Why did The Energy Gang overlook the newsworthy impact of nuclear energy on COP28? 1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Comments:


  1. Here we are, almost one-quarter through the 21st century and we are still wrangling with how, sometimes if, we talk about nuclear energy.

    Aside from the usual groans when the n-word is brought up in climate-and-energy social circles, I’m wondering if the topic is avoided because of the larger more complex topics and complications it introduces? Not just the usual waste/safety/costs issues- yawn, but how nuclear technology and society relate- the opportunity, risk, and responsibilities.

    To me, nuclear is an embodiment of a broader commitment- to not retreat from its challenges but to the acceptance of responsibility to manage it effectively. It’s about recognizing that the path forward requires a complex and committed approach to technology, infrastructure, and societal values. Personally, I think being challenged to cultivate excellence by embracing its potential and challenges, and committing to continuous improvement, is a good problem to have. Could this be the conversation they’re afraid to have?

  2. Currently the UAE has a crude oil output quota of 3.22 million barrels per day. At 6.12 GJ per barrel, that amounts to 228 GW of chemical energy – fossil energy. If fuel refineries are to evolve their input from fossil energy to nuclear energy and captured CO2, an eventual investment of something like 200 NPP would be required. The UAE does have that sort of capital and perhaps that sort of vision. The oil producing nations are not doomed to obsolescence if they make that transition.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts