Is Nuclear Energy the Way to Achieve Climate Goals?

According to Schneider, the industry would need to “build and start an additional 270 reactors or 230 GW” on top of current reactors under construction, simply to keep pace with plant closures in the run up to 2050.

“There is no evidence that this is possible let alone to triple the current operating capacity by then,” said Schneider, who also publishes the yearly World Nuclear Industry Status Report.

And while proponents say SMRs could be a game-changer for nuclear, with the likes of Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates investing in them, they are still in the early stages of development, with just three deployed so far.

Still, Magwood, who previously served as Director of Nuclear Energy at the US Department of Energy, says the goals can be met if governments and industry are committed.

“If we’re really serious about climate change, then it will be pretty straightforward to triple capacity.”

He points to the pace of construction seen in countries like the US, France, and Sweden in the 1970s and 1980s as a sign it is “doable and realistic.” France gets around 70% of its electricity from nuclear.

Is Nuclear a Distraction from Renewables?
According to the UN Emissions Gap Report published in November, predicted global emissions must fall 42% by 2030 to have a chance of limiting global average temperature rise to 1.5 C and avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.

More than 100 countries also pledged to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030 at COP28. According to the Paris-based intergovernmental International Energy Agency (IEA), to reach net zero emissions by 2050, annual clean energy investment, including nuclear, will need to triple by 2030 to around $4 trillion per year.

But given the urgency to cut greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels to curb planetary heating, climate campaign group 350.org say expanding nuclear would detract from the drive to cheaper and faster climate protection measures.

“We already have cheaper, safer, democratic, and faster solutions to the climate crisis, and they are renewable energy and energy efficiency,” said Masayoshi Iyoda, 350.org Japan campaigner, calling nuclear a “dangerous distraction.”

Still, Aidan Rhodes, research fellow at Energy Futures Lab, Imperial College London, says the push for nuclear expansion would not create a funding battle with renewables.

“Renewables, like wind and solar, are relatively quick to build and quick to provide a return [on investment]. If you want to build a nuclear power plant today it is probably going to be 10-15 years before you get any power out and that very much changes the financial equation of who is going to invest in it,” said Rhodes.

While Germany’s federal environment agency the UBA published a study this week stating a tripling of nuclear wasn’t “needed to achieve climate targets according to the Paris Agreement,” Rhodes says it doesn’t need to be a choice of one or the other.

“All of these technologies have a place in the system,” said Rhodes. “They all have disadvantages. They all have advantages. Ruling out one means that we unavoidably slow down the transition. And I think that’s the real danger.”

Holly Young is a freelance journalist. This article was edited by Jennifer Collins, and it is published courtesy of Deutsche Welle (DW).