At COP29, national pavilions are awash with presentations promoting nuclear energy as an effective tool for achieving net-zero emissions. Each morning, pro-nuclear activists perform in the venue hall, emphasizing the supposed safety of nuclear power. This trend has gained momentum, with several nations, including those from the EECCA region (Armenia, Moldova, Ukraine), joining a Declaration during COP28 to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050. This year, six more countries, including Kazakhstan, have joined the pledge, signaling an alarming shift toward nuclear expansion.
To address this troubling trend, civil society groups from around the world held a press conference on November 15, 2024. Speakers highlighted the environmental, financial, and geopolitical risks of nuclear energy as a climate solution.
Delayed Action
The climate crisis demands urgent action, yet nuclear power plants take decades to plan, build, and produce electricity. When new reactors are operational, their impact on reducing emissions will be minimal compared to the immediate benefits of scaling up energy efficiency and renewable energy sources (RES) like wind and solar, which are faster to deploy.
“We are opposed to using nuclear power as a climate crisis solution for a very simple reason: it takes too long to build nuclear reactors, and we need climate action today, not in 10 or 20 years from now when nuclear reactors may be completed. Also, we need cheaper solutions than nuclear”, states Volodimir Slivyak, Ecodefence.
Prohibitive Costs
Nuclear energy is the most expensive form of energy today. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimates that tripling nuclear capacity by 2050 would cost at least $5 trillion—a figure widely deemed unrealistic. These costs inevitably burden taxpayers, as governments are often required to “de-risk” nuclear investments, absorbing cost overruns and project failures. Meanwhile, renewable energy technologies continue to become more affordable, offering a better return on investment for climate mitigation. Energy efficiency measures, decentralized renewable energy systems, and community-led projects have proven to deliver significant emission reductions without the long lead times or risks associated with nuclear power.
Environmental and Safety Risks
Nuclear energy is far from clean, starting with uranium mining to radioactive waste disposal. Every stage of the nuclear life cycle generates waste that remains hazardous for thousands of years. To date, no country has established a permanent deep geological repository for high-level nuclear waste. Additionally, nuclear power plants are vulnerable to accidents and external threats, as evidenced by incidents like Chornobyl and Fukushima.
Svetlana Mogilyuk from ECOM, Kazakhstan argues: “Nuclear power is a very poor solution. When we consider the full energy production cycle, both the extraction of raw materials and the waste it generates pose a significant and long-term threat to the environment. The nuclear energy industry, which is allegedly developing, has not yet solved the waste disposal issue. Moreover, all nuclear power plant structures eventually become hazardous waste”.
Geopolitical Concerns
Approximately half of the nuclear reactors under construction worldwide are tied to Rosatom, a Russian state-owned enterprise. This creates long-term dependencies for countries on Russian technology, expertise, and nuclear fuel. Such arrangements extend political influence under the guise of energy development. Rosatom’s involvement in military activities, such as the occupation of nuclear facilities in Zaporizhia during Russia’s war in Ukraine, underscores the risks of militarization of civilian nuclear infrastructure.
The False Promise
The narrative framing nuclear energy as a climate solution oversimplifies its challenges and ignores viable alternatives. Civil society demands that public finance prioritize equitable and sustainable solutions rather than subsidizing nuclear expansion. We cannot afford to lose another couple of decades on nuclear investments. The public budgets of the EECCA countries should prioritize energy efficiency measures and deployment of renewable energy.
Read more in CAN EECCA’s position on nuclear energy.
