Net Zero without Nuclear?

Without nuclear power in the mix, Net Zero is an argument for the depopulation of Northern Europe

The reality of solar and wind around the world is that they are not outcompeting fossil fuels in the realm of electricity; they are making electricity generated by fossil fuels and other controllable sources of electricity [i.e. nuclear] more expensive. This reality leads to a frequent, additional negative consequence: declining reliability. (Alex Epstein, Fossil Future)

Sometimes it’s necessary to embrace (or at least try to understand) the arguments of orthodoxy in order to rebut them. At the centre of the argument for Net Zero policies - policies being actively pursued by most Western governments, and globalist supra-national bodies - is the proposition that we, human beings, are responsible for global warming because of irresponsible consumption of fossil fuels. 

This premise is disputed by many (myself included). It presupposes a causal link between levels of CO2 (a trace gas) and climate change, specifically climate warming. It also suggests that human beings are somehow more important than any other causes of increases in CO2 in the atmosphere.  Hence the Net Zero argument - that only by halting the production of “man-made” CO2 can we stop, or even reverse, the deleterious effects of CO2.  

I happen to believe that such an argument can be easily debunked. In fact, I wrote a review of Alex Epstein’s book, Fossil Future, on this site - a review that Alex himself often refers to on his social media feeds. 

That book, in my view, is one of the best in terms of utterly refuting the argument for humanity reducing its reliance on fossil fuels. Because, simply, without access to readily available, and relatively cheap, fossil fuels, life is likely to be intolerable without an alternative.  

But let me, for a minute, accept that the Net Zero advocates are, indeed, correct. Let’s ask ourselves whether they have been successful in putting forward an argument for alternatives to fossil fuels that might make life less awful without them?  

Let’s take the Green Party in the United Kingdom. Looking at their website, their policy in relation to power generation was written in Spring 2018 and revised in Autumn 2021. Here’s their policy, in essence…

In line with the move from fossil fuels, clean electricity generation will be substantially increased, based primarily on renewable, very low carbon sources with offshore wind as a major source, supported by onshore wind, marine, solar photo-voltaic, biofuels, hydro power and geothermal.

The question that arises, of course, is whether these “very low carbon” sources represent suitable alternatives to fossil fuels.  

The Green Party handily avoids this issue by suggesting that the UK should be interconnected with other nations to guarantee supply. But that assumes that those other nations might be using more reliable alternatives to “very low carbon sources” - like nuclear.  

The Green Party, however, rules out such reliable alternatives for the UK itself:

Nuclear power, coal and incineration of waste will be phased out.

And, of course, Green ‘movements’ across Europe want to achieve similar eradication of nuclear power in nations with whom the UK may need to rely upon for continuity of supply.

Now, ask yourself, what would life be like in the UK, in Winter, when the only available sources of energy are from “very low carbon sources”?  

Clearly the contribution of “very low carbon” to home heating can be ignored because it barely features in the energy mix. Only around 20% of homes in the UK are heated using electricity.  Most of the rest use gas or oil.  However, in the absence of such heating sources, an effective alternative would have to be put in place.  Heat pumps, as a technology, are simply not up to the task and their price points are prohibitively high for most families.   

In the meantime, substantial increases in the prices of fossil fuels have resulted in huge increases in fuel poverty in the United Kingdom.  According to National Energy Action (NEA), “The energy crisis is unprecedented and is driving the cost of living crisis. In October 2021, 4.5 million UK households were in fuel poverty. As of 1 January 2024, there are 6.5 million.”

The NEA’s fuel poverty page details the impact of cold homes on the health of those families who can’t afford to pay to heat their homes.

Source: National Energy Action

Cold homes can cause or worsen a range of serious health conditions including heart attacks, strokes, bronchitis, and asthma. Each year, around 10,000 people die as a result of living in a cold home. Fuel poverty can also have a significant impact on mental health and is a known risk factor for suicide. Pre-existing chronic medical conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory conditions like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma and heart disease are particularly badly impacted by a cold home.

Cold homes also prevent children from thriving. Without a warm, quiet place to do their homework, they can fall behind at school. A lack of hot water means they might avoid personal care, leading to bullying and social isolation. With no warm space to spend time with their family, they can spend hours of the day alone in bed. Some resort to using public places like libraries or friends’ houses to stay warm in. All this is disruptive and damaging at a time crucial for their development.

In short, even before the removal of fossil fuels from the energy mix, people are literally dying as a result of energy price inflation of fossil fuels. So would the achievement of Net Zero, without the inclusion of cheap electricity derived from nuclear, require substantial depopulation of the United Kingdom and most of Northern Europe?  

The refusal by so many ‘Green’ spokespeople to countenance a Net Zero future where nuclear energy provides cheap heating and electricity (or mains gas based on nuclear-powered hydrogen) must call into question their motivations.  Cold homes kill people. Increasing fossil fuel prices result in cold homes. Therefore the immediate emergency is not one caused by climate change - rather it’s the unchanging nature of cold winters.  

However, as I said earlier, I’m willing to embrace the argument of Net Zero for another reason. The United Kingdom is an islands-nation that is highly dependent on other nations for the energy we need to keep people warm in the Winter. When wars or market rigging result in huge increases in energy company profits, at the expense of our people, then we need to look for alternatives. Nuclear energy is that reliable alternative.  

I’ll give Alex Epstein the last word:  

Fact: nuclear is the safest form of energy ever devised, the cleanest form of energy ever devised, and generates tiny, manageable amounts of waste.