12:44 — REGNUM Nuclear energy is an integral element of the global energy system aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new technology roadmap prepared by experts from the International Energy Agency and the Organization's Nuclear Energy Agency economic development and cooperation. The document examines possible ways for the development of nuclear energy in the world after the accident at the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant in Japan in March 2011, taking into account economic crisis and its impact on the financing of new projects. According to the authors of the document, in the medium and long term the picture for nuclear energy remains positive, despite negative influence Japanese accident on nuclear programs in specific countries. And although in 2013 the share of nuclear power plants in global energy production decreased by 10% compared to 2010 due to the shutdown of all 48 operational nuclear power units in Japan, nuclear power still ranks second in terms of volume in low-carbon energy, scientists say. In addition, the construction of 72 nuclear reactors around the world at the beginning of last year was the largest in the industry over the past quarter century.

"The role of nuclear energy in the fight against global warming will remain significant in the coming years and may even grow in the future,” said Sergei Kondratyev, head of the sector of the economic department of the Institute of Energy and Finance Foundation. - In times of crisis, people are looking for a more efficient option so as not to lose either money or environmental benefits. On the one hand, modern nuclear energy makes it possible to build large and powerful energy sources. For the same volumes, wind and solar power plants require large areas to reach comparable levels in gigawatts. In addition, nuclear energy is predictable. If we take renewable energy, which is considered as one of the prospects in the development of global energy, then both solar and wind generation are still very difficult to dispatch. In addition, nuclear energy has a large technological potential, because, having achieved the closure of the fuel cycle using a fast neutron reactor, it will be possible to seriously expand and raw material base industry, and in the long term when developing thermonuclear fusion completely different opportunities will open up than those we have today.”

“Renewable energy is not as green as people think of it,” the expert noted. - There are studies, although not very numerous, that fish, for example, are not very pleased to be near windmills. And this is a blow to fishing, which, as we see, is a fairly important industry in light of the sanctions. Not to mention the birds that are knocked down by windmill blades when they collide. Problems of this kind do not arise in the operation of a peaceful atom. But I cannot but agree with the statement of the International Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation that the deregulation of markets also poses a threat to nuclear energy. It leads to shortening the planning horizon of companies. They primarily evaluate profits in the next year or two. It is difficult for them to plan for a five-year horizon, since the market environment is changing rapidly and the rules of the game are changing along with it. We see this in the example of the European market, where five years ago the positions of thermal generation and nuclear power were completely different. Market deregulation is pushing companies to invest either in subsidized types of generation or in those that provide relatively quick returns. And nuclear power generation with long construction periods and a long service life is not included in this list. There are no mechanisms yet that would reduce this distortion. However, if we allocate the same amounts that renewable energy receives in the form of subsidies in European countries, for the development of nuclear energy, then this will be a more effective way.”

“Europe’s old nuclear power plants, which have been in operation for decades, are now actually subsidizing green energy, of course, not by at will. And in the conditions of developed countries, nuclear energy would be effective even without the preferences that renewable energy receives. And in developing countries, for example India, even with low interest rates for loans in the construction of nuclear power plants, state participation is necessary due to the long-term nature of the construction of nuclear power plants,” Kondratyev is sure.

As climate change and its negative consequences gain more attention in the media and in the minds of politicians, the nuclear industry is trying to use the climate problem as an excuse to receive new subsidies.

This requires recognition of nuclear energy by the international community as a technology that can make a major contribution to the prevention of climate change. At the UN level, attempts by the nuclear industry to achieve such status have so far failed.

It is clear that the problem of climate change cannot be solved with the help of any one technology - a multifaceted approach is needed. The nuclear industry insists that nuclear power plants must be “part of the solution” and that they cannot be avoided because we're talking about about reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at the global level, and nuclear reactors produce almost no such emissions.

