How COP29 can drive investments in renewables to shape a sustainable future? Ecologist assessment

Caliber.Az presents an interview with Russian nuclear physicist, ecologist, expert of the programme "Safety of Radioactive Waste" Andrey Ozharovsky.

- What environmental challenges are facing humanity in the run-up to the COP29 summit in Azerbaijan? What hopes do you have for COP29, what important decisions can be made there?

- This is the twenty-ninth meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Climate Change, which has been signed by the majority of the world's countries. That is, these are those governments that have agreed that there is a risk of anthropogenic climate change as a result of human activity, and therefore everything should be done to limit this harmful activity, in particular the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere. I have participated in several COP summits in different years in different countries and I can note that the specific agenda of each such conference is not so important - what is important is that it is part of a general process where mankind can show itself as a reasonable community, moving towards some concrete actions and results to save the world around us.

There is hope - let me remind you that a similar agreement known as the Montreal Protocol to save the Earth's ozone layer is working successfully, and humanity has seen that it is possible to abandon dangerous chemical emissions that deplete the ozone layer, and that this is working - according to the latest estimates of scientists, this threat is decreasing. It seems to me that there is a similar situation now in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. We see that there are simple, inexpensive and reliable methods to help solve this problem, in particular, to use RES (renewable energy sources), primarily solar and wind energy, rather than fossil sources: oil, gas and coal.

- There is an opinion that the "green agenda" is a temporary phenomenon, a kind of new-fashioned trend, but in fact "green energy" is not able to replace humanity's energy needs, as oil, gas and coal are still much easier and more accessible. Some politicians and experts even accuse Europe of a kind of "green populism"....

- But the facts are quite the opposite. The economic reality now is that in almost all countries, renewable, fuel-free energy produces a product - electricity - that is much cheaper than any other form of energy. This can be seen at least by the trend that poorer countries are developing solar and wind power at a faster rate. For example, India and China - these are countries with low per capita income, where, according to my observations, a large increase in renewable energy sources occurs not even for environmental reasons, not because of the decisions of some UN summits, but simply because it is cheaper.

Unfortunately, this does not work in Russia; we have our own monopolist, the state corporation Rosatom, which forms its own agenda, making the development of such energy sources, shall we say, not too favourable. But in general, it can be noted that the use of solar and wind energy at the moment is simply economically favourable. So the "green agenda" is not populist, but has a clear economic background.

Of course, it is very good that this type of energy coincides with the fact that it is both the most ecological and environmentally friendly. It is also good that the main problems of renewable energy have now been solved. Because, if we remember, not so long ago, in the 1990s, "green energy" was subsidised by governments and developed only in rich countries that wanted to be "cleaner" than others. At that time it was perceived as a kind of toy for the rich. But now it is no longer - it is an effective reliable tool for providing energy to both large industrial enterprises and the population.

- How about with numbers and facts?

- For all the sceptics out there, this includes facts from the world's media on the subject, for example, NuScale has planned to build six 77 MW small modular nuclear reactors in Utah and have them operational by 2029. I emphasise that this is the latest know-how offered by modern nuclear power. But the contract was cancelled because customers, mostly municipal utilities, refused to pay the proposed price, which jumped from $58 per megawatt-hour as originally projected in 2021 to $89. This despite government funding. Meanwhile, a third-world country like Brazil has now reached 40 GW in solar development, and African countries are promising to reach 50 GW of capacity by 2025. These are very impressive figures. And this is precisely because poor countries see renewable energy as a reliable and inexpensive source of energy.

Or here's another interesting piece of news from Brazil: a 531 MW solar plant will power a huge aluminium smelter. This is a major blow to the fossil fuel proponents, something they cannot accept as a new reality - they keep saying that solar and wind cannot provide a stable supply of energy. Well, it actually turns out that they can, and it's much cheaper.

The last news I would like to bring as an argument in favour of the benefits of renewable energy is precisely the issue of production costs. At the moment, the price from renewable energy sources per kilowatt/hour has reached 1 cent. Whereas the cost of a kilowatt/hour produced by a nuclear power plant now averages 12 cents. At least, this is the price Ankara has pledged to buy electricity from Rosatom, which is building the Akkuyu NPP in Turkey. Interestingly, Russia is building the NPP at its own expense, without investment from Turkey, i.e., in fact, at the expense of the Russian state budget. By the way, the average price of RES energy in Turkey is slightly more expensive, about 3-4 cents per kilowatt/hour. But anyway, we can compare the cost of RES and nuclear power in Turkey and see that the comparison is definitely not in favour of the peaceful atom, after all, 3-4 cents per kilowatt/hour for RES versus 12 cents for nuclear power plants. It turns out that even in this case nuclear energy is at least three times more expensive than RES.

At the same time, according to forecasts by experts of the International Energy Agency, who, by the way, are not lobbyists for the consumption of fossil fuels but real market economists, the share of solar and wind generation by 2050 will be between 45 and 69 per cent. Let me remind you that the share of nuclear power in the world today is less than 10 per cent and, according to IAEA estimates, will inexorably decline. It is a pity that countries such as Russia and other nuclear residents are still unable to realise the concrete benefits and future of global energy.

- How do you assess Azerbaijan's endeavour to develop "green energy" in the region and the results of this work?

