Scientists argue that generational differences in opinion are not surprising, as for part of the population, nuclear disasters are merely vague and distant memories.
Ia Aanstoot (Ia Aanstoot), an 18-year-old climate activist who participated in Greta Thunberg's (Greta Thunberg) school strikes on Fridays for two years, has submitted documents to the European Court of Justice to defend the role of nuclear energy in sustainable financing within the European Union's taxonomy (Taxonomy is a classification system that defines criteria for economic activities aligned with the trajectory of net-zero emission reduction by 2050 and broader environmental goals unrelated to climate).
Young climate activists in Europe are calling on Greenpeace to abandon the organisation's “old-fashioned” stance against nuclear energy. Activists from five European Union countries have launched a campaign called “Dear Greenpeace” (Dear Greenpeace), calling on the well-known environmental protection organisation to support what these activists believe is an essential tool in the fight against climate change.
I. Aanstoot told Nila Kecksal, host of the “As It Happens” programme: “This is my generation's desperate message to older generations. We really, really want Greenpeace to join the fight against fossil fuels. Their opposition to nuclear energy can be seen as a betrayal.”
Greenpeace and other critics of nuclear energy, for their part, argue that nuclear energy remains too dangerous, polluting, and expensive to be a viable solution to the climate crisis.
Legal action against the European Union regarding greenwashing or greenwashing
The “Dear Greenpeace” campaign is funded by the Belgium-based environmental non-profit organisation Replanet. This organisation claims it does not accept funding from political parties or industrial sectors. At the heart of the dispute is whether nuclear energy should be part of the European Union's sustainable finance classification system (taxonomy), which serves as a roadmap for private investors looking to finance environmentally friendly projects. Greenpeace and several other non-governmental organisations are suing the European Commission over the inclusion of nuclear energy in this system, calling it greenwashing (greenwashing).
Climate activist and G. Thunberg associate Ia Aanstoot notes that: “They (Greenpeace) as an organisation were created from the anti-nuclear movement after all.”
For several years, I. Aanstoot participated in the Friday school strikes organised by climate activist Greta Thunberg; now she has filed an application to the Court of Justice of the European Union to become an “interested party” in the Greenpeace lawsuit. This would give I. Aanstoot the right to express her opinion on the development of nuclear energy and be heard at a much higher level. She emphasises that “EU decisions on what is green should be based on scientific evidence and carbon neutrality; they should not be technologically biased.”
Greenpeace, meanwhile, believes that investment money would be better spent on safer and cheaper renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power. “We deeply respect people who are concerned about the climate crisis and want to dedicate their time and resources to this problem, but building new nuclear power plants is not viable. The main priority is to reduce carbon emissions as quickly and, ideally, as cheaply as possible. Nuclear energy is not successful on either front,” Ariadna Rodrigo, organiser of the Greenpeace European Union sustainable finance campaign, stated in an email to CBC. She pointed to nuclear power plant projects in the United Kingdom and France that are “behind schedule and billions over budget”. “The good news is that we do not need new nuclear energy. Solar and wind technologies are a much cheaper and faster way to reduce emissions. By using modern storage technologies, it is perfectly possible to build 100% renewable energy systems,” explained A. Rodrigo. “We do not have infinite time and resources, so they should be focused on the solutions that deliver the best results.”
Risk versus reward
Daniel Kammen (Daniel Kammen) – a professor of energy at the University of California, Berkeley, who researches nuclear energy in depth – admits he is not surprised by the perceived generational gap. “Young people who are convinced – correctly in my view – that the older generation is underestimating the climate crisis, are saying: 'If we are fighting for the climate, we must use all the tools at our disposal.'”
In his opinion, the greatest nuclear disasters in human history are Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island (in 1979, the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident in Pennsylvania was the most serious in American nuclear energy industry history), and young climate activists have at best very superficial information that was “seen somewhere on the internet.” Despite what supporters of nuclear energy say, Professor D. Kammen argues that the risk of another such disaster “is real and highly likely.” “It is reasonable to be optimistic, but the more we delve into this issue, the more sceptical we must be about every opportunity to use nuclear energy.”
M. V. Ramana, a professor at the University of British Columbia's School of Public Policy and Global Affairs who researches disarmament and global security, stresses: “The probability of such accidents is small, but they are not impossible. This means that by building more reactors, the likelihood of such accidents increases.”
Nuclear waste and weapons
Professor M. V. Ramana argues that nuclear energy is neither a desirable nor a viable solution for limiting the problems caused by climate change: “All nuclear power plants inevitably produce radioactive waste, which is an integral part of the nuclear reactor's energy production process; it is impossible to avoid. To date, we have not found any proven and tested way anywhere in the world to safely manage nuclear waste.”
The professor believes that it is impossible to completely separate nuclear energy from the potential for developing nuclear weapons,– the more countries that start nuclear energy programmes, the greater the risk of nuclear weapons being used.
The cost-benefit analysis is clear
Climate activist I. Aanstoot emphasises: “The climate crisis is a very, very big risk. I think I will be much happier if my generation and future generations have to bear the potential burden associated with well-regulated, properly maintained, and carefully researched nuclear waste management, compared to a possible rapid greenhouse effect and massive climate catastrophes.”
Costs and time
Professors M. V. Ramana and D. Kammen argue that perhaps the biggest hurdle for nuclear energy is cost and time. It is not for nothing that nuclear power plants tend to operate longer than expected and always exceed their budgets. Nuclear energy is a complex process that requires huge infrastructure, specialised knowledge, and extremely strict safety measures.
Professor Daniel Kammen, who works in California, believes that as nuclear energy has become more expensive, wind and solar power have only become cheaper and better. D. Kammen notes: “Every dollar you spend on nuclear energy or building a nuclear reactor is a dollar you are not spending on other, much more useful climate solutions.” He claims he is very interested in the future development of nuclear energy, but does not consider it a safe or profitable alternative to renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar.
Ia Aanstoot and her supporters point out that the wind and solar energy produced will not be enough to meet the needs of an “electrified future” around the world. “We will have electric transport, electrified industry, electrified everything else. This will require a lot of electrical power, a stable supply of it, which wind and solar will not provide,” the climate activist explains, adding that this in turn means using nuclear energy.
Professor D. Kammen believes that the idea that renewable sources like solar and wind cannot meet demand is “nuclear propaganda.” The professor points out that: “Regardless of whether small or large grids are created with renewable energy resources, they are reliable, they can be expanded, and they are cheaper.”
Looking to the future
There are two types of nuclear energy that have potential, emphasises Daniel Kammen. One – the use of modular nuclear reactors, which are smaller and cheaper than traditional reactors and are considered a temporary option during the time that a broader transition to wind and solar energy takes place. Several modular nuclear reactor models have been developed in Canada, but expert opinions on their advantages differ. D. Kammen notes – the second solution is nuclear fusion. Currently, nuclear reactors produce energy by splitting heavy atoms during the nuclear fission process. Conversely, in the nuclear fusion process, atoms are joined together. Unlike nuclear fission, nuclear fusion does not create radioactive by-products, it does not result in the risk of a nuclear meltdown, and it cannot be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.
Scientists are only just beginning to understand this process; experts say that practical use is at best decades away.
Professor M. V. Ramana: “No one living today has any chance of seeing commercial fusion energy. In my opinion, for now at least, we should not be thinking about it in the context of solving climate change. The climate problem is here and now – not in 50 or 60 years.”
The interview with climate activist Ia Aanstoot was conducted by Kate Swoger
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/dear-greenpeace-nuclear-energy-1.6958765