However, already at the very beginning of this discussion there is a catch called “depending on how you count.” If we analyze the complete fuel cycle (and not the operation of a separate power plant), which includes the stages of fossil fuel extraction (this includes uranium, among other things), its processing, use, and waste disposal, it turns out that the “peaceful atom” is not the most successful choice. In a complete fuel cycle, nuclear energy produces approximately the same amount of emissions as the gas cycle, being significantly less clean than wind and hydropower (Oekoinstitute, 1997).

According to expert estimates, the difference between today's level of global emissions and what will need to be achieved in 2050 is 25-40 Gt CO2.

The most realistic calculations show that emissions reductions can be achieved in the following sectors:
. approximately 5 GtCO2 from increased nuclear power production if the number of nuclear power plants triples;
. approximately 4 Gt CO2 from increased energy efficiency for buildings;
. approximately 5 Gt CO2 from increased energy efficiency in industry;
. approximately 7 GtCO2 from increased energy efficiency in the transport sector;
. approximately 2 Gt CO2 from energy efficiency improvements in the energy sector (excluding fuel switching);
. approximately 3.6 GtCO2 from coal-to-gas switching in the energy sector;
. approximately 15 GtCO2 (or more) from renewable energy (electricity and heat);
. between 4 and 10 Gt CO2 through CCS (a technology that allows emissions to be captured and then stored in special storage facilities, preventing them from escaping into the atmosphere).
(“Nuclear power and climate change”, Felix Chr. Matthes, 2005)

Thus, by combining the above technologies, by 2050 it would be possible to reduce emissions by 45-55 Gt CO2. With this approach, increasing the number of nuclear power plants by three times, as proposed in some studies of the nuclear industry, is not only not necessary - it can be done without it.

There are a few more things to note important aspects regarding the compatibility of the development of nuclear energy and other technologies, the development of various emission reduction scenarios, as well as negative aspects development of nuclear energy in general:
. Global warming and nuclear power pose risks different types, however they are comparable. Although some health and ecosystem risks may arise from either option, no other technology poses as many health, environmental, and socioeconomic risks as nuclear power.
. The use of nuclear energy to reduce emissions will require large-scale development of all elements of the nuclear fuel cycle (from mining to waste disposal). There are many uncertainties here, and above all, the lack of safe technology for the disposal of nuclear waste and a complete lack of understanding when it will appear and whether it will appear at all.
. The conditions for the introduction of renewable energy technologies are in conflict with the conditions necessary for the large-scale development of nuclear energy. If the first option requires flexibility and decentralization of energy systems, the ability to supply energy at intervals, then the second requires a centralized structure of the energy system, low flexibility and as powerful energy production units as possible.
. The only scenario adapted to today's energy system involves switching from coal to gas and increasing the efficiency of power plants, including combined heat and power production. Although the contribution of these technologies is limited today, these two options will play a key role in the near future due to their great potential.
. Key options for reducing emissions in the medium term (renewable energy, CCS) are uncompetitive compared to nuclear energy if its price still does not include the costs of radioactive waste disposal, dismantling of old plants, etc. Further development of nuclear energy will require huge financial investments in order to develop breeder reactors and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, which will seriously increase the cost of the “peaceful atom”. Now the scale of this increase is very difficult to predict, but it is clear that it will be large. Consequently, the scenario of reducing emissions with the help of nuclear energy contains very large hidden costs.
. Nuclear power plants themselves are vulnerable to climate change occurring on the planet. Major floods can lead to the cessation of operation of such stations for an indefinite period, especially in cases where the stations are located in the coastal zone. In addition, the thawing of permafrost creates another threat to nuclear power plants operating in the corresponding latitudes. For example, Russian experts are already predicting serious problems in the case of the Bilibino Nuclear Power Plant in Chukotka.
. If one or more major accidents at nuclear power plants occur in the future, this will lead to a refusal to further develop the “peaceful atom”. If this technology is relied upon to reduce emissions, such a turn would be disastrous for the fight against climate change.

It is necessary to develop the safest approach to reducing emissions, taking into account all these circumstances, for the short, medium and long term. If you do not use nuclear energy as part of this approach, then within 20-30 years it is necessary to switch from coal to gas and increase energy efficiency, including in the energy industry.

