“To cope with climate change, investment in nuclear power must be stopped”

Nuclear power was expected to be a clean energy source that does not emit carbon dioxide when generating power. However, in recent years, the risk of nuclear power plant accidents and the treatment of radioactive waste have been problematic. Michael Schneider, editor of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR), an annual report on the world’s nuclear industry, draws attention in an interview, arguing that if you want to reduce greenhouse gases, you shouldn’t invest in nuclear power.

He pointed out that in coping with climate change, it is important not only to reduce greenhouse gases but also to view how quickly greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced at a certain cost. Not only the cost and feasibility, but also the time period to achieve the emission reduction must be considered.

Given this point, the option to build nuclear power plants to cope with climate change is excluded. Nuclear power plants have high power generation costs and require a long time to build the reactor, so even if clean power generation is possible after construction, it is not possible to prevent the worsening of climate change during construction. So, if you’re investing in a new nuclear power plant, you should invest in efficient climate change countermeasures that will yield results sooner.

In addition, it is pointed out that the basic operating cost of a nuclear power plant that has already been constructed is higher than that of power generation methods using renewable energy such as solar power generation or wind power generation. Looking at the trend of nuclear power generation costs, as of 2009, nuclear power generation was cheaper than solar or wind power generation, but in 2020, solar and wind power generation are predominantly cheaper.

According to him, the cost of generating electricity per kWh of solar power in Portugal is only 1.1 cents. In Spain, the cost of generating electricity for solar and wind power is 2.5 cents per kWh. This figure is said to be below the cost of many nuclear power plants that exist around the world.

In addition, there is a problem that power generation using new and renewable energy cannot change the amount of power generation over time. However, because the basic operating cost is low, it is argued that it is cheaper than nuclear power even at the expense of power storage.

Although many renewable energy generation already falls below the cost of nuclear power generation, countries are still announcing plans to build new nuclear power plants. The reason is that the industry’s intention to promote the construction of nuclear power plants so that the nuclear industry will not decline, and the political purpose that maintaining the nuclear industry has military strategic advantages are intervening. In addition, some countries, including China, are promoting the construction of nuclear power plants as infrastructure support to the country in order to strengthen its influence.

Even for power companies, it is difficult to shut down the operation of a nuclear power plant that has already been built. When nuclear power plants are abolished, the amount of power generation decreases and the cost of decommissioning is high, which increases the debt. So even after a decision to abolish it, it’s not uncommon for it to take more than a few years before it actually shuts down.

According to him, dismantling a nuclear power plant that has already been built would cost more than 1 billion euros per reactor. It is an analysis that it is difficult for electric power companies, which are already facing economic problems, to account for these costs, and that there are circumstances in which they are forced to maintain nuclear power plants.

Also, what is pointed out as a problem with nuclear power generation is the treatment of radioactive waste generated during power generation. For radioactive waste, it is most appropriate to dispose of deep underground layers where there is no danger of human contact, but in practice there are no cases in which permanent geological disposal facilities are in operation. Of course, in Finland and Sweden, disposal sites are also being selected, so plans to construct facilities are underway, but it is unclear whether or not it will be possible to reach trial operation. Other countries are delayed, explaining that a clear attitude to disposing of radioactive waste has not yet been shared. Related information can be found here.