial production sites involved in the manufacturing of components needed for renewable energy technologies, but also for nuclear power.

Negotiators representing the Parliament, the Council, and the European Commission confirmed on Tuesday the “strategic” nature of projects relating to nuclear energy, which are included in a single list of 17 net-zero technologies that will benefit from the NZIA.

French MEP Christophe Grudler who took part in the talks for the centrist Renew Europe group in Parliament, explained that each EU country will be sovereign in defining the projects that will be considered strategic on its territory, and thus which will benefit from faster permitting and simplified administrative rules.

However, as a result of the negotiations, “the two types of energy (namely, renewable and nuclear) are finally being treated equally as part of the reindustrialisation process,” Grudler rejoiced.

The agreement encompasses both traditional nuclear nuclear technologies as well as future third and fourth generation designs, i.e. small modular reactors (SMRs) and other types of advanced nuclear reactors and their corresponding fuel cycles.

“The message is clear: the EU recognises that we need nuclear power to achieve the objectives of the Green Deal,” the French MEP told Euractiv.

Read more at EURACTIV's "Nuclear power officially labelled as 'strategic' for EU's decarbonisation," by Paul Messad, February 7, 2024.

See EURACTIV's "EU Parliament backs extensive net-zero industry ‘wishlist’, including nuclear,"by Paul Messad, Nov. 23, 2023.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate policy, Government support, History Timeline, History-making, International support for nuclear, LINKS, Nuclear financing, Nuclear-inclusive energy policy, Politicians supporting nuclear, Solving climate, Zero emission energy

January 20, 2024

The A, B, and especially C’s of ESG

By Valerie Gardner, Managing Partner

ESG investing is the largest and most profound global trend happening in the capital markets. Its popularity points to the global recognition that investors should and do have an important role to play in helping to solve environmental, social and other issues that have put the planet on a bad trajectory. In fact, no business can survive without investor support so businesses do care to meet investors' demands. Yet, as structured, ESG is not working to fulfill investors' true underlying needs or produce measurable objectives. The good news: there is an easy fix, when we start with "C," assessing climate impacts.

Like many things today, an initiative based upon a meaningful and important purpose, has become mired in controversy. Like the Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) movement that preceded it, ESG (an acronym for rating and selecting companies based upon their environmental, social and governance performance) has emerged to enable investors to focus their investments on companies that are taking care to behave more morally and responsibly vis-a-vis the environment, their employees, their shareholders, their suppliers, their communities and the climate. Many of these types of good corporate behaviors previously went unreported. What's become clear to investors is that short-term profiteering by managers may appear to be beneficial for shareholders but often may not be. It can conflict with what we know are looming issues which need action. Thus, sometimes taking a longer-term view and making corresponding sacrifices or investments that actually reduce overall risks can vastly improve longer-term enterprise value.

ESG has emerged to identify, elevate and reward companies which invest in doing what is right, even if such actions reduce returns in the short-term. It is intended to broaden the metrics on which corporations report information, so investors can make better informed decisions and invest in companies taking ethical actions, treating employees, suppliers and their communities fairly and protecting the environment—much of which costs more but which can reduce risks and other future costs, including litigation, public opposition or climate impacts.

While collecting data to make this type of assessment might seem uncontroversial, traditionally company management was required to focus on meeting only one goal: maximizing shareholder value. Because actions that affect long term enterprise value are often difficult to quantify, management reports have traditionally focused on easier t omeasure financial metrics like Price/Earnings ratios and quarterly profit trends. Deviating from the objective of maximizing per share profits could and often did result in shareholder lawsuits, if management took even smart and common sense approaches which reflected a community value, but which did not clearly improve shareholder value.

Fortunately, in 2019, under the leadership of Jamie Dimon, the Business Roundtable officially changed their statement of purpose and so businesses now broadly recognize that they are also accountable to their employees, suppliers and communities — constituents whose needs and actions can also impact the bottom line — but there is no consensus as to exactly how much or how little is enough and companies employ widely diverging approaches. ESG is now a way that investors can better discern the differences and reward companies that are acting responsibly on environmental, social and governance issues. Unfortunately, it is not working very well.

What ESG Currently Is

The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance published an article entitled ESG Ratings: A Compass without Direction which aptly summarizes the main issues with ESG as it currently is. The authors describe their findings as follows: "We find that while ESG ratings providers may convey important insights into the nonfinancial impact of companies, significant shortcomings exist in their objectives, methodologies, and incentives which detract from the informativeness of their assessments."

Critically, there's a significant dichotomy between what people commonly think ESG is supposed to indicate and what it actually indicates. Most people believe that an ESG score reflects a company's positive impact on the environment and stakeholders beyond its shareholders, such as employees, customers, suppliers, and local communities as well as the environment—a type of "Doing Good" metric which would tend to produce more shareholder value in the long run. In actuality, most ESG raters are assessing a company for the existence or absence of risk factors that could impact the future value of the company, such as the risk of discrimination in hiring or the risk of climate change on the supply chain. This is more of a "Risk Reduction" approach to data collection.

From an investment manager point of view, any time you can get meaningful information about a company's actions and potential future value, you are generally willing to pay for that—especially when your clients are clamoring for more sustainable investment options and are willing to pay more. Thus, there are now a plethora of third-party ESG rating services working to provide ESG data for a fee and a very large majority of impact-focused investment professionals are using these services to provide more options for clients. But, sadly, the entire space, which is still in its infancy, is chaotic and incoherent.

