Can Nuclear Power Help Meet Climate Goals?

Over the past years, as the concern about climate change has grown, so has the interest in nuclear power. What was once considered an environmental hazard has now steadily drawn global interest as a viable option to achieve the climate objectives. Several factors have fueled the surge in interest. Governments in some countries are keen to phase out fossil fuels as part of their plan to mitigate climate change impacts, while in others, they want energy security and independence by weaning off their reliance on other countries, which can act unpredictably during hostilities. 

Politicians in some developing countries say they want to enact policies to clean up their air through a steady source of carbon-free electricity. Besides, the US government is considering several executive orders aimed at stepping up the construction of nuclear power plants to help meet soaring electricity demand, looking to quadruple the nation’s nuclear electricity to 400 gigawatts in 2050 from 100 gigawatts today. In recent years, nuclear power has been attracting growing bipartisan support in that country.

Stark departure 

In a stark departure from the past global climate conference, for the first time at the 2023 climate conference in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), 22 countries pledged to triple the use of nuclear power by 2050 as part of their effort to contain global warming. At the same summit in 2024 in Azerbaijan, the number of countries making such a pledge increased to 28. This shows the growing acknowledgement by global leaders of nuclear energy as the best substitute for fossil fuels.  One of the high-profile figures actively backing nuclear power projects is Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the world.

Though renewables like solar and wind are in the best position to fulfil these ambitions, why has nuclear grown so much in popularity? One answer is that the former two are available only during limited hours when the sun shines or wind blows, making them unable to meet the rapidly growing energy needs 24/7. Their intermittent nature requires significant backups, which can be costly to install. Another is that the energy they produce barely scratches the surface of the global power demands. 

Nuclear power, on the other hand, harnesses the almost limitless energy released during the splitting of atoms. This can be the best way for large economies to decarbonise quickly. What’s more, tech giants like Google, Meta, Amazon, Facebook, among others, are also turning to nuclear energy to satiate the exponentially growing energy needs of their data centres, which are increasingly running power-hungry artificial intelligence (AI) applications. The fact that nuclear power plants emit almost no direct greenhouse gases during operation makes them a carbonless energy source. That said, over their entire lifecycle, greenhouse gases, though not that significant, are released during their construction, the mining of materials used as fuel, such as uranium, and waste disposal. 

There are also other challenges. Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and in the case of their accident, the impacts of leaked radiation can be long-lasting and also catastrophic. Local ecosystem can also be destroyed or irrevocably altered. Accidents in Fukushima, triggered by the 2011 earthquake and the subsequent tsunami, forced Japan to temporarily shut down all nuclear reactors and switch to fossil fuel. Germany, in its wake, decided to phase out all nuclear power by 2022. 

Several other European countries, including Switzerland and Italy, followed suit and decided to cancel their nuclear expansion plan.   Another prominent example of such a disaster is the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in what is now Ukraine in 1986, the worst nuclear disaster in history. It led to the release of extremely harmful radioactive materials into the atmosphere for over 10 days. As many as 90,000 cancer deaths were linked to the accident as long-term health impacts. 

Huge cost

The major problem dragging down nuclear projects is the issue of cost and time overruns. Owing to the stringent guidelines and regulations, no such projects in the last 70 years have come online without prohibitively huge cost overruns and years behind schedule. What to do with the nuclear waste is another deterrent. In addition to producing electricity, nuclear power stations produce radioactive nuclear waste, which can remain pernicious for thousands of years. This is dangerous for the environment, water supplies and living beings. Some nuclear waste is so harmful that it is buried deep underground in specially sealed stores. 

Even though it’s been in use for nearly a century, scientists have yet to figure out the best way to dispose of the waste. Experts, however, argue that the risk of radiation is almost non-existent from a properly maintained nuclear power plant. A major component of nuclear station operation is the uninterrupted supply of pure water to cool the system. In an era increasingly defined by growing water scarcity, it’s also challenging to make such an arrangement. That said, there’s an increasing agreement that embracing nuclear power is the way forward if the world is to decarbonise fast enough and meet its climate goals. 

(Basyal is a journalist at the Rising Nepal.)