These efforts should be enough to last until the price of renewable energy falls. But if nuclear energy is included among the technologies used to combat climate change (reduce carbon dioxide emissions), this approach will be extremely vulnerable. Relying on a “peaceful atom” that does not allow the development of new technologies may turn out to be the wrong decision in the long term, since nuclear power plants will not solve the climate problem completely, but will increase the number of other very serious problems.

Energy consumption in the world is growing much faster than its production, and the industrial use of new promising technologies in the energy sector, for objective reasons, will begin no earlier than 2030. The problem of shortage of fossil energy resources is becoming increasingly acute. The possibilities for building new hydroelectric power plants are also very limited. We should not forget about the fight against the greenhouse effect, which imposes restrictions on the combustion of oil, gas and coal in thermal power plants.

The solution to the problem can be active development nuclear power. At the moment, a trend has emerged in the world called the “nuclear renaissance”. Even the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant could not affect this trend. Even the most conservative IAEA forecasts say that by 2030, up to 600 new power units could be built on the planet (there are currently more than 436). The increase in the share of nuclear energy in the global energy balance may be affected by such factors as reliability, acceptable level of costs compared to other energy sectors, relatively small volume of waste, and availability of resources. Taking into account all of the above, let us formulate the main advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy:

Advantages of nuclear energy

• 1. Huge energy intensity of the fuel used. 1 kilogram of uranium enriched to 4%, when completely burned, releases energy equivalent to burning approximately 100 tons of high-quality coal or 60 tons of oil.
• 2. Possibility of reusing fuel (after regeneration). The fissile material (uranium-235) can be used again (unlike fossil fuel ash and slag). With the development of fast neutron reactor technology, a transition to a closed fuel cycle is possible in the future, which means a complete absence of waste.
• 3. Nuclear energy does not contribute to the greenhouse effect. Every year, nuclear power plants in Europe avoid the emission of 700 million tons of CO 2. Operating nuclear power plants, for example, in Russia, annually prevent the release of 210 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Thus, the intensive development of nuclear energy can indirectly be considered one of the methods to combat global warming.
• 4. Uranium is a relatively inexpensive fuel. Uranium deposits are quite widespread in the world.
• 5. Maintenance nuclear power plants is a very important process, but it does not need to be carried out as often as refueling and maintenance of traditional power plants.
• 6. Nuclear reactors and associated peripheral devices can operate in the absence of oxygen. This means that they can be completely insulated and, if necessary, placed underground or under water without ventilation systems.
• 7. Nuclear power plants, built and operated safely, can help the world economy move away from its overreliance on fossil fuels for electricity.

Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

• 1. Uranium mining and enrichment may expose personnel involved in these activities to radioactive dust and may result in the release of this dust into the air or water.
• 2. Waste nuclear reactors remain radioactive for many years. Existing and promising methods of their disposal are associated with technical, environmental and political problems.
• 3. Although the risk of sabotage at nuclear power plants is small, its potential consequences are the release of radioactive materials into environment- very serious. Such risks cannot be ignored.
• 4. Transporting fissile materials to power plants for use as fuel and transporting radioactive waste to disposal sites can never be completely safe. The consequences of a security breach can be catastrophic.
• 5. Fissile nuclear materials falling into the wrong hands could trigger nuclear terrorism or blackmail.
• 6. Due to the risk factors listed above, the widespread use of nuclear power plants is resisted by various public organizations. This contributes to growing public concern about nuclear energy in general, especially in the United States.

