Is Nuclear Power the Only Option for Tackling Climate Change?

In the wake of the COP21 climate change summit talks in Paris, 196 countries from around the globe have pledged to curb their emissions, reduce their carbon footprint and avoid a global temperature rise of 2°C. Achieving such stringent targets will inevitably necessitate dispensing with energy production via fossil fuels – if not entirely, at least at significantly reduced rates.

That poses us with a difficult question: how to replace an energy source which supplied 82% of global energy needs in 2011? Clearly, a substantial and concerted effort must be made by all of the nations of the world if we are to avoid the most catastrophic effects of global warming.

The Renewable Angle

Hard-line environmentalists argue that renewables such as solar, wind, wave, hydro and bio power are the only real alternatives, since they are both clean and renewable. Whilst it’s true that the solar industry has made great strides in recent years in both efficiency and affordability, it, like the other methods, still remains unpredictable and inconsistent.

How can we harness an energy source 24 hours a day when it only shines intermittently? When it only blows in a gale? When it’s victim to the whims of the ocean? Of course, the ideal scenario would involve a miraculous battery, capable of storing energy throughout the day for use at night when the sun goes down (or the wind stops blowing, etc).

Unfortunately, such technology does not yet exist, which means that investing in 100% renewables may be possible on paper – but would leave us with the undesirable scenario of continuing to burn fossil fuels at night in the absence of an adequate storage facility.

Biogas represents another source of exciting potential, but it is also unable to fill the large void left by fossil fuels and remains a technology in its infancy. Meanwhile, the environmental morality of cutting down forestry areas to create biofuel is dubious at best when attempting to reverse the effects of climate change.

Nuclear as a Solution

Though they might be loath to admit it, even the staunchest of nuclear opponents must surely recognise that nuclear power is the only current technology with the potential to pick up the slack left by fossil fuels within a short timeframe.

According to four of the world's most prominent climate change scientists, nuclear power represents a uniquely scalable opportunity to phase out fossil fuels entirely in a relatively short time. In a statement on the Guardian website, the quartet said:

“[A] build rate of 61 new reactors per year could entirely replace current fossil fuel electricity generation by 2050. Accounting for increased global electricity demand driven by population growth and development in poorer countries, which would add another 54 reactors per year, this makes a total requirement of 115 reactors per year to 2050 to entirely decarbonise the global electricity system in this illustrative scenario. We know that this is technically achievable because France and Sweden were able to ramp up nuclear power to high levels in just 15-20 years.”

Whilst the scientists do make a compelling case, the dangers of nuclear power should not be forgotten. Modern techniques of isotope ratio analysis in the affected areas around Fukushima show that uranium contamination continues to pervade the area, effectively rendering it uninhabitable for the foreseeable future – not to mention the thousands of lives that were lost at the time of the catastrophe, as well.

Clearly, safety must come as a paramount concern. If failsafe nuclear reactors can be actioned within a realistic timeframe, it could provide one stopgap solution to global warming. However, as an energy which is neither 100% clean nor renewable, it can only ever be a temporary solution. It’s one way forward – but it’s certainly not the only one, and treating it as such could lead to devastating consequences further down the line.