Studies show very low correlations across ESG ratings providers in total scores as well as across the three distinct components of "E," "S," and "G." Not only isn't there agreement about what an ESG score reflects, there is no standardization in the types of data collected or used and no consistency to the methodologies of collecting, assessing or prioritizing within or across categories. Thus, not only are ESG ratings badly correlated with environmental and social outcomes, the relationship between ESG ratings and financial performance is also uncertain. Those investing in ESG-type funds will typically pay more in fees for having accessed ESG data but they will generally get just equivalent or worse performance.

High and rising demand for ESG information has caused ESG-type rating services and funds to become profit centers, even as the quality, consistency and efficacy of the ratings has failed to provide meaningful results. At the moment, in addition to all of the inherent confusion as to what data matters, how to collect it, how to assess it and then how combine it with many other data points into a meaningful score, there is also the problem of greenwashing. Greenwashing is the deliberate efforts by some companies to game the system and try to obtain better ratings and scores than they probably deserve.

Which points to a growing problem in the ESG space. Companies control what data they will share with which rating groups, creating an inherent ability for companies to influence their scores by refusing to give their data to groups that don't rate them highly. This has rendered the existing ESG industry scores almost meaningless, since many of these raters are dependent upon the good will with the companies they are rating to get the data they need.

There is no better example how badly ESG is doing for guiding investors to more ethical and sustainable companies than when the S&P Sustainability Index did its rebalancing in May 2022. At that juncture, the S&P ESG team ejected Tesla (the largest EV car maker and one of the most successful climate companies on the planet) from the Index but welcomed ExxonMobil (a renowned climate villain), prompting Elon Musk to call the S&P Sustainability Index a "scam."

This decision caused a broader uproar within the sector and forced Senior Director and Head of ESG Indices Margaret Dorn to publish an explanation. Not only was this shift a climate and ESG travesty but, in fact, the S&P's "delicate balancing act" revealed that ESG raters and ratings are meaningless for a whole host of reasons, predominantly because there is just too much data, too much manipulation, and not enough understanding of what really matters. ESG raters appear to be so lost in the trees, they have effectively lost sight of the forest, namely the critical issue that matters the most to investors: climate change.

corre

What ESG Isn't

Investors are looking to ESG ratings to enable them to invest in companies that are doing better on a wide range of areas but, most critically, are environmentally responsible, especially around reducing carbon emissions. For many, this means working to provide solutions along the lines outlined by the United Nationa's Sustainable Development Goals. ESG investors care to invest in companies which improve global sustainability and solve climate change.

There are plenty of dire human, environmental and governance problems—you could name dozens—but none that threaten to seriously and even permanently disrupt the planet, human society and economic order as much climate change, the forced heating of our climate caused by burning fossil fuels. This crisis dwarfs everything.

So, while it may be troubling that there are reports of a toxic "bro" culture at Tesla, every single day, Tesla ships electric vehicles that enable people to stop purchasing and burning fossil fuels, which is the primary driver of climate change. In stark contrast, every single day ExxonMobil strives to greenwash their aspiration to keep selling more and more fossil fuels for as long as they possibly can—threatening not just human survival but that of all species and potentially our well-functioning societies, which could effectively wipe out the concept of wealth as we know it.

Shockingly, ESG as it is currently designed doesn't enable either the experts or investors to clearly assess companies on the single most important metric of sustainable performance—whether the company contributes to climate change or if they provide solutions to climate change. The average ESG investor, however, thinks that this is primarily what ESG does. Clearly, if ExxonMobil is rated highly but Tesla is not, ESG is not just meaningless, it is actually misleading for the average impact investor.

Fortunately, in order to fix this problem, ESG doesn't need to change that much, it just needs to make a small, relatively easy modification, which will then substantially improve its effectiveness and performance and begin to have a truly beneficial impact on humanity's ability to invest "sustainability." I propose a very basic approach for doing that below.

ESG Can Easily Be Fixed: Start all ratings with a "C" assessment

(Click to enlarge.)

As those concerned about what's happening with our climate saw, 2023 experienced a succession of seven record-shattering and "gobsmackingly bananas" (in the words of two climate scientists) hottest months on record. Not surprisingly, 2023 was also a record-breaker for climate disasters in the U.S. and around the globe, which have cost humanity billions annually. The bill for extreme climate disasters in the U.S. since 1980 now totals over $2 trillion and growing. Hundreds of millions of people are already being affected and/or displaced by the extreme weather events resulting from burning fossil fuels and allowing the CO2 pollution to escape into the atmosphere. These climate events are impacting the global economy, national security, geopolitics, businesses and politics in a range of ways but especially by increasing over systems risk.

(Click to enlarge)

Not surprisingly, at COP 28 in December, 198 nations gathered in the United Arab Emirates and finally agreed that we need to "transition away from fossil fuels." Though fossil fuel exporting nations like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iraq fought hard against adopting the specific words "phasing out fossil fuels," this is a pointless distinction, since it is abundantly clear that humanity needs to stop using fossil fuels as fast as humanly possible, whether transitioned or phased out. The climate is so bad, even Middle Eastern countries, whose primary source of revenue is fossil fuels, finally acknowledged what we've known for a very long time: only by eliminating the use of fossil fuels will we start to turn the tide against our worsening climate change and the dire ecologic and economic crisis that it threatens.

