Why the nuclear option is still an explosive subject at climate talks
Dubai, UAE – As nations grapple with slashing fossil fuels at the UN’s climate summit in Dubai, the nuclear lobby has been enjoying its moment in the desert sun – with pressure groups touting atomic energy as the savior of the climate crisis.
Issued on:
Nuclear advocates got an early win at Cop28 when 22 countries, including France, on day two signed an aspirational declaration to triple capacity by 2050 in order to meet the world’s climate targets and energy needs.
The summit has served as a platform for pro-nuclear civil society lobbyists – who see fission as the obvious future source of low-carbon energy – to influence negotiators and usher more countries into the fold.
But relative to the 110 countries pursuing renewables, the club of those seeking to scale up atomic energy remains small.
'Magic' solution
Among those driving momentum for nuclear power is Eric Meyer, founder of the Generation Atomic group based in the US, who says nuclear is “the closest thing we have to magic”.
Without it, he argues, the climate fight would already be lost.
“It can make reliable, 24/7, affordable, low-carbon, green energy on the smallest amount of land with the smallest amount of mining required,” Meyer told RFI in Dubai.
At Cop28 the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a statement to say the global goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 could only be achieved with “swift, sustained and significant investment in nuclear energy”.
This was followed by an announcement by the Belgian and French leaders that the world’s first Nuclear Energy Summit would take place in Brussels in March 2024.
Slow and costly
However, in their yearly industry status report, atomic energy experts last week warned that tripling nuclear capacity by mid-century was “highly unrealistic” given the time and money needed to build the reactors – even small ones.
Cop28 president Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, now the World Wide Fund for Nature's climate and energy leader, agrees.
“There are just 31 or 32 countries in the world that have those facilities and it’s very difficult for less developed countries, the global south, to access this kind of technology,” he told RFI – adding that a key principle of the Paris Agreement was not to leave anyone behind.
“If nuclear means continuing to reproduce this lack of equity, then I prefer not to consider it.”
Even if money and access were not an issue, the time it would take to upgrade the world’s nuclear industry, Pulgar-Vidal adds, would mean surpassing the 1.5C temperature limit – expected to happen in the 2030s if not sooner.
“We know that if we’re unable to phase out fossil fuels this decade then we will overshoot … so nuclear cannot resolve the current climate crisis.”
Waste worries
Meanwhile the use of nuclear as a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels has also drawn opposition from environmental groups, who worry about the safe disposal of nuclear waste.
Meyer, of Generation Atomic, argues that misconceptions and horror stories have sullied nuclear’s name.
“The vision is that it’s some kind of liquid that could leak out and get into water somewhere, when in reality it’s a solid, metallic, ceramic pellet that is easily contained in concrete storage,” he says.
Read also:
- Is urgent reform of world's food system still a side dish at climate talks?
- Mary Robinson urges politicians to make science a force of nature
Daily newsletterReceive essential international news every morning
Subscribe