Guys, the use of fossil fuels in moderation has been a mainstay of energy for humans since caveman times. Science really highlights the spike in CO2 in the atmosphere, logically attributed to human-derived emissions, over the last century-see
here for a NASA graph. So, we do not need to return to a
zero emissions scenario to achieve our goals, we should strive for a low emissions scenario. So use of some nuclear and/or fossil fuels as base-load backup in a renewables-heavy supply (along with decent but not unlimited storage) is where I see we should be heading. Zog suggests the limit to renewables for grid stability might be ~60%. Although I would ideally like to see baseload (fossil fuel, nuclear) use lower than that in a century (who knows what the future might bring, but I expect global energy consumption will be well above where it is now), that is still a win compared to today.
Nuclear does have downsides* in terms of waste storage, I acknowledge that for uranium, but as I understand it, it is currently the only accepted nuclear technology fuel (as opposed to thorium) and so is the only real broad-scale nuclear option NOW. That might change in 10 or 20 years if Th technology is seriously progressed and commercialised, but I don't want to wait for that to happen. I'm prepared to accept the small risk of localised radiation from used fuel spillage in a remote storage area for a long period over the global impact of CO2 affecting our environment. I'll accept the risk of a nuclear station failing if it does not take out the whole planet with it, and past history shows the actual consequences of failure, even with old generation plants, has not been as deadly as feared.
Nowclear, thanks for your respectful comment, but I like to assess the whole life cycle when considering CO2 emissions. There is a CO2 footprint associated with nuclear
unless you elect to discount mining, processing and transportation costs associated with getting the uranium ore into a usable form at a power station, and end of life handling/treatment. It's the same with electric vehicles-you can't start to count CO2 emissions only from the day you drive it out of the showroom, you need to include all emissions associated with its production in the first place. The last I heard, that is something like 6 years of use before the electric vehicle has made up the CO2 deficit against an ICE car.
* Speaking of downsides for uranium, there is a great business opportunity for Australia to lease out nuclear fuel and charge customers to receive back (and possibly process) the waste. Even Bob Hawke talked about that a few years back (from memory, as part of the
nuclear fuel cycle royal commission).
(20min delay)