Although for some time ignored, nuclear energy is central for decarbonization, and now as a result of the new energy crisis brought by the Ukraine conflict, nuclear energy is increasingly being seen in a favourable light due to the high demand for energy security in an increasingly unstable world order.
This article intends on demonstrating the current two sides of the important debate regarding the strategic importance of nuclear energy for climate change and the strategic goal of assuring a secure energy source that is accountable to climate justice and also affordable.
It also demonstrates the strategic decisions that are currently being taken in the nuclear energy field and how they will impact international relations and power dynamics.
As countries seek to decarbonize amidst soaring energy demand, we need a form of clean energy that can rise to the challenge and the answer some are increasingly advocating more is nuclear energy. The main argument provided by the pro-nuclear energy side is the nuclear is a reliable, affordable pillar of decarbonization for decades.
The new upcoming portfolio of reactors on the horizon nuclear energy will be capable of supporting an even greater decarbonization process which is needed to decarbonize energy-sectors such as transportation and heavy industry.
The new designs will also be easier to install and provide a clean source of energy that is predicted to be a perfect pair with intermittent sources such as renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy with also the strategic economic benefit of providing a high-number of high-paying and long-lasting job positions.
Additionally, a new strategic analysis has been released for the JP Morgan and Nuclear Energy Institute´s Nuclear Financing Summit by The Centre for ESG and Sustainability has found that the US nuclear energy industry is becoming and ever more important investable asset and is positioned to become one of the main strategic sources of energy.
It also further concludes that nuclear is qualified to address all three facets for the energy trilemma: affordability, sustainability and reliability.
While reliability refers to the level of difficulty in technical terms and in regards with infrastructure and security risks to how the energy is obtained when its needed, affordability refers to the cost to produce that energy and if the price to which it is provided to the public is economically sustainable, stable and affordable for the consumer.
Lastly, the factor of sustainability refers to the level of impact that the production of energy has on the environment and how sustainable it is in regards to climate and society, being also a security and public health aspect.
The study further concludes that without nuclear energy, there is not pathway in the medium turn to reach the climate and energy goals while assuring energy security and that US nuclear energy performs well across the ESG classification topics.
It should be taken into account however the fact that both China and the Russian Federation currently outperform the US with their domestic nuclear energy industry and their nuclear fleet.
Consequently, the US government will have to invest an increasing sum of capital and resources in creating a bigger fleet that might compete strategically with China´s and Russia´s and it must be said that it has the laboratories and industrial capability to in the medium term with the right resources reach such a goal.
The new technological innovation of the upcoming small modular reactors and microreactors is poised to make nuclear energy more accessible and will play a central role in the US growth in the sector.
Regarding the debate, on the other side of the argument there are those that point to the costly process of dealing with the highly dangerous radioactive material and the immense financial burden it takes to treat the nuclear waste as well as the risks of a nuclear disaster like the one of Fukuyama or Chernobyl happening.
However, nuclear power stations are today safer because of those same disasters and it should be taken into account that until recently most energy reports regarding the potential of nuclear power have tended to have a biased negative position towards nuclear that does not value its true potential as a reliable and clean source that can effectively address energy poverty and climate justice.
In the past there was also the already debunked belief among public policy analysts that nuclear assets stymied the growth of renewable energy projects which was a belief that was mostly based on a biased perception and not reality
Simply put, disregarding nuclear energy is a strategically disastrous decision for national energy security and the states that do and have done so will be, and have been, left in a serious strategic disadvantage in comparison to those that understand the strategic potential of nuclear.
Many governments have reconsidered their position towards nuclear energy given its potential.
A major example of this has been the European Unions and the decision of the government of South Korea of classify nuclear as a sustainable activity that can then be open to green energy investment something the US government has also recently done by issuing the first green bond for nuclear energy which has opened the American domestic nuclear energy and industry sector to billions of dollars of federal investment in climate finance.
Another clear example of a state recently recognizing the strategic importance of nuclear energy has been the decision of the Canadian state to make the Canadian Infrastructure Bank to publicly announce its decision to fund the development of Canada´s first small modular reactor.
These public policy decisions have also been accompanied by an increasing trend in democratic western societies of the public being more favourable to nuclear energy, a trend that has been specially felt in France and Germany where both governments have until recently worked with policies that have had the goal of dismantling the majority of their domestic nuclear energy reactor fleets and ending its production.
Under a closer analysis one can see the disastrous results of de-nuclearization when analysing the German energy policy of the last years.
Throughout the last decade the German state made the strategic plan to become a climate ecological energy leader, having invested 500 billion euros to reach its goal of being mainly dependent on renewable wind and solar energy, the result of its high dependence on Russian gas and its recent decision stops its consumption of it has brutal with renewables ultimately having proven to not be enough to power its economy.
This has led to the German government deciding in a last-ditch desperate attempt to maintain its energy security, to reopen coal exploration for energy production with a rise in coal generated power of over 16% since 2021.
Germany has since reconsidered its position regarding nuclear which is an important step into ultimately re-investing in nuclear energy so it can effectively assure its energy security in such unstable times and guarantee economic growth with close to zero CO2 emissions.
France has recently also decided to re-invest in its nuclear sector which has been deliberately ignored and rejected for some years and which has resulted in an impoverished nuclear sector and in the French grid becoming less secure over the years and more expensive for no carbon benefit.
These decisions are significantly proven to be important given the critical geo-political and economic importance of both countries for Europe, with the ultimate strategic lesson that can be taken from this being that if public energy leaders are allowed to ignore or forget the strategic reason for nuclear to have been built in the first place they will only be left in a worse position that will inevitably make them look back at the necessity of nuclear.
By The European Institute for International Law and International Relations.
