OilPrice: Is nuclear waste more dangerous than climate change?
In the context of global climate change and against the backdrop of the Glasgow summit, world experts are thinking about the prospects for nuclear energy. Scientists do not yet know for sure whether this type of fuel is "green", and whether it is worth pinning hopes on it in terms of a global energy transition.
According to the resource OilPrice, critics of nuclear power point to its high cost, dependence on government subsidies, the risk of a potential accident, and the cost of storing and maintaining nuclear waste for hundreds and thousands of years.
Proponents of the atom point to the need to develop this industry in order to rid the world of carbon emissions. For example, over the past 50 years, nuclear power has prevented approximately 74 Gt of carbon dioxide emissions that would otherwise have been generated by using fossil fuels.
The debate about which is more dangerous - nuclear waste or climate change, is currently underway in the EU. It depends on the decision of the MEPs whether nuclear energy will be included in the climatic policies The European Union and whether it will receive billions of euros in funding in the coming years.
The most ardent supporter of the use of peaceful nuclear energy is France. Paris is positioning nuclear energy as a weapon to fight climate change and a reliable fuel source that could save Europe from future energy crises. Proponents of this idea argue that the harm from nuclear waste pales in comparison with the risks of climate change. The creation of new nuclear power plants is necessary to achieve the goals set by the Paris Climate Agreement.