Myths about nuclear energy and the actual state of affairs
Vladimir Slivyak, 02/09-2010

There is a “nuclear renaissance” in the world - nuclear power plants are being built around the world

The discussion about the possible construction of a nuclear power plant is indeed ongoing different countries, however, this is more of a “discussion renaissance” than a “nuclear energy renaissance.” In Germany, the law on decommissioning all nuclear power plants is still in force; in Spain, the government’s policy towards a “soft” abandonment of nuclear energy is in force; in Austria and Denmark, the governments have not seriously considered the “nuclear issue” for over 30 years. In the United States, there have been no orders for the construction of new reactors since 1973 due to the reluctance of investors to invest at high risk. Even in Italy, where after 22 years of anti-nuclear moratorium the government is again talking about nuclear power plants, there is not a single nuclear power plant project under construction. One reactor is being built in Finland, but it will only replace the facilities that are being taken out of service. Even France, where up to 80% of energy is produced at nuclear power plants, will not be able to increase or maintain such a high share of the “peaceful atom” in the energy balance. A long break in the construction of nuclear power plants in this country has led to the fact that with the decommissioning of old reactors, which will begin over the coming years, the percentage of nuclear energy production will steadily decline. Thus, it is also impossible to talk about any development of nuclear energy in France. Only in the region Southeast Asia There are still plans for large-scale nuclear development, but progress there directly depends on investments and the situation in the markets of developed countries, which are in deep crisis. The previous “nuclear boom” in Asia ended due to the international financial crisis of 1998, but the recent revival of interest in nuclear technology has come up against the current financial crisis.

Russia makes money from building nuclear power plants abroad
The modern “market” for the construction of nuclear power plants does not depend on the ability of the contracting country to pay the costs, but, on the contrary, on the ability of the developer company to attract export loans and private investments from different countries for its project. Thus, countries that do not have the financial means to build nuclear power plants can borrow nuclear power plants. In some cases, poor countries pay partly in goods. The point of participating in such projects for the nuclear industry is not to earn money for oneself or the budget of one’s country, but to load industrial capacity. This capacity utilization is paid for, as a rule, from the budget of the country where the nuclear power plant builders are based. Rosatom's foreign projects for the construction of nuclear power plants are often financed from the Russian budget. In the case of the nuclear power plant project in Turkey, Rosatom will build 4 nuclear reactors using loans taken under guarantees Russian government, and then own the station and sell energy from it at a fixed low price to the Turkish authorities. One reactor at a Turkish nuclear power plant will cost Russian taxpayers approximately $7.7 billion, including bank interest on loans. These are the most expensive reactors in Russian history, and their payback period will directly depend on the desire of the Turkish authorities to buy the agreed amount of energy. The previously built Russian gas pipeline to Turkey is operating at half its capacity due to the fact that local authorities do not fulfill their obligations regarding the volumes of purchased gas.

The cost of nuclear power plants is comparable to other energy sources
Today, the capital costs of constructing a nuclear power plant exceed those for any other energy source, with the exception of some types of renewable energy sources. However, if in the case of nuclear power plants new and more expensive safety systems cause constant growth capital costs, then in the case of renewable sources there is a decrease in cost. If ten years ago the construction of one reactor in Russia cost an average of $1 billion, then today’s power units (such as VVER-1200) cost between 3-5 billion euros. Infrastructure costs are not included here, although in some cases they can add another 50% to the cost of the project. For example, in the case of the Baltic NPP, two units cost about 6 billion Euros, and taking into account infrastructure - more than 9 billion Euros. At the same time, the project cost almost never corresponds to the final cost, taking into account delays. Modern reactors in the West are more technologically advanced and therefore cost even more. New nuclear power plant projects currently being discussed in the United States reach a value of $10 billion per power unit. At the same time, wind farm projects are already cheaper. And even once extremely expensive solar energy can compete with new nuclear projects. So, in the case of a floating nuclear power plant, the cost of one kW of installed capacity is about $7,000, which is equal to the cost of a kW of installed capacity at a small solar station, which is planned to be built near Kislovodsk in 2011. At the same time, the solar station will provide the entire city area under construction with heat and electricity; people in this area will be able to breathe clean air and not fear dangerous accidents.

