Thanks for your thoughts on this and it actually got me into researching natural gas with CCS more, since it’s an area I’m less versed in. I think CCS is definitely a promising technology that will absolutely be critical in helping to transition us away from fossil fuels ultimately, especially with the new plants that Net Power is working on that could in theory capture all the CO2 and at a reduced capital cost with relatively high efficiency. However, I very much worry about methane leaks associated with natural gas plants, which I’m not convinced would be addressed by CCS, nor do we know the potential long-term ramifications of sequestering all that carbon in the ground or elsewhere.

This is why I made it a point in my article about Chernobyl that we “must carefully analyze and be critical of these innovations to avoid unintended consequences (i.e. we must take a risk-based approach)”.

That’s not to say I’m not in favor of exploring natural gas with CCS though and it’s exactly the same reason I think exploring and investing in next generation nuclear reactors is wise, because all options should be on the table and we shouldn’t limit ourselves. So, I wouldn’t call it a pivot to nuclear, but rather making sure we carefully analyze all potential solutions and implement the ones that will be most effective for a given locale.

And I’m aware of the falling costs of renewables and high capital costs of nuclear, but investing in any new technology is going to be expensive. However, I don’t think that should be a deal breaker, especially if nuclear provides certain advantages over renewables, such as the significantly smaller land footprint (450x) of a nuclear plant compared to an equivalent power-producing solar farm. This land footprint also threatens conservation efforts and could lead to mass relocation of indigenous species to the area.

There’s also the fact that even with falling renewable energy capital costs, electricity costs for consumers are on the rise, especially in California. Meanwhile, the French, who utilize nuclear energy as a much larger percentage of their energy portfolio have seen much lower electricity costs compared to their fellow European counterparts like Germany. Additionally, in terms of investments into nuclear and corresponding power production versus renewables, nuclear has produced twice as much for less, as was shown in the TEDx video.

You do bring up a good point though in terms of the slow ramp-up for nuclear, which might not make it the best possible alternative for dealing with the duck curve issue (maybe natural gas with CCS would be better for addressing this, as you mentioned). Nevertheless, I think nuclear is still a valuable energy source that can help us get to carbon neutrality potentially better (and faster) than relying on renewables alone.

In summary, what I am in favor of is taking the advantages of all these different technologies whether they be solar with energy storage, natural gas with CCS, nuclear, etc. to create the most efficient and reliable energy portfolio for a given region depending on their resources that, at the same time, helps reduce our emissions as fast as possible.