Against this backdrop and in light of the fact that ESG analyses and ratings are clearly still in "beta," we believe that ESG raters could make a very minor modification and start to have a much more significant impact. Simply by commencing vetting with one very simple sorting action, they would improve the coherence of ESG ratings by a lot. Prior to applying the rankings from hundreds of data points amassed regarding a plethora of corporate actions, ESG needs to divvy up the universe of companies into three distinct buckets: Climate Villains, Climate Neutral companies and Climate Heroes. This is a very easy distinction to make. Climate villains are those that are actively extracting, refining or selling virgin fossil fuel products or related services. Climate neutral companies are those that doing other business and are merely energy customers. Climate heroes are those companies which are actively developing and/or delivering key solutions to climate change (unrelated to ongoing fossil fuels operations), like low-carbon and carbon-free energy such as nuclear power, hydropower, wind, solar, geothermal and wave power; providing electrification support, such as with electric vehicles, heat pumps, charging stations and energy efficiency; and lastly carbon management, including carbon capture, carbon utilization and carbon sequestration (so long as unrelated to fossil fuel operations).

Once this vetting process has been done, then all of the current ESG metrics can then be assessed for more comparative performance relative to a company's other environmental, social and governance risks. But the top line assessment will easily enable every ESG-rated fund to exclude all Climate Villains. ESG funds will then be able to select their choices of best-performing companies from the other two categories for a mix of risk and return characteristics and use whatever type of analyses they wish. Investors will then have a very clear sense of what the composition of the fund is, across these three categories. Companies whose business is actively extracting, refining, distributing or selling fossil fuel products or services that cause climate change will likely still be included in standard, non-ESG funds, of course, but even these funds would easily be assessed for their climate impacts. Such funds could also be assessed for their ESG conformance, relative to other similar funds. But with this big bucket approach, no company or fund would be able to manipulate their "S" or "G" ratings in such a way as to feign that they are environmentally sustainable or acting responsibly relative to climate risk or sustainable development goals, when they are not, which is what impact investors mostly care about.

Summary

Despite inconsistencies in and controversy over ESG, we believe that demand for ESG research and investment vehicles remains strong largely because of concerns about climate change. Investors demand greater clarity about which businesses have more sustainable and ethical business approaches and want to own those and not companies shirking their responsibilities to future generations. Although ESG is in a nascent and chaotic state and not currently delivering the data ESG investors really need, a simple modification will be enough to ensure that more investor capital is directed into sustainable ventures.

Here's how we think it can work.

Prior to running the current slate of ESG assessments, each company should be given a climate score: "C Minus" is given to "Climate Villains," companies whose products and services are contributing to climate change, namely the fossil fuel extraction, refinement, distribution and sales companies that are responsible for contributing millions of tons of carbon emissions. Companies that not involved with climate-impacting businesses (such as those in healthcare, education, textiles, manufacturing, etc.) would be deemed "Climate Neutral" and get a straight "C" since their business is not directly causing climate change other than through their energy usages (or idiosyncratic emissions). Lastly, the final category are the Climate Heroes who get rated "C+" as they are actively working to solve humanity's need for clean energy and/or carbon services, which seek to restore the natural carbon balance in the atmosphere.

Once these very broad but clear buckets are determined, ESG ratings can be applied to provide more nuanced distinctions between the companies in each of the three buckets, based upon their treatment of employees, governance policies, whether or not they take care of their toxic emissions or waste products, whether they protect water sheds or try to use clean energy for their operations, etc. In this way, Tesla will be in the C+ bucket with other climate heroes and rated in comparison to other electric car companies but will never be in the same climate bucket as disgraced Climate Villain, ExxonMobil, which must try to out-maneuver other fossil fuels purveyors stuck in the C- bucket.

If this simple change were implemented, ESG funds could showcase their percentage of holdings that are C+ versus C, and ESG would finally become a highly effective tool for enabling investors to invest towards increasing the sustainability of our planet.

References

Columbia University, Climate Science & Solutions, Groundhog Day. Another Gobsmackingly Bananas Month. What's Up?, by James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, January 4, 2023, the title is taken from a tweet by Zeke Hausfather.

NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters (2023). DOI: 10.25921/stkw-7w73.

Fortune, Musk claims S&P ‘lost their integrity’ after Tesla gets booted from sustainability index while Exxon is included, by Christiaan Hetzner, May 18, 2022.

New York TImes, Sustainability Index Drops Tesla, Prompting Insult from Musk, By Jack Ewing and Stephen Gandel, May 18, 2022.

4. The (Re)Balancing Act of the S&P 500 ESG Index, by Margaret Dorn, Senior Director, Head of ESG Indices, North America, S&P Dow Jones Indices, May 17, 2022.

5. Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance, ESG Ratings: A Compass without Direction, by Brian Tayan, a researcher with the Corporate Governance Research Initiative at Stanford Graduate School of Business, David Larcker, Professor of Accounting at Stanford Graduate School of Business; Edward Watts, Assistant Professor of Accounting at Yale School of Management; and Lukasz Pomorski, Lecturer at Yale School of Management, August 24, 2022.

Published by Valerie Gardner in Advanced Nuclear, Carbon emissions, Carbon markets, Carbon negative, Climate change, Climate innovation fund, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Energy abundance, Future of Energy, Investor activity, Macro Energy Systems, NEWS, Reduced ecosystem impacts, Solving climate

January 5, 2024

Sweden appoints world’s first “National Nuclear Power Coordinator”

Sweden is continuing to demonstrate exceptionally smart and effective management towards climate goals by appointing the world's first "National Nuclear Power Coordinator," to manage the growth of nuclear energy in the country.