Nuclear power plants produce the cheapest energy
The price of energy in Russia does not equal the price of its production costs. Thus, the price of nuclear energy does not include the costs of managing radioactive waste for as long as it remains hazardous. Also, the costs of dismantling nuclear reactors, which must be decommissioned at the end of their service life, are not included. The taxpayer pays these expenses in any case, but through different items state budget, which does not allow one to calculate the real cost of energy produced by nuclear power plants. Obviously, the real cost of nuclear energy is much higher than any other energy source due to the fact that only nuclear energy produces waste that must be safely stored for at least 240,000 years. In addition, according to employees of the Russian nuclear industry, the cost of dismantling the reactor is at least equal to the cost of construction.

There is no alternative to the development of nuclear energy in Russia
IN present moment Nuclear energy produces about 16% of Russian electricity. Already today it is possible to decommission all nuclear power plants by replacing the “peaceful atom” with natural gas which will be safer and cheaper. In addition, Russia is perhaps the only one large countries, which do not develop renewable energy sources, although their potential is very large. According to the International Energy Agency, renewable energy can provide up to 30% of the energy generated today in Russia. Another source is energy efficiency and energy saving. According to the Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation, the potential in this area is over 50%. This means that by implementing basic energy efficiency measures, it is possible to save half of the energy consumed today. It is obvious that at the moment there is no shortage of energy sources and nuclear energy is not irreplaceable.

Renewable energy sources are too expensive and not suitable for Russia
In the past, renewable energy sources were indeed so expensive that there was no economic sense in using them. However, for recent years In different countries, the volume of investment in this area has increased many times over, resulting in a reduction in the cost of technologies related to obtaining energy from renewable sources. According to preliminary estimates of experts, in the Elbrus region a solar station would pay for itself in 5 years, and in Kislovodsk in 7 years. For comparison, the payback period for nuclear power plants can reach 20 years. Despite the fact that the development of renewable energy sources is not supported by the government, such energy sources are already actively used in Russia. The construction of several small solar stations is planned in the southern regions of Russia. In Kaliningrad, far from being the sunniest city in Russia, the municipality is equipping new social housing with solar heating devices. A large wind farm is being built in the Murmansk region. Moreover, renewable energy sources can be used not only in areas where there are a lot of sunny days or extremely strong winds, but almost everywhere, provided that various technologies are combined. Provided that government assistance was received in the same amount as it has been provided to the civilian nuclear industry for half a century, stations using renewable energy sources would have long since become the cheapest, and Russia would have been among the leaders in technological development. However, not even a thousandth of what is spent on nuclear energy is allocated to renewable energy sources. At the same time, the nuclear industry recently launched the first floating nuclear power plant, which cost the taxpayer approximately $7,000 per kW of installed capacity. The solar station in Kislovodsk, the cost of which is close to a floating nuclear power plant, does not require nuclear or any other fuel, cannot explode, polluting everything around with radiation, does not pollute the atmosphere with radioactive aerosols or other harmful emissions in an accident-free mode, and besides, it is not needed guard with warships. Despite these advantages, funds for this station have been sought for many years, and only now hope has emerged for its construction in 2011.

Nuclear power plants can be built quickly and in large numbers
In Russia today it is technically possible to produce one set of reactor equipment per year. Foreign machine-building capacities, unfortunately for Rosatom, are busy. Considering the technically possible pace of construction of new nuclear power plants, resources are, at best, sufficient to replace old nuclear reactors that need to be decommissioned due to the end of their extended service life. If we take into account the large-scale ambitions for the construction of new nuclear power plants in other countries, it is unlikely that over the next 20 years it will be possible to maintain the share of nuclear energy at the same level (16% of the amount of electricity generated in the country). Thus, in the case of Russia, there is no reason to talk about a possible “nuclear renaissance”, implying an increase in the share of nuclear energy: it will be extremely difficult for Rosatom to even maintain the current state of affairs and prevent a decrease in the share of nuclear energy in the country’s energy balance by 2020.

