At the United Nations climate summit in Dubai, the United States and 21 other countries made a bold commitment to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050, emphasizing the importance of reducing carbon emissions in the coming decades.
Advocates of nuclear power, which contributes to 18% of the electricity supply in the United States, argue that it is a clean, secure, and dependable complement to wind and solar energy. However, a significant obstacle is the financing of nuclear projects.
The increasing costs of building small nuclear reactors led to the cancellation of a project in Idaho last month, reflecting the funding challenges faced by the industry. Despite this, countries including Britain, Canada, France, Ghana, South Korea, Sweden, and the United Arab Emirates signed a declaration to triple nuclear capacity from 2020 levels. (source)
Tripling nuclear energy capacity by 2050, a move that would help Europe reduce its reliance on Russian oil and gas, would necessitate substantial investment. In advanced economies, where nearly 70% of global nuclear capacity is located, investments have stalled due to escalating construction costs and project delays. Additionally, nuclear plants take longer to build compared to other forms of power generation.
John Kerry, President Biden’s climate envoy, addressed the financing issue by highlighting the availability of “trillions of dollars” that could be utilized for nuclear investment. While nuclear energy is not positioned to replace other energy sources entirely, scientific evidence suggests that it is essential for achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. (source)
Nuclear power, being carbon-free, was identified as crucial for reducing carbon emissions in alignment with the goals of the Paris Agreement, according to an International Energy Agency report. Leaders such as President Emmanuel Macron of France emphasized the indispensable nature of nuclear energy, including small modular reactors, in addressing climate change. France, the largest nuclear power producer in Europe, derives about 70% of its electricity from nuclear stations.
President Macron and other leaders called on the World Bank and international financial institutions to provide support for nuclear projects, emphasizing the need for governments to share financial risks and incentivize investments in nuclear energy. (source)
While some world leaders championed nuclear power as the most effective alternative to fossil fuels, climate activists expressed reservations. David Tong from Oil Change International critiqued the pledge, stating that nuclear energy is costly and slow, and therefore, the pledge does not realistically reflect its role in the energy transition. Other activists cited the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 and emphasized the risks and drawbacks associated with nuclear power, arguing that renewable energy and energy efficiency are superior solutions to the climate crisis.
The International Energy Agency highlighted that all but four of the reactors under construction since 2017 were designed by Russia or China, with China projected to become the leading nuclear power producer by 2030. Germany also closed its last three nuclear plants this year, further reflecting the complex dynamics surrounding nuclear power.
The growth of nuclear capacity in the 1980s was followed by a sharp decline after accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. However, advancements in technology and the implementation of stricter regulations have reshaped the nuclear energy landscape over the years. The public opinion on nuclear power in the United States has gradually shifted towards favoring expansion, as evidenced by a recent Pew Research Center study. (source)
