Paris: For its supporters, nuclear energy is the best in the world – perhaps only – hope to avoid catastrophic climate change.
Opponents say it is too expensive, too risky and totally unnecessary.
Standing between the two camps are those who see the power of the atom as a necessary evil that will buy the time needed to develop cleaner alternative and safer.
“We do not have the luxury of choosing one or the other,” said Fatih Birol, the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency, which advises developed countries.
This was contested by a warm debate that continues to divide specialists and policy makers alike.
Unlike wind, solar, and hydropower, nuclear power does not depend on climate factors that are often unreliable.
The combination of drought and low wind, for example, has been blamed for a surge in natural gas prices recently which sparked demand for dirty alternatives such as coal and oil.
However, nuclear stations plagued by high construction costs – with new projects recently took longer to finish and blow up the budget – as well as the thorny issue of highly toxic waste disposal and power station degomisioning.
On the plus side, the nuclear reactor creates large amounts of power without direct emissions of carbon dioxide.
Even taking into account the emissions associated with mining uranium for fuel and concrete, steel and other materials used in construction, nuclear power emits very little greenhouse gas: much less than coal or gas, and even less from the study.
“Everything that brings emissions is good news,” said Birol.
The IEA said that nuclear power has avoided about 55 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions over the last five decades – about two years of global energy-related emissions of greenhouse gases.
For that reason, nuclear energy accounted for a larger part of the World Power Mix in most of the scenarios proposed by the IPCC – UN climate experts – to hold the average global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above where they were in ends.
19th century.
International Atomic Energy Agency – whose mission includes the promotion of nuclear power – has raised its projection for the first time since the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima power plant, and now expects installed capacity to double by 2050 with the most favorable scenario.
Nuclear power is “absolutely critical to our efforts to achieve net zero emissions,” said Director General of the IAEA Marianel Mariano Grossi.
It was the central goal of the next major climate conference, COP26, to be held in Glasgow in November.
But while some countries – especially China – are building new reactors, others cover long: 5.5 gigawatts of installed capacity worldwide in 2019 while 9.4 GW closed permanently, the IEA said.
Divide runs through the European Union: While the Germans decided to remove nuclear power after Fukushima, countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic saw it as a way to reduce dependence on coal.
“In the Czech Republic, nuclear energy is seen as a reliable power source and relatively inexpensive,” said Wadim Strielkowski, an energy expert at the Business School of Prague.
This division is reflected in the debate in Brussels about whether to include nuclear power in the “taxonomy” green, classification activities that are considered good for the climate and the environment.
Opponents of nuclear power such as Greenpeace have put aside their traditional argument – stem from pacifism and fears about nuclear waste – to focus on efficiency calculations.
Renewable energy costs have fallen steadily while major nuclear projects are expensive and have suffered huge overruns.
“Spend the money now on new nuclear power discussed the climate crisis, because the investment is not made in what is cheaper, faster and therefore more efficient,” said Mycle Schneider, author of the annual report critical of nuclear power.
However, the nuclear industry has another trick up her sleeve.
For several years now, has been very bet on small modular reactor (SMR): more simple, mass-produced in a factory, they are less likely to go awry than a large construction site.
So far, only Russia who commissioned this technology – for an innovative floating plants.
However, there are signs of interest from other countries.
“The future of nuclear energy, both in the Czech Republic or elsewhere in the world, can be a small reactor,” said Strielkowski.
Nuclear option: Panacea or Bumi climate poisons?