Nuclear power plants can withstand a passenger plane crash
According to the chief engineer of the Baltic NPP project, spoken at round table Rosatom in Kaliningrad in July 2009, simulation of the crash of a large passenger aircraft in the case of the VVER-1200 reactor has never been carried out. The calculation was made for the case of a crash of a small aircraft, up to 20 tons in size, for a previous generation reactor (VVER-1000). However, an international air corridor passes over the construction site of this nuclear power plant, and the aircraft flying over the construction site are several times heavier than a small passenger aircraft. In addition, large aircraft also fly near the construction site of the Leningrad NPP-2 with VVER-1200 under construction, but this did not encourage the nuclear industry to carry out the necessary research.

Spent nuclear fuel (SNF) is not nuclear waste, but energy raw materials
According to Russian legislation, waste may be considered to be such radioactive materials for which no further use is envisaged. Consequently, spent fuel from RBMK reactors (11 units out of 31 in Russia) is nuclear waste, since there are no plans for further use of this fuel, and there is no economically justified and ready-for-industrial reprocessing technology. The absence in Russia of facilities for reprocessing used fuel from power units of the VVER-1000 type also indicates that at the moment the use of this type of highly radioactive waste is impossible. If we limit ourselves to civilian nuclear power plants, reprocessing of spent fuel is possible only for fuel from the VVER-440 (6 power units in Russia) and BN-600 (1 power unit) reactors. Thus, the used fuel from 24 of the 31st power units cannot be considered raw materials and is nuclear waste. Moreover, spent fuel reprocessing is carried out at the only enterprise in Russia - the Mayak plant in Chelyabinsk region, the equipment of which is characterized high degree wear. As a result of reprocessing, plutonium is released, and the amount of radioactive waste radically increases - for 1 ton of spent nuclear fuel after reprocessing there are 150-200 tons of by-product radioactive waste. Thus, spent fuel reprocessing cannot be considered an effective approach to reducing the amount of nuclear waste. Despite all the problems with spent nuclear fuel, Rosatom continues to import nuclear waste from abroad. In 2009, 57 tons of spent fuel were imported to Russia from the Bulgarian Kozloduy nuclear power plant.

Uranium “tails” do not pose any danger
This is extremely toxic and radioactive material exported to Russia from Western European uranium enrichment plants starting in 1996. During this period, the German-Dutch-British company Urenco alone sent over 120,000 tons of tailings to 4 Russian enterprises. During the same period, “tails” came from France, totaling several tens of thousands of tons. At the moment, it remains unclear whether French transport will continue, as the contract is valid until 2014. As for Urenco, under pressure from environmental groups, it announced the cessation of these activities at the end of last year. According to Rostechnadzor, containers with uranium “tails” are susceptible to corrosion. There is a “risk of depressurization” for these containers. According to the nuclear industry, if the contents of just one container were released into the environment, the risk of death to humans could occur within a radius of more than 30 km. (Price, BNFL, 1978)

Nuclear power can solve climate change
Research clearly demonstrates that the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in the nuclear fuel cycle is approximately equal to the amount emitted in a cycle with a modern gas station. (Oekoinstitut, 1997) Moreover, in order to achieve a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through nuclear energy, it is necessary to build several times more nuclear reactors than have been built in the entire history of human development of this type of energy. In conditions of limited time and financial resources, nuclear energy is the least in an efficient way fight against climate change and is seriously inferior in this indicator to renewable energy sources.

Nuclear energy is environmentally friendly and does not cause any harm to the environment
Each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle produces large amounts of radioactive waste. Far from it full list includes millions of tons of waste from uranium mining sites in the territory former USSR, hundreds of thousands of tons of uranium “tails” on Russian enterprises for uranium enrichment, over 20 thousand tons of spent fuel produced at nuclear power plants in Russia. In most cases, the problem with radioactive waste is not solved because there is too much waste and the need for large investments that will never pay off. However, there are also wastes for which there is still no reliable technology for isolating them from people and the environment. In particular, there is no economically feasible technology for isolating spent nuclear fuel for as long as it remains dangerous. This period will be at least 240,000 years. The most advanced project in this area is the spent fuel repository project at Yucca Mountain (USA), which is designed to store nuclear waste for 1 million years. However, due to the high price (over $90 billion) and insufficient scientific justification for the safety of spent nuclear fuel storage, the project has currently been stopped. In addition, it should be noted that even in trouble-free operation, nuclear power plants constantly release radioactive substances into the environment.

