Nuclear power sneaks into COP28 as a climate solution with opposition from environmentalists
[ad_1]
Dubai, Dec 12 (EFE).- Nuclear energy has entered the Dubai Climate Summit (COP28) among the technologies to be promoted to confront climate warming, something never seen in the history of these conclaves and which has the rejection of environmental organizations.
In the latest draft of the Global Balance presented by the COP28 presidency, among other options for the decarbonization of the planet, the parties are urged to “accelerate low or zero emissions technologies such as renewables, nuclear and those with capture, use and C02 storage.
According to Greenpeace, Ecologistas en Acción and WWF, three of the main environmental organizations, its inclusion in the text responds to the growing presence of nuclear “lobbyists” at the climate summits from Glasgow (COP26) with the complicity of major atomic powers such as the United States. United or France.
The presence of pronuclear companies and companies in the sector has been seen “even more in Dubai” and it seems that their “management has been successful,” the global head of Climate and Energy at WWF, Manuel Vidal-Pulgar, for whom the central objective of this summit should be to accelerate the ecological transition with “a clear reference to the exit from fossil fuels.”
In his opinion, nuclear is not an option for this transition because, currently, only 32 countries have atomic plants, and it generates dangerous waste (something that is not expected to be solved technologically in 25 years) and represents serious safety problems. safety, as demonstrated by accidents experienced in the past.
“In this COP28, from the beginning we have talked about the need for low-emission technologies to justify the use of technologies that are not yet proven or that are expensive or that are not yet ready (such as nuclear fusion) and that is unacceptable “he lamented.
“Obviously, for us this is a tremendous mistake,” the head of Energy and Climate at Ecologistas en Acción, Javier Andaluz, told EFE, pointing out that the climate impact of a nuclear power plant during its entire life cycle is between 6 and 15 greater than only that related to its operation.
To this we must add the waste they generate and the problems related to obtaining minerals, according to Andaluz, which has warned that investment in nuclear has fallen a lot because it is very expensive and that the cheapest option of extending the life of the existing plants, many of them more than 40 years old, represents “an enormous danger.”
“This is a clear surrender to the lobbies of large companies – the nuclear companies are in the hands of the electric companies -“, according to Andaluz, which has criticized the high presence of accredited pro-nuclear companies in Dubai, which are being given “recognition similar to the of neutral observer organizations”.
“Nuclear is not a solution for climate change because it is slow, since it takes more than 10 years to build a plant – plus the entire process of licenses and previous studies -; it is expensive and depends on public funds and there is no insurance to insure the plants due to their danger,” according to the head of Climate Change at Greenpeace Spain, Pedro Zorrilla.
Any accident in an atomic power plant has “very serious consequences on health and the environment”, according to Zorrilla, who added that these plants are not useful to accompany the deployment that is needed in renewables since they cannot support the variability of wind or sun – turning a nuclear power plant on or off takes several days and even weeks.
“They have been included due to the growing pressure from the nuclear industry, which is very powerful in France or Russia. It is a lobby closely linked to governments because it is always linked to public funds. As it produces fewer emissions than fossil fuels, they have seen there a hole to put them in,” Zorrilla lamented. EFE
atm/amr/crf
[ad_2]
