Nuclear Energy: Essential for the Green Transition or Too Costly?

Debate Rages on the Role of Nuclear Power in Achieving Net-Zero Emissions
The closure of Germany’s last three nuclear reactors in 2023 marked the end of the country’s six-decade reliance on nuclear energy, following the 2011 Fukushima disaster. This energy shift has sparked renewed debate about the future role of nuclear energy, especially within the context of the green transition. While environmental groups like Greenpeace celebrated the shutdown, figures like Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency, and climate activists such as Greta Thunberg have argued that the move may lead to increased reliance on fossil fuels, undermining climate goals.

Common Ground: Nuclear Energy is Crucial for the Green Transition
Despite differing opinions, two nuclear energy experts, Michele Governatori of Ecco and Myrto Tripathi of Voices of Nuclear NGOs, agree on several key points about nuclear energy’s role in the transition to a low-carbon future.

• Nuclear Energy Supports Net-Zero Goals
  Both Governatori and Tripathi emphasize that nuclear power is essential to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. As an energy source that does not emit CO2 during operation, nuclear energy is viewed as a necessary tool for reducing reliance on fossil fuels and decarbonizing the global energy system. “Any technology that provides energy without climate damage is welcomed,” said Governatori.
• Nuclear Energy is Not Renewable
  Both experts agree that nuclear energy is not renewable, as it relies on uranium, a finite resource. However, Tripathi points to the future potential of breeder reactors, which could use nuclear waste as fuel, offering a more sustainable form of nuclear energy.
• Energy Mix Decisions Should Be Based on Economics, Not Politics
  Governatori and Tripathi argue that energy decisions should be driven by technological advancements and economic factors, not political agendas. They also stress the importance of including a carbon tax to account for the hidden environmental costs of fossil fuels, which often make them cheaper than greener alternatives.

Points of Contention: Costs and Efficiency of Nuclear Energy
Despite agreeing on the broad importance of nuclear energy, the two experts diverge on the practical aspects of its deployment.

• Can Renewables Replace Fossil Fuels?
  Tripathi believes that renewable energies like wind and solar can never fully replace fossil fuels, while Governatori takes a more optimistic view.
  “Renewable technologies are advancing faster than expected, and prices are falling,” said Governatori. He pointed out that wind and solar energy are already providing more electricity than nuclear in many regions, making them more viable for short-term environmental goals.
• Is Nuclear Energy a Suitable Complement to Renewables?
  The two also disagree on whether nuclear energy can effectively complement renewable energy sources like wind and solar, which can be intermittent. Governatori argues that nuclear power is not a cost-effective backup for renewables due to its high capital costs and the need for constant operation. “Running a nuclear plant just to cover for low wind or solar periods doesn’t make sense financially,” he said. In contrast, Tripathi argues that, despite its high upfront costs, nuclear energy can ultimately reduce electricity prices for consumers and increase energy independence for European countries.

Conclusion: A Complex Energy Dilemma
The debate over nuclear energy’s place in the green transition remains complex and contentious. While it is clear that nuclear power has a role to play in reducing carbon emissions, its high costs, reliance on finite resources, and potential for waste management challenges continue to make it a divisive issue. As Europe and the rest of the world move towards net-zero emissions, the question of how to balance nuclear energy with renewables will likely remain a key point of contention in the energy policy debate.