Sweden previously announced its intentions to expand the amount of nuclear power used in the country with the construction of new nuclear generating capacity equivalent by 2 gigawatts (approximately two large-scale reactors) by 2035 and up to 10 gigawatts (about ten new large-scale reactors) coming online by 2045. In November, the Swedish parliament approved the bill that allows new reactors at existing and new sites starting in 2024. Now, Swedish Energy & Industry Minister Ebba Busch has taken bold action to help ensure the success of this key governmental initiative, with the appointment of Carl Berglöf as national nuclear power coordinator.

Berglöf, who recently won the 2023 Honorary Award of the Swedish Nuclear Society in recognition of fifteen years of work in the nuclear field and who has been a nuclear advisor at the industry organisation Energiföretagen Sweden since 2017, will start his new position as national nuclear power coordinator on February 1st.

This job will involve supporting the Swedish government in its work to reach the goal of expanding nuclear power, including serving as a single point of contact with regards to nuclear matters, suggesting ways to accelerate the process, pushing for any supplementary measures that are required to get the job done, and communicating about the initiative to the public. From our perspective, this new appointment promises to be a shining example to the rest of the world about how to improve the process of managing an ambitious expansion of nuclear power, that may well include both traditional gridscale and advanced nuclear designs.

In this capacity, Berglöf will have until 2026 to lay the foundation for the expansion approved by the Riksdag (legislature), which "shares the Government’s assessment that fossil-free electricity from nuclear power will also continue to play a role of central importance in the Swedish energy mix. The main reasons for this are an expected greater demand for electricity in combination with the fact that fossil fuels have to be phased out, particularly for climate reasons. Nuclear power also contributes to the stable and predictable functioning of the Swedish power system."

This move is being widely applauded by the nuclear community and the world's eyes are now on Sweden as a leading actor on the global climate stage, moving aggressively towards its decarbonization goals. Given this, we have to believe that part of Carl's new role will be providing guidance and support to other countries seeking to make similar appointments that can help to accelerate their own pathways to decarbonizing their grids with expansions of nuclear power.

Read more at World Nuclear News "Sweden appoints national nuclear power coordinator," January 5, 2024.

(In Swedish) Regeringskansliet, Carl Berglöf utses till nationell kärnkraftssamordnare, 04 januari 2024

Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Brilliant thinkers, Capital reallocation, Climate change, Climate policy, Future of Energy, Government support, History Timeline, History-making, International support for nuclear, LINKS, Nuclear competitiveness, Nuclear financing, Politicians supporting nuclear, Solving climate, Zero emission energy

December 13, 2023

International Conference Agrees to “Transition Away” from Fossil Fuels

For the first time ever, and despite being hosted the United Arab Emirates, the COP agrees to "transition away" from fossil fuels. This is the first time in over 35 years of meeting internationally to address climate change, that the UNFCC has reached an agreement that even mentions reducing fossil fuels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGEaWZL5zL4

Though not the firm commitment to "phase out" fossil fuels that many attendees were hoping for, this agreement nevertheless goes further in specifically calling for nations to begin reducing their dependence upon fossil fuels than any other prior agreement did. Now, the question becomes "how can such a transition happen" without compromising the reliability of the grid? The answer was not provided in the text of the agreement. But the answer was provided in the pledges made during the conference: a tripling of nuclear power, renewables and energy efficiency. Increasingly, nations will be looking to see how they can replace fossil fuels with another energy source that is equally as firm and reliable. They will eventually find their way to nuclear power if they don't already have hydro or geothermal resources.

Read more at Reuters "Nations strike deal at COP28 to transition away from fossil fuels," by Valerie Volcovici, Gloria Dickie and William James, December 13, 2023.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Capital reallocation, Carbon emissions, Carbon markets, Climate change, Climate mayhem, Climate policy, Fossil fuels, Future of Energy, Government support, History Timeline, History-making, International Collaboration, International support for nuclear, LINKS, Solving climate, Zero emission energy

December 11, 2023

States are Lifting Bans on Nuclear

Illinois became the most recent U.S. state to lift a prior moratorium on building new nuclear power plants but it isn't the only state to do so. Illinois joins West Virginia, Connecticut, Wyoming, Montana, Kentucky and Wisconsin in modifying or eliminating prior restrictions in building new nuclear power plant in state, reducing to ten the number of states which still ban new nuclear construction.

After a three-decade moratorium, Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed HB 2473, legislation passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the Illinois legislature, to allow development of advanced nuclear reactors in the state.

Beginning in 2026, Illinois will allow smaller nuclear reactors—defined as those producing less than 300 megawatts of power—to be built to contribute to the state's ability to increase its generation of carbon-free power and remain a leader in the energy sector.

The legislation which goes into effect on June 1, 2024, calls for a feasibility study on the risks of new nuclear and puts the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Office of Homeland Security in charge of establishing rules reactor decommissioning, monitoring and emergency preparedness related to such projects, in consultation with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

In the words of the bill's sponsors, HB 2473 "will ensure that that [Illinois] can remain a leader in the energy sector by offering us the ability to utilize the amazing advancements in new nuclear energy technology. Lifting [Illinois'] archaic moratorium on new nuclear energy construction will open the door for companies that have been developing new advanced nuclear energy technology the opportunity to invest in Illinois.”

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), although twelve states had some form of restriction on the construction of new nuclear power facilities as of the end of September 2023, six states have recently modified or repealed those bans, now including Illinois, West Virginia, Connecticut, Montana, Kentucky and Wisconsin.

[Update: By a vote of 34-0 (with coalfield senators joining in support), the Kentucky Senate passed Senate Bill 198 to establish the Kentucky Nuclear Energy Development Authority, create a nuclear energy ecosystem, and identify the best sites for nuclear. The bill goes to the house next, where it is expected to pass easily with the current Republican supermajority.]

Matthew Wald, writing in the May 25th, 2023 Build Nuclear Now Campaign newsletter wrote that "Illinois gets more than half its electricity from nuclear power, and it produces more electricity from nuclear reactors than any other state—about one-eighth of the national total. . . . The state has numerous industries that could decarbonize using nuclear electricity or heat." Previously, Governor Pritzker helped to protect several of Illinois' fleet of 11 nuclear reactors from premature closure, protecting Illinois' lead as the state with the most clean energy generation.

See: the Associated Press, "Pritzker signs law lifting moratorium on nuclear reactors," published Dec. 8, 2023.

Read more at the Nuclear Newswire, "Illinois lifts ban on some new nuclear construction," December 1, 2023.

Learn more about State Restrictions on New Nuclear Power Facility Construction at the National Conference of State Legislatures, updated September 28, 2023.

See: US News & World Report, "Bill Supporting Development of Nuclear Energy Wins Passage in Kentucky Senate," Feb. 26, 2024.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Carbon emissions, Climate change, Climate policy, Energy abundance, Future of Energy, Government support, History-making, LINKS, Nuclear competitiveness, Nuclear innovation, Nuclear-inclusive energy policy, Pronuclear States, Solving climate, US competitiveness, US technological leadership, Zero emission energy

December 2, 2023

Nuclear Tripling Pledge Announced

President Biden efforts to build a coalition pledging to triple the world's production of nuclear energy by 2050 has succeeded! We've learned from several attendees at the COP 28 conference (through their Twitter activity) that the following twenty-two countries have joined the coalition and signed the Pledge Declaration as of December 2nd:

Belgium

Bulgaria

Canada

Czech Republic

Finland

France

Ghana

Hungary
Japan
Moldova

Mongolia

Morocco

Netherlands

Poland
Republic of Korea

Romania
Slovakia

Slovenia

Sweden
United Arab Emirates

Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States

Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy

December 2, 2023

Recognizing the key role of nuclear energy in achieving global net-zero greenhouse gas emissions / carbon neutrality by or around mid-century and in keeping a 1.5°C limit on temperature rise within reach and achieving Sustainable Development Goal 7;

Recognizing the importance of the applications of nuclear science and technology that contribute to monitoring climate change and tackling its impacts, and emphasizing the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in this regard;

Recognizing that nuclear energy is already the second-largest source of clean dispatchable baseload power, with benefits for energy security;

Recognizing that analyses from the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and World Nuclear Association show that global installed nuclear energy capacity must triple by 2050 in order to reach global net-zero emissions by the same year;

Recognizing that analysis from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows nuclear energy approximately tripling its global installed electrical capacity from 2020 to 2050 in the average 1.5°C scenario;

Recognizing that analysis from the International Energy Agency shows nuclear power more than doubling from 2020 to 2050 in global net-zero emissions by 2050 scenarios and shows that decreasing nuclear power would make reaching net zero more difficult and costly;

Recognizing that new nuclear technologies could occupy a small land footprint and can be sited where needed, partner well with renewable energy sources, and have additional flexibilities that support decarbonization beyond the power sector, including hard-to-abate industrial sectors;

Recognizing the IAEA’s activities in supporting its Member States, upon request, to include nuclear power in their national energy planning in a sustainable way that adheres to the highest standards of safety, security, and safeguards and its “Atoms4NetZero” initiative as an opportunity for stakeholders to exchange expertise;

Recognizing the importance of financing for the additional nuclear power capacity needed to keep a 1.5°C limit on temperature rise within reach;

Recognizing the need for high-level political engagement to spur further action on nuclear power;

The Participants in this pledge:

Commit to work together to advance a global aspirational goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050, recognizing the different domestic circumstances of each Participant;

Commit to take domestic actions to ensure nuclear power plants are operated responsibly and in line with the highest standards of safety, sustainability, security, and non-proliferation, and that fuel waste is responsibly managed for the long term;

Commit to mobilize investments in nuclear power, including through innovative financing mechanisms;

Invite shareholders of the World Bank, international financial institutions, and regional development banks to encourage the inclusion of nuclear energy in their organizations’ energy lending policies as needed, and to actively support nuclear power when they have such a mandate, and encourage regional bodies that have the mandate to do so to consider providing financial support to nuclear energy;

Commit to supporting the development and construction of nuclear reactors, such as small modular and other advanced reactors for power generation as well as wider industrial applications for decarbonization, such as for hydrogen or synthetic fuels production;

Recognize the importance of promoting resilient supply chains, including of fuel, for safe and secure technologies used by nuclear power plants over their full life cycles;

Recognize the importance, where technically feasible and economically efficient, of extending the lifetimes of nuclear power plants that operate in line with the highest standards of safety, sustainability, security, and non-proliferation, as appropriate;

Commit to supporting responsible nations looking to explore new civil nuclear deployment under the highest standards of safety, sustainability, security, and non-proliferation;

Welcome and encourage complementary commitments from the private sector, non-governmental organizations, development banks, and financial institutions;

Resolve to review progress towards these commitments on an annual basis on the margins of the COP;

Call on other countries to join this declaration.

"We know from science, the reality of facts and evidence that we cannot achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 without nuclear power."
— John Kerry, US Climate Envoy

“First, i want to reiterate the fact that NUCLEAR ENERGY IS CLEAN ENERGY. it should be repeated. Nuclear energy is also a stable form of energy which means it’s a perfect complement to renewables. Because of nuclear energy, our (France’s) electricity is one of the cleanest in the world.”
— Emmanuel Macron, President of France

"We aim to build new Nuclear Energy equal to 2500 MW by 2035 & equal to at least x10 large reactors by 2045. In other words, Sweden is open for business in new Nuclear Energy."
— Ebba Busch, Deputy Prime Ministera of Sweden

To receive this reporting from the #COP28 conference in Dubai, you can follow members of this crowd (and others not shown) on Twitter:

@isabelleboemeke
@NuclearHazelnut
@Dr_Keefer
@energybants
@Dr_A_Stein
@W_Nuclear_News
@ryan_pickering_
@sollidnuclear
@econucleares
@ia_aanstoot
@Nuklearia
@IAEA
@RafaelmGrossi
@Africa4N

Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Brilliant thinkers, Carbon emissions, Climate policy, Energy abundance, Future of Energy, Government support, International support for nuclear, LINKS, Nuclear competitiveness, Nuclear financing, Nuclear innovation, Solving climate, US competitiveness, US technological leadership, Zero emission energy

November 18, 2023

A Massive Nuclear Pledge May Be A Global Gamechanger

President Biden is building a coalition that is pledging to triple the world's production of nuclear energy by 2050. The U.S. is preparing to announce the coalition with more than ten countries on four continents, already signed on, in the first major international agreement to ramp up the use of atomic power.

According to Alexander C. Kaufman in "A Massive U.S.-Led Pledge Could Be A Global Gamechanger," published in the Huffington Post on November 16th, signatories to the pledge, set to be unveiled at the United Nations climate summit in Dubai later this month, include many of the largest current users of nuclear energy such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Romania, Sweden, the United Arab Emirates, Japan and South Korea. A handful of "newcomer countries," countries that have not yet built reactors, including Poland, Ghana and Morocco, are also said to have joined the pledge.

The plan will put pressure on the World Bank to end its long-standing ban on financing nuclear-energy projects and it will take a match to the plans of many of the worlds largest funders of fossil fuel projects, both banks and institutional LPs, who will find that the global appetite for nuclear power is growing by virtue of pressure to address the problems of climate change, which are being caused by the continued use of fossil fuels.

(Click to hear Dr. Katy Huff say the U.S. needs to triple its nuclear power to meet its climate goals.)

The Biden White House, according to Jackie Toth, the deputy director of Good Energy Collective, a progressive pronuclear think tank, has adopted what Toth described as a “concerted whole-of-government effort” to “support nuclear energy as an important component of a clean-energy transition.”

According to Kaufman, the nuclear pledge represents one of the most ambitious attempts by the U.S. yet to reassert itself as an exporter of atomic energy technology. For decades, Russia has dominated the export market, with its state-owned Rosatom nuclear company offering a one-stop shop for reactors, uranium fuel and financing. Nearly one-third of the roughly 60 reactors under construction worldwide are Russian designs, including the debut nuclear plants underway in Turkey, Egypt and Bangladesh. Moscow’s virtual monopoly over key types of nuclear fuel has made Rosatom immune to the sanctions the U.S. and Europe have piled on Russian gas, oil and mineral exports in the nearly two years since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began.

[Aside: According to the World Nuclear Association, in addition to the 60 plants in construction, another 110 nuclear power plants are in the planning stages and some additional 300 reactors are being proposed by some 33 nuclear countries or the 30 or so "newcomer countries" that are looking to add nuclear to their energy systems.

Separately, the US is also working to build an international pact, co-led by the European Union and the UAE, to triple renewables. President Biden announced an agreement with China to triple world capacity of renewable power during Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to the U.S. in early November. There are now more than 70 countries that have agreed to the renewable energy pledge.

Lastly, Biden is trying to build commitments from other nationals for the deployment of carbon capture technology. In other words, he's focused on all of the right areas to buttress the world's clean energy capabilities and to begin to reduce the accumulations of carbon dioxide. Bravo, Mr. President.

Read more at the Huffington Post in "A Massive U.S.-Led Pledge Could Be A Global Gamechanger," by Alexander C. Kaufman, November 16, 2023.

See more data about nuclear power at the World Nuclear Association.

November 16, 2023

Investors are turning bullish on nuclear

After years of disinterest, energy security concerns and the push for net zero are leading investors to bet on nuclear power. The fact that the world has not managed to meaningfully reduce emissions—despite commitments from most every country and billions spent on renewables—has made it clear that more dramatic action is needed.

Many of those trying to gauge investor interest look at spot Uranium prices, believing that these are a barometer for investor interest in nuclear. The fact that the spot price rose 55% between January and October speak loudly about the shifting sentiments and prospects for nuclear power.

According to Cameco's website, the world's largest publicly traded uranium company, “Ongoing geopolitical events coupled with the global focus on the climate crisis have created what we believe are transformative tailwinds for the nuclear power industry, from both a demand and supply perspective.” Not surprisingly, Uranium spot prices stood at $74.38 per pound at the end of October, based on month-end prices published by nuclear research companies UxC and TradeTech, up from just $18 in October 2016 and $47.68 at the end of 2022. According to Morningstar, nuclear related exchange traded funds were the best performing ETFs, with Sprott Uraniaum Miners ETF (URNM) gaining 13% over the summer.

Back in May, Bank of America’s Research Investment Committee (RIC) forecast a 20 to 40% upside on uranium and nuclear power after a decade of underinvestment. Bank of America published its research findings in a report called "The Nuclear Necessity" and pointed out that global demand for nuclear had grown with 60 new reactors being built, 100 more approved and plans for old reactors to be refurbished, adding to the positive investor sentiment.

The entire global economy is, in fact, poised to move into a new period of increased interest in building nuclear, premised upon macroeconomic forces that include "resource nationalism, energy security, war and inflation." According to Jared Woodard, Bank of America's Investment and ETF Strategist, "Every analyst I spoke to was bullish on prospects for nuclear power as a technology that's clean and meets the kinds of goals that so many policymakers are eager to hit in terms of reducing emissions."

Both sides of the political spectrum see the beneifts of nuclear, progressives like the low emissions and highly reliable capacity of nuclear for addressing climate change and conservatives like the national and energy security aspects. [Aside: What's been working in the U.S. Congress is that both Democrats and Republicans vote in support of bills that both protect existing and help next-generation nuclear power using voice votes. Pronuclear bills have been passed with bipartisan majorities in every administration since Barack Obama's, with the Biden Administration doing the most good to level the playing field for nuclear. Virtually every elected official supports nuclear but progressives still find it harder to explain their support to their constituents. Less so with Republicans.]

Read more at Reuters Investors are turning bullish on nuclear, by Paul Day, November 16, 2023.

Reuters, Best and Worst Performing ETFs in August, by Valerio Baselli, September 15, 2023.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Asset manager support, Capital reallocation, Carbon emissions, Climate policy, Corporate decarbonization, Energy abundance, International support for nuclear, Investor activity, LINKS, Nuclear competitiveness, Nuclear financing, Nuclear innovation, Private companies, Public companies, Solving climate, Zero emission energy

November 9, 2023

A First-Ever Commercial Plant Extracting Carbon from Air

Heirloom Carbon Technologies has opened the first commercial carbon capture plant in the U.S. This key moment presages the start of what is widely expected to be an important new industry whose entire purpose is preventing the carbon emissions released by burning fossil fuels from destroying life on our planet.

Brad Plumer, writing in the New York Times, provides the details of this very small demonstration plant built in Tracy, California. It's an open air structure, with 40-foot racks holding hundreds of trays, each sprinkled with calcium oxide powder that turns into limestone when it binds with airborne carbon dioxide. This is a natural process that Heirloom is working to speed up.

Once the carbon dioxide is "captured" through the creation of the limestone, the company expects to heat up the limestone in a kiln at 1,650 degrees Fahrenheit, which then releases the carbon dioxide, where it then gets pumpted in a storage tank, leaving the calcium oxide to be returned and reused on another set of trays.

The carbon dioxide (called CO2) is expected to be transferred again to be permanently stored. For now, Heirloom is looking at the large concrete marketplace and working with CarbonCure, a company that was launched to mix CO2 into concrete to make concrete stronger by having it turn into limestone again where it will be permanently stored and reduce the carbon footprint of concrete (which ordinarily releases a lot of carbon emissions through its normal creation and use throughout the building industry).

Providing CO2 to CarbonCure has a value for sure but for now, that value is far below the costs of capturing the carbon. Let's look at what these economics are now. The Tracy facility will be able to absorb 1,000 tons of CO2 per year. At the estimated $50/tonne "social cost" of carbon, the Heirloom facility would earn $50,000 per year. Although Heirloom hasn't released info on its specific costs, those funding breakthrough carbon capture activity, such as Frontier (which includes Stripe, Alphabet, Shopify, Meta and McKinsey Sustainability), are typically paying between $500 and $2,500 per ton to accelerate innovation and market development. These high prices are intended to generate sufficient revenue for these early-stage ventures to actually cover their costs. At $1000/ton, Heirloom could earn $1,000,000 per year. However, Plumer estimates that Heirloom's actually costs may be in the range of $600 per ton or higher.

Fortunately for Heirloom and other ventures working in this space, there are a lot of large corporations willing to spend millions to pay for "carbon removal credits" in what has been a voluntary carbon market to effectively be able to claim that they are reducing their carbon footprints. These corporations see reputational benefits from those outlays, even if they do not result in even meaningful actual carbon reductions at this stage. The Biden Administration is also getting into the act and awarded $1.2 billion to help Heirloom

The Heirloom carbon capture plant in Tracy, California

Many people still don't know much about carbon capture and storage, or what has been called "Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration" (CCUS). There are a multitude of approaches being taken to capture carbon and, as a result, a plethora of acronyms have emerged. The approach used by Heirloom is now called Direct Air Capture (DAC) and specifically involve capturing CO2 out of the air but other approaches are simply called Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) and utilize a range of methods to bind that CO2 in a semi-permanent or permanent way, such as through marine-based CDR or natural processes such increasing the CO2 content in soils or accelerating the use of CO2 by plants, such as by growing crops or trees with the intention of having them capture the CO2.

Utilization of CO2 involves finding valuable ways to use that CO2 or just the carbon (C) from captured CO2. Ventures working on the utilization part of this process pose the prospects of having profitable business models. Nucleation Capital, as a climate-focused venture fund, recognizes that CCUS is a growth industry that is anticipated to become a large consumer of energy. We are following the activity in this nascent space and we are investing in some of the most promising approaches, especially where that approach has strong profit and growth prospects or where it intersects with the need for abundant clean energy. While knowing all the acronyms isn't critical, there are a few key things to know about CCUS in general.

Key Facts to Know about CO2 and Carbon Capture, Utilization & Sequestration

While CO2 itself is natural and not toxic (except in high doses), the enormous amount that we have polluted our atmosphere with by burning fossil fuels for energy is causing our climate to warm up at a very fast rate. We need CCUS in order to lessen and possibly reverse the rate of warming, so we can restore a healthy climate.
All technological approaches to capturing carbon back out of the air or water are expensive and early stage. So are the approaches to carbon utilization and sequestration (i.e. methods to utilize and/or store the carbon so it doesn't get released back into the atmosphere).
To stop making our climate crisis worse, we have to stop burning fossil fuels, as our highest priority mitigation effort. While some might think that capturing the carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels right at the point source may warrant continuing to burn fossil fuels, that will not enable us to use carbon capture to restore the damage already done, which is the primary rationale for CCUS.
Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today, the amount of damage the long-lived CO2 pollution is causing the world will continue to heat the planet for decades or centuries. The only way to prevent that is by removing this excess CO2 pollution.
Today, there are only a handful of dedicated carbon capture plants in existence globally but, to prevent serious damage to earth ecosystems, we will need to scale up these plants in record time to be able to reverse most of the emissions produced by the fossil fuel industry in its entire history. We will also need to scale utilization and sequestration capabilities.
The cost of cleaning up all of the emissions caused by our past use of fossil fuels will be enormous and we haven't come to any agreement as to who bears that burden. Some of that cost can be mitigated with valuable commercial utilization technologies.
Powering CCUS plants will require massive amounts of low-carbon clean energy because it makes no sense to emit carbon in the process of capturing carbon. The best and least-cost approach will likely involve using the coming generation of small modular reactors to generate 24x7 power in remote areas.
The cost of clean energy used to capture and sequester carbon will be a significant factor in the total cost of that activity but powering CCUS can help SMRs scale up, which will help reduce the manufacturing costs.
There is no scenario in which the cost of burning fossil fuels and capturing all the CO2 from that activity and permanently storing it will cost less than replacing the fossil fuels with renewables or nuclear and avoiding the release of new emissions in the first place.
Fossil fuel companies are already lobbying to earn carbon credits by pairing carbon capture with the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. This is why some environmentalists, like Al Gore, oppose providing funding for CCUS to oil and gas companies, even though the most cost-effective CO2 capture is done at or close to the fossil fuel smokestack source point.

Read more in the New York Times, "In a U.S. First, a Commercial Plant Starts Pulling Carbon From the Air," by Brad Plumer, November 9, 2023.

Learn more about Frontier a consortium that is providing advance market commitments (AMC) that aim to accelerate the development of carbon removal technologies, without picking winning technologies at the start of the innovation cycle. The goal is to send a strong demand signal to researchers, entrepreneurs, and investors that there is a growing market for these technologies.

The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $3.5 billion to fund the construction of four commercial-scale direct air capture plants. In August, the Biden Adminstration announced $1.2 billion in awards for the first two, one to be built by Battelle in Louisiana and the other to be built by Occidental Petroleum, in Texas, through a 50-50 cost share.

Published by Nucleation Capital in Advanced Nuclear, Carbon emissions, Carbon markets, Carbon negative, Climate change, Climate policy, Construction costs, Government support, History Timeline, History-making, Investor activity, LINKS, Private companies, Solving climate, US competitiveness, US technological leadership

November 3, 2023

Spain’s business lobby seeks nuclear extension

Spain's top business lobby groups called for extending the use of the country's nuclear plants, a move that was first proposed by the conservative People's Party (PP) and which became a hot issue during the recent electoral campaign. Spain's current government, led by acting Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, nevertheless plans to start closing Spain's nuclear reactor fleet starting in 2027.

"Ideological positions should not prevent us from recognising the need to extend the useful life of power plants already installed, which guarantee the stability of the system," said Manuel Perez-Sala, chairman of business lobby Circulo de Empresarios, which says its members include 230 business leaders and top managers.

Nevertheless, the coalition deal between centre-left parties seeking to form a government confirmed "the orderly and progressive dismantling" of nuclear reactors starting in 2027. Teresa Riberta, Acting Energy Minister, has apparnetly subscribed to the false narratives spread by renewable advocates like Mark Z. Jacobson, and mistakenly accept the faulty and unsubstantiated notion that advanced economies can replace fossil fuel power plants with intermittent sources wind and solar.

This situation is much like the one faced by California Governor Newsom, in which energy experts from academia, industry and the state, called for the continuation of power from Diablo Canyon but the progressive left, comprising environmental groups and ideologic advocates for fossil fuels and renewables, called for the closure of Diablo Canyon. Governor Newsom was able to understand how ideologic concepts based on false assumptions will not keep California's lights on make the right call to save Diablo Canyon's 24x7 always on power. Newsom was able to get the majority Democratic California legislature to pass legislation to extend the life of Diablo Canyon.

Facts do matter and the erroneous assumptions spread about renewables' capabilities are apparent by virtue of the failure of the world to reduce emissions at all, despite enormous growth of wind and solar. We will be watching this situation develop in light of the world's failure to meaningfully reduce global emissions.