- I assess Azerbaijan's decision to develop green energy, despite the fact that its economy depends to a large extent on the extraction of hydrocarbons, as positively as possible. This is a very positive international experience, and another energy superpower, Norway, which is rich in gas deposits but is actively developing the use of renewable energy sources, has done the same. And I very much hope that Azerbaijan will achieve its goal in this matter, and Azerbaijan's experience will be adopted by its neighbours - the countries of the South Caucasus, Russia, Turkey and Iran. It seems to me that the above-mentioned countries need to understand that RES will help them solve the issues of so-called energy poverty and provide themselves with reliable, carbon-free and independent of any price fluctuations on the market - after all, the sun shines for everyone, especially in the south. And it is very good if Azerbaijan shows an example in this sense: to build solar and wind energy facilities, to demonstrate their performance and direct benefits, to prove their economic efficiency - then investors will come and there will be no need for state subsidies. Of course, to make it as profitable as possible, it is necessary to reduce customs barriers to the purchase of equipment for RES and eliminate bureaucratic obstacles.

Speaking specifically about Azerbaijan's work in the field of RES development, I see serious progress here, in particular, in the fact that your country has signed agreements with foreign investors for the implementation of RES projects with a capacity of 2.9 GW. Particularly impressive is the construction of a 400 MW solar power plant in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic and the export of the generated electricity to Turkey, which will not only allow us to earn money but also strengthen ties with our neighbours. Unlike nuclear energy, which only creates problems with neighbours. After all, the problems in relations between Baku and Yerevan over the Metsamor nuclear power plant are not the only ones; there is a similar problem between Belarus and Lithuania, where the nuclear power plant built by Rosatom on the border with Lithuania seriously worries the Lithuanians. But I do not remember that solar or wind projects have caused international conflicts. And by and large there can be none. And this is a very impressive achievement. I can note that Azerbaijan clearly sees its prospects in this field, realising that it is lucky in this sense - it has the opportunity to effectively develop both solar and wind energy due to climatic, geographical and landscape diversity: you have mountains, steppes and sea. These resources will give your country cheap, efficient and, importantly, friendly energy.

- Nuclear power, nuclear pollution is of particular concern to environmentalists - what threats in this context exist in the South Caucasus and how should they be addressed?

- RES facilities, of course, are not enchanted - they can also break down, there can be failures, but this does not pose a threat to the environment or to neighbouring countries. But nuclear facilities, as we know, in the event of an accident pose a serious threat not only to neighbouring countries, but also to regions far away from the disaster. In this context, I see only negative trends, for example, the attempts of my country, Russia, to prevent Armenia, neighbouring Azerbaijan, from getting off the nuclear needle. "Rosatom" is trying by all means to persuade Armenia to continue using the obsolete nuclear reactor of the Metsamor NPP, offering its services for its modernisation.

Unfortunately, Rosatom is not alone here; other nuclear power lobbyists have emerged who are trying to push the idea of using small modular reactors in Armenia, which are very inefficient in terms of production costs, just like classical NPPs, as we discussed above. One way or another, a country that builds NPPs or operates existing nuclear power plants is a kind of hostage to the situation, because at least it will have to pay back the money spent on its construction, such a facility cannot be demolished, and it will have to be used, and even if it is closed, it will have to deal with a mass of spent nuclear fuel, which poses an environmental threat both to itself and to neighbouring countries. So, Armenia in this sense is in an extremely crisis situation, being a potential threat to the ecosystem of the South Caucasus.

- Global warming is a serious threat to mankind. However, several scientists believe that this is actually just a cyclical process in the Earth's development, and it is not related to human activity - such cataclysms supposedly happened long before the birth of mankind. What do you think of this viewpoint and what should be done to reduce the growing threat of global warming?

"I am a nuclear physicist, not a climatologist, but I keep abreast of developments in neighbouring scientific fields, monitoring expert reports on this topic. Typically, these reports consist of reviews from the scientific community, and it appears that there is a widespread consensus in the global scientific community regarding the reality of global warming. This consensus is supported by various observations, including the melting of glaciers and an increase in average annual temperatures.

Regrettably, this reality faces challenges from certain quarters. Occasionally, there are campaigns, often fraudulent, that attempt to cast doubt on the scientific consensus. These campaigns may involve fake news or fabricated claims, such as leaked letters from purportedly closed sources, suggesting that global warming is a hoax engineered as part of a global conspiracy. However, it is important to note that the overwhelming consensus in world science asserts a direct connection between global warming and human activity."

Simultaneously, there are interest groups, such as hydrocarbon fuel companies, which seek to “shade the grass” and undermine confidence in efforts to transition away from their businesses. For these groups, climate policy represents a matter of survival, prompting them to invest heavily in disinformation campaigns. And if you remember, there was a project called Doomsday Clock, which explicitly highlighted the existence of lobby groups fabricating falsehoods to discredit established scientific theories. And in this sense I would like to refer to the previous answer - even if we assume that the climate crisis has other preconditions, it is necessary to develop RES simply because it is cheap and reliable.

One way or another, mankind needs to address such an important issue as energy efficiency. I was a pioneer in the USSR, and we were always told - switch off the lights, save electricity. This problem is still relevant to this day. So in this matter, my prescription for fighting global warming is that we need to save electricity, earth resources, and minimise the use of fossil energy sources by developing RES opportunities.