The Russian population is not against the development of nuclear energy
A survey conducted at the end of 2007 by ROMIR found that 79% of Russians had a negative attitude towards the construction of a nuclear power plant if it took place in their region. Less than 10% support the construction of nuclear power plants in their own region. However, the nuclear industry often needs confirmation of the false thesis about public support for new nuclear power plant projects. Invented for this purpose various methods manipulation. For example, in 2007, environmentalists organized a survey in the Kaliningrad region public opinion, which demonstrated that 67% of residents have a negative attitude towards the construction of nuclear power plants. In 2008, representatives of the nuclear industry organized a survey in which Kaliningrad residents were asked to choose one of several options for energy development in the region. At the same time, supporters of nuclear energy could choose only one option, while for the rest several options were formulated. As a result, 67% of those opposed to the construction of nuclear power plants were divided into several groups, each of which individually turned out to be smaller than pro-nuclear. The overall picture remained the same, because the majority of the population opposed the construction of a nuclear power plant, but in the figures of this survey it turned out that the majority (less than 30%) was in favor of the nuclear power plant. On other atomic issues, Russians have an even more unpleasant opinion for Rosatom. Over 90% of Russian citizens oppose the import of radioactive waste from abroad, and in some regions this figure reaches 100% (Primorsky Territory). As a rule, the opinion of Russians does not depend on whether their region is used for transit or for final storage of foreign radioactive waste. When asked how its residents see the energy future of Russia, more than 70% respond that development should take place through renewable energy sources. The least popular are coal and nuclear energy.

(“Ecoprotection!”, September 2010)

The global level of carbon dioxide emitted is about 32 billion tons per year and continues to grow. It is predicted that by 2030, the volume of carbon dioxide released will exceed 34 billion tons per year.

The solution to the problem could be the active development of nuclear energy, one of the youngest and most dynamically developing sectors of the global economy. All more Countries today are coming to the need to begin developing the peaceful atom.

The installed capacity of the world's nuclear power industry is 397 gigawatts. If all this power were generated from coal and gas sources, an additional 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide would be released into the atmosphere each year. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that all boreal forests (taiga forests located in the northern hemisphere) absorb about 1 billion tons of CO2 annually, and all forests on the planet absorb 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide. That is, if we take the impact on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere as a criterion, nuclear energy is commensurate with the “ecological capacity” of all the forests on the planet.

What are the advantages of nuclear energy?

Huge energy intensity

1 kilogram of uranium enriched to 4%, used in nuclear fuel, when completely burned, releases energy equivalent to burning approximately 100 tons of high-quality coal or 60 tons of oil.

Reuse

The fissile material (uranium-235) does not burn completely in nuclear fuel and can be used again after regeneration (unlike ash and slag of organic fuel). In the future, a complete transition to a closed fuel cycle is possible, which means virtually no waste.

Reducing the greenhouse effect

Intensive development of nuclear energy can be considered one of the means to combat global warming. For example, nuclear power plants in Europe annually avoid the emission of 700 million tons of CO2. Operating nuclear power plants in Russia annually prevent the release of about 210 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to this indicator, Russia is in fourth place in the world.

Economic development

The construction of nuclear power plants ensures economic growth and the creation of new jobs: 1 workplace during the construction of a nuclear power plant, more than 10 jobs are created in related industries. Development of nuclear energy contributes to growth scientific research and volumes of exports of high-tech products.

Lowest injury rates

According to research, nuclear power plants have the lowest percentage of fatal accidents (see illustration, source - 2019 publication of the World Nuclear Association (WNA), citing a study by the Paul Scherrer Institute).