Experts Say Nuclear Energy Is Not Worthy of Being the Foundation of the Global Energy Transition

REPUBLIKA.CO.ID, JAKARTA — On March 11 2011, an earthquake measuring 9 on the Richter scale and a tsunami as high as 15 meters hit Japan, triggering a nuclear disaster at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Three of the six reactors at the nuclear power plant were affected, resulting in damage to the reactors and the leak of large amounts of radioactive material into the environment.

After 13 years have passed, Japan is still feeling the impact of this disaster. Immediately after the earthquake struck, more than 160 thousand people were evacuated. Of this number, almost 29 thousand people are still displaced.

350.org climate campaigner in Japan, Masayoshi Iyoda, said that the negative impact of radioactive exposure is still a serious concern for many parties. Apart from that, the environmental impact on land, water, agriculture and fisheries is also still visible.

“The cost of damage, including compensation for victims, is also very large. “At least 7 billion US dollars has been spent every year since 2011, and that compensation is still continuing,” Iyoda said in his statement as reported by Al JazeeraWednesday (10/4/2024).

Last year, Japan’s plans to begin releasing more than a million tons of treated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean sparked anxiety and anger, including among members of communities who depend on fishermen for their livelihoods, from Fukushima to Fiji.

However, Iyoda saw that Japan and the rest of the world had not learned much from this bad experience. On March 21, Belgium hosted the first Nuclear Energy Summit attended by top officials from around the world, including Japanese Deputy Foreign Minister Masahiro Komura. The event is intended to promote the development, expansion, and funding of nuclear energy research and projects.

The meeting was held after more than 20 countries, including Japan, announced plans to double nuclear energy capacity by 2050 at last year’s UN Climate Change Conference (COP28).

“All these developments run counter to growing evidence that nuclear energy is not an efficient and safe option for the energy transition from fossil fuels,” stressed Iyoda.

Despite advances in waste storage technology, no foolproof method for handling nuclear waste has been designed and implemented. As nuclear power plants continue to produce radioactive waste, the potential for leaks, accidents, and diversion to nuclear weapons still pose significant environmental, public health, and security risks.

Iyoda added that nuclear power is also a low-carbon energy that is slow to implement and very expensive. Apart from that, it also has the smallest impact in the short, medium and long term in reducing carbon in the energy mix. The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report shows that the potential and cost effectiveness of nuclear energy for reducing emissions by 2030 is much smaller than solar and wind energy.

Large-scale energy technologies such as nuclear power plants also cost billions of dollars up front, and take a decade to build due to stricter safety regulations. Even the implementation of small modular reactors (SMRs) comes at a high price. Late last year, a flagship project by NuScale funded by the US government worth hundreds of millions of dollars had to be abandoned due to rising costs.

Moreover, according to a report released by Greenpeace in 2023, even in the most favorable scenario and with the same amount of investment, by 2050, the installation of wind and solar power infrastructure will generate three times as much cumulative electricity and emit four times as much cumulative CO2 less compared to water nuclear reactors in the same period.

“And the climate crisis is not just about CO2 emissions. It is about a range of environmental justice and democracy issues that need to be considered. And nuclear energy does not have a good record in this regard,” stressed Iyoda.

For example, uranium mining, the initial step in nuclear energy production, has been associated with habitat destruction, soil and water contamination, and adverse health impacts for communities near mining sites. The extraction and processing of uranium requires large amounts of energy, often coming from non-renewable sources, further jeopardizing the environmental credentials of nuclear power.

“Nuclear energy also uses centralized technology, governance and decision-making processes, concentrating the distribution of power in the hands of a few people,” he said.