Nuclear energy returns to the center of climate discussions – 01/21/2024 – Environment

After years of decline, especially after the serious incident in Fukoshima in 2011, nuclear energy is once again in the spotlight, with the announcement of expansion plans in at least 20 countries.

The possibility of quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions from energy generation, with a method applicable on a large scale and not affected by meteorological fluctuations, is considered the main attraction of nuclear power.

The war between Russia and Ukraine, in turn, also helped in the atomic “revival”, boosting the search for alternatives to oil and gas produced in Vladimir Putin’s country.

The issue, however, divides environmentalists around the world.

For groups that disagree with the adoption of nuclear energy, the possibility of accidents and difficulties in managing waste from plants represent risks that far outweigh the benefits. The effective path to decarbonizing the world’s energy matrix would be just one: the adoption of renewable sources, such as wind and solar.

“Nuclear energy is certainly low carbon, but that does not make it a realistic and effective solution to climate change,” says Greenpeace, in its report on the subject.

“Worse still, it is too slow to be implemented in the face of the climate emergency, it is too vulnerable to the impacts of global warming and natural hazards, it is too dangerous to be developed massively in the four corners of the planet, it is too expensive compared to other systems of low carbon.”

Although they support renewables, pro-nuclear environmentalists claim that today there are conditions to make atomic energy generation safe, efficient and economically viable.

In the opinion of Bruno Gonçalves, president of the Institute of Plasmas and Nuclear Fusion of Portugal and professor at the Instituto Superior Técnico, in Lisbon, the choice between nuclear and renewable energy is a “false dilemma”.

“Both can coexist and complement each other in a diversified energy portfolio. We can have both together, and by doing so, we can reduce the cost of energy. And we can be less intermittent, being a society that grows with energy for all.”

During a congress on the role of nuclear energy in the energy transition, held in the Portuguese capital, Gonçalves highlighted the conclusions of a report by Unece (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). The document highlights that international emissions reduction targets will not be achieved if nuclear sources are excluded.

“Most net-zero emissions scenarios are only possible if we include nuclear energy [na geração de energia]”, he stated. “This makes sense, because nuclear energy is a weapon of mass decarbonization”, he added.

In addition to safety issues, the high cost of building complexes with nuclear reactors is often highlighted as a negative point for the adoption of this energy source.

In recent years, however, experts on the subject indicate that mega-complexes with large reactors should be a thing of the past. The industry’s main bet has been the so-called SMRs (small nuclear reactors).

Designed for modular construction and smaller dimensions, these reactors have a generation capacity of up to 300 MW(e) per unit, equivalent to around a third of traditional reactors.
The ambition is for them to become popular, enabling scaled production, with the potential to reduce costs and improve safety issues.

“Many of the benefits of SMRs are inherently linked to the nature of their design: small and modular,” explains the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“Given their smaller size, SMRs can be installed in locations not suitable for larger nuclear power plants. Prefabricated SMR units can be produced and then shipped and installed in the desired location, making them more affordable than large reactors power plants, which are often custom designed for a specific location, sometimes leading to construction delays.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency also talks about the possible use of microreactors, designed to have a power of up to 10 MW(e), which could be installed in remote areas and rural areas with little supply of transmission lines.

“Microreactors could serve as a backup energy source in emergency situations or replace generators that are often powered by diesel, for example,” explains the entity.

Despite the body’s enthusiasm, the projects will still take time to get off the ground, and they will also need to prove that they are economically viable.

In November, one of the major small nuclear reactor projects in the United States was canceled amid a huge increase in forecast production costs. Initially priced at US$5.3 billion (R$25.7 billion), the reactor, which was supposed to operate in the state of Idaho, jumped to a budget of US$9.3 billion (R$45.1 billion). The increase was attributed to rising inflation and interest rates.

The setback, however, did not diminish the United States’ ambitions for new atomic configurations. The country was one of 22 signatory nations of a document, released during COP28 (UN climate convention), in Dubai, with the commitment to expand investments in the area.

The president of France, another country that signed the letter, Emmanuel Macron was emphatic: “Atomic energy is back”, he declared, during his visit to the climate conference, in early December.

The decision, however, is not consensual among developed countries, nor even in Europe. Neighboring Germany, for example, stopped operating its last nuclear plants in 2023.