Let's move on to the atom
Humanity must develop a plan to counter climate change, argue political scientist Joshua S. Goldstein and energy engineer Staffan A. Quist. In an article published in The Wall Street Journal, they argue that the transition to renewable energy will not correct the situation at the necessary pace.
And yet we have the opportunity to prevent a climate catastrophe, experts say - for this it is necessary to increase the production of atomic energy.
Too slow
Even if all countries introduced renewable energy in such volumes as the leader in this field, Germany, does, it would only account for one fifth of the global demand for "clean" energy. At this rate, it would take 150 years to completely stop burning fossil fuels, but climate scientists say we only have thirty years before irreversible changes occur.
Even if we accelerate the adoption of solar and wind power technologies, both of these sources are unstable and require significant land areas.
“The world needs a source of electricity that does not emit carbon dioxide, that can quickly expand production to large volumes, while generating energy around the clock, regardless of the weather, and without using large areas of the earth's surface for this,” write Goldstein and Quist. "Nuclear energy meets these requirements."
Promotional video:
Let's engage in education
According to Goldstein and Quist, the false fears associated with nuclear power are hampering its development. Nuclear energy is strongly associated with the Chernobyl accident and radioactive waste.
But the death toll from the Chernobyl disaster - the only major disaster at a nuclear power plant in 60 years - is small compared to other non-nuclear industrial accidents.
Nuclear waste is also small compared to the equally toxic waste generated from coal and other fuels.
The authors believe that it is necessary to rid nuclear energy of the stigma and widely use it as part of efforts to prevent a climate catastrophe.
Vadim Tarabarko