Climate summit in Glasgow: atomic energy – a solution for a few

Countries like France are praising nuclear power plants as an effective means of achieving climate protection goals. Nuclear energy plays no role at all in four fifths of the world. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not consider it the great solution.

Nuclear energy is climate neutral, is the strong argument of the lobby at the climate summit in Glasgow. “This conference is extremely interesting. We talk much more objectively about the contribution of nuclear energy to the climate issue,” says Rafael Mariano Grossi, Secretary General of the International Atomic Energy Agency IEAE. “With a closer look at the possibilities and realities for something that already helps us to solve the problem.”

Atomic energy. And the announcement by French President Emmanuel Macron today seems to underscore this. “In order to secure France’s energy supply and achieve the climate targets for 2050, we will be building nuclear power plants for the first time in decades,” he says.

Ten percent share of electricity production

No country is even nearly as dependent on nuclear power as France – a 70 percent share in electricity production is the best. Germany is about to exit, the State Secretary in the Ministry of the Environment, Jochen Flasbarth, makes it clear to the international press in Glasgow. “We are not missionaries. Other countries make different decisions. But we believe that we are on the right track ecologically and economically,” he says.

Nuclear energy only accounts for around ten percent of electricity production worldwide. And two thirds of production is concentrated in just five states. In four fifths of the world this form of energy does not play a role. “The climate conference is fighting for solutions for the whole world and not just for a few,” says Christoph Bals from the Germanwatch think tank.

“I see almost only in those states that are either already nuclear powers or want to become nuclear powers that there are serious efforts there to get involved,” he says. There such projects could be co-financed from the military budget. This also and especially applies to the currently heavily advertised mini-nuclear power plants.

Renewable energies are considered the main route

The combination of civil and military use of nuclear power is also an important argument for the USA not to rely too much on this form of energy internationally. Renewable energies are seen worldwide as the main route to a climate-neutral future. They can be used anywhere, are safe and cheaper.

After all, the operators of the new British Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant receive significantly higher feed-in tariffs than wind turbines, for example. In fact, the share of nuclear energy in the world’s energy supply is falling rather than increasing. The International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consider nuclear energy to be a contribution to climate protection, but not the great solution.

Jan Kowalzyk from the organization Oxfam international therefore considers the debate about this form of energy to be a marginal topic of the conference. “The risks exist. They may be small, but they exist,” he says. There is a good reason why nuclear energy cannot be insured at all if a disaster should occur. “For me, all of these are signals that nuclear energy may try again to get a foot in the door again, but it will not succeed in the long term.”