There is much talk about the draft ‘2050 Carbon Neutral Scenario’ released on the 5th. Environmental groups criticize it as a “carbon neutral scenario without carbon neutrality,” while the industry takes the position that it is “an impossible and unrealistic story.” Contents that are controversial are △residual emissions, △proportion of nuclear power, △reduction in industrial sector, and △achievability. How is this part being reflected in Europe, which declared carbon neutrality ahead of us? Based on the scenarios announced by the governments of the UK, Germany, France, and Switzerland, or organizations with similar characteristics to the Carbon Neutrality Committee, we will look at it twice.
Residual emissions: ‘carbon absorption’ beyond net zero in Germany, ‘net zero’ in France and Switzerland, and various in the United Kingdom
Carbon neutrality means that the amount of carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) emitted is reabsorbed to make net emissions zero. This concept was introduced because there are emissions that cannot be reduced no matter how much greenhouse gases are reduced, such as methane from cow burp.
The 2050 scenario presented by the Carbon Neutrality Commission (Lieutenant Tan) is composed of three main ideas. Emissions from Eye 1 were 153.9 million tons, Eye 2 was 137.2 million tons, and Eye 3 was 82.6 million tons. Based on the 2018 emissions (727.6 million tons), 79% (1 eye), 81% (2 eye), and 89% (3 eye) are reduced.
The greenhouse gases emitted in this way are absorbed again by forests or through greenhouse gas capture, storage and utilization (CCUS) technology. In case 1, the amount is 128.5 million tons, in case 2, 118.5 million tons, and in case 3, 826 million tons. In this way, the final net emissions are 25.4 million tons, 18.7 million tons, and 0 tons, respectively. Of the three scenarios, only one of the three plans actually painted carbon neutrality. This is why the criticism of “a carbon-neutral scenario without carbon neutrality” is raised.
At a briefing on the same day, Lieutenant General Tan Yoon Soon-jin said, “Even in the case of the European Union (EU) or the UK, residual emissions are included in the scenario. It is not a complete net-zero scenario.”
There are residual emissions in the EU-wide scenario, but looking at individual countries, there are countries with net zero or even negative emission targets (greenhouse gas absorption) with no residual emissions. First, the UK prepared three options depending on the possibility of applying the technology and changing attitudes. The first option is ‘Core options’, a scenario that is highly achievable in terms of cost and technology. Here, about 200 million tons are emitted and a small amount is absorbed, resulting in a net emission of 193 million tons. It's a long way from Net Zero.
The “Further Ambition options” are what raised the core options to the next level. By applying a more advanced, yet difficult to guarantee commercialization, carbon capture technology, the net carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced to 35 million tons.
‘Speculative options’ are true net-zero scenarios with net emissions of zero. However, the UK Climate Change Commission (CCC) said: “Uncertain options involve unprepared technology, are expensive and have socially unacceptable content. will help achieve net zero internally in the UK.”
Looking at it this way, like Korea, in the UK, only one of the three plans is net zero. However, there is a difference in that it specifically describes which technologies can be applied and how feasible they are for each field.
France and Switzerland both have net-zero scenarios with literally zero net emissions. France's emissions in 2018 were 445 million tonnes. According to the ‘French National Low-Carbon Strategy’, it plans to emit 80 million tons in 2050 and absorb a similar or slightly larger amount to bring net emissions to zero.
Switzerland is projected to produce 11.8 million tonnes in 2050 in its ‘Long-Term Climate Strategy’. In Switzerland, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and negative emission technology (NET) are applied to absorb 7 million tons of this and 4.8 million tons to overseas NETs to recover all of the emissions.
In May, Germany advanced its carbon-neutral goal by five years from 2050 to 2045. Germany originally planned to reduce its emissions to 82 million tons by 2045, then to emit 62 million tons and absorb 64 million tons in 2050. However, as the Constitutional Court decides that the government's greenhouse gas reduction target is insufficient, it is expected to achieve net zero by 2045 and the entire country to become a 'greenhouse gas sink' by 2050.
Proportion of nuclear power plants: Varies from country to country… There is no country that ‘increases’
In Korea's carbon-neutral scenario, the proportion of nuclear energy is 6.1-7.2%, which is about a quarter to one-fifth of what it is now. Regarding this, some media, industry, and nuclear society responded that “most countries maintain the proportion of nuclear power plants at least 20% or more” or “have not expanded the most stable nuclear power plants.”
When looking at the scenarios of the four European countries, the proportion of nuclear power plants varies greatly from country to country. In some countries, nuclear power is completely phased out, and in others, a large share is still left behind. However, no country has increased its share.
Germany is a representative country that declared the phase out of nuclear power after the 2011 Fukushima earthquake in Japan. As a result, the proportion of nuclear power plants, which was responsible for 22% of power generation in 2010, has decreased to 11% in 2020, and will be phased out in 2022. Germany has an ambitious plan to completely eliminate coal and nuclear power and generate electricity from 100% renewable energy. By 2045, Germany's carbon neutral point, renewable energy accounts for 91% of the total, and energy storage devices and hydrogen are expected to account for it.
Switzerland is a country with very little carbon emissions from the power sector. Although the population is very small, most of the electricity is produced by nuclear and hydroelectric power. In 2015, nuclear power generated 34% of electricity and hydroelectric power was 59%, accounting for 93% of the two power sources. However, the proposal not to build a new nuclear power plant in 2017 passed a referendum and is in the process of denuclearization. Reduced nuclear power will be replaced with renewable energy.
In the UK, nuclear power has been responsible for about 20% of the total power generation since 2000. The UK's nuclear power plant capacity is 9 GW, of which 8 GW is expected to be decommissioned in the 2020s. Three construction projects are underway to replace the closed nuclear power plant, of which one (3GW) is under construction and two are awaiting approval. The UK CCC kept the door open saying, “Depending on the use of small module nuclear power plants (SMR) in the future, dependence on nuclear power may increase.”
France, where nuclear power has become a political issue like Korea, has yet to make a decision. France increased its nuclear power plant significantly during the oil shock in the 1970s, and now accounts for 70% of electricity generation. However, due to the Fukushima nuclear accident and the growing awareness that it is dangerous to rely too much on one power source, it has decided to reduce the proportion of nuclear power plants to 50% by 2035. But nothing has been decided after that. The average age of nuclear power plants in France is 35 years, and nearly half of the 56 nuclear power plants have a design life of over 40 years within five years. Analysts say that the lack of direction despite the need to make a quick decision is for political reasons. Recently, the Financial Times reported that "President Emmanuel Macron is unable to make a decision with less than a year left before the election." It is said that there is a divergence between the Green Party, which advocates for nuclear disarmament, and the right, which opposes wind power and insists on sticking with nuclear power. According to a recent opinion poll, half said nuclear power was an environmental “threat” and 47% said it was an “opportunity”.