Is nuclear energy the answer to a sustainable future? Experts have differing opinions.

As the world progresses towards the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, nuclear power is being touted as a way to bridge the energy gap. However, some, like Greenpeace, express skepticism, warning that nuclear power has no place in a safe, clean, and sustainable future.

A report from Schroders at the beginning of the month shows that after years of stagnation, governments around the world have begun to invest in the industry again. According to the report, as of July, there are 486 nuclear reactors planned, proposed, or under construction with a generating capacity of 659 gigawatts, the highest level of construction activity in the industry since 2015.

Schroders states that nuclear energy emits only 10-15 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour, competitive with wind and solar, and much better than coal and natural gas. Nuclear power is also the second largest source of low-carbon energy, after hydroelectric power, surpassing the combined total of wind and solar energy.

In an interview with CNBC, Michael Shellenberger, founder of the environmental organization Environmental Progress, stated that nuclear energy is indeed the only scalable option, as renewable sources are not dependable. Nuclear power is not only clean but also overcomes the intermittency issues of wind, hydro, and solar power.

Shellenberger pointed out that renewable energy sources have reached their limits in many countries. Hydroelectric power is not feasible in all countries, and those with hydroelectric power are "tapped out," meaning they cannot develop more land or water resources for this purpose. This is why countries are reconsidering nuclear energy.

A few years ago, the International Energy Agency warned that there is a "risk of decline" in the future of nuclear power. Influenced by this, as the world needed more low-carbon electricity, nuclear power started to fade, plants closed, and new investments decreased.

Furthermore, nuclear safety is also one of the factors hindering the development of nuclear energy. Incidents like the Three Mile Island accident in the United States, the Chernobyl disaster in the former Soviet Union (now Ukraine), and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear leakage in Japan have raised concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants.

Adam Fleck, director of research, ratings, and ESG at Morningstar, said in an interview with CNBC last week that today's society has some "