The renewable energy revolution is happening, but it is running too slow.
Renewables set a record in 2023 with 473 gigawatts added. Yet, we need to triple capacity by 2030 to stay aligned with the Paris Agreement.
While renewables are overtaking fossil fuels and nuclear as the primary choice for new power, the transition isn’t fast enough to limit global warming. In fact, renewable power capacity must triple by 2030, as recommended by International Renewable Energy Agency and agreed on by world leaders in the UAE Consensus at the last U.N. Climate Conference in Dubai.
Peaking fossil fuels is not enough; we need deep and rapid carbon dioxide cuts in the limited time we have to keep within our vanishingly small carbon budget.
The choices we make about the use of technologies will largely determine the success of our climate actions. We need low-carbon, or even no-carbon technologies. The concept of technology neutrality, understood as the capacity to cut carbon dioxide emissions, should also include the dimensions of costs and the time needed to reach the desired outcome.
Recently, nuclear energy has attracted attention as a technology to cut emissions and diversify energy supplies.
We are not challenging the choice of technology as a matter of national sovereignty. Instead, energy technologies (nuclear, renewables, fossil fuels) are compared in the context of the fight against climate change, where time is the most relevant variable.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, accelerating renewables coupled with energy efficiency measures are the most realistic means to reduce global emissions by 43% by 2030 and at least 60% by 2035.
Due to lower cost and higher efficiency, the IPCC has stated that renewables, particularly solar and wind, are 10 times more effective at cutting carbon dioxide emissions than nuclear.
Nuclear’s share of global electricity production has almost halved from 1996 to 2023, largely due to the high costs of, and delays to, building and operating nuclear reactors. Far from improving, the latest nuclear reactor designs offer the worst-ever record of delays and cost escalation.
According to studies from Stanford University, new nuclear power plants cost 2.3 to 7.4 times those of onshore wind or solar per kilowatt-hour of electricity, take five to 17 years to deploy, and produce nine to 37 times the emissions per kilowatt-hour as wind.
New nuclear adds only as much electricity in a year as renewables add every few days. For example, China is now installing wind and solar capacity equivalent to ï¬ve new nuclear reactors weekly.
Nuclear delivers far less power per dollar.
Because of significant costs and delays, the emphasis has moved to small modular reactors (SMRs). Their economics are costly and share the same significant security and waste problems. To date, several key SMR projects have fallen by the wayside.
Instead of wasting money on expensive non-renewable technologies, limited financial resources should be channeled into realistic solutions to climate change, including electrification; the expansion of renewables across all sectors; expansion and modernization of grids; storage, efficiency solutions and smart demand-side management.
The last decade represents a seismic shift in the balance of competitiveness between renewable technologies and incumbent fossil options.
The notion that renewables are expensive is outdated. According to IRENA data, 81% of the record renewable additions in 2023 were cheaper than fossil fuel and nuclear alternatives.
The total renewable power capacity deployed globally since 2000 has saved $409 billion in fuel costs in the power sector.
Factoring in the wider economic and environmental benefits of renewable power in reducing fossil fuel imports, improving a country’s balance of payments and enhancing security of affordable energy supply by reducing exposure to volatile fossil fuel prices in global markets makes it even more compelling.
The world is increasingly rallying behind renewables to do the heavy lifting for the net-zero energy transition. We have the knowledge, the technology and the means. We are fully equipped to adjust the trajectory of the transition and reduce the carbon footprint of the global energy system.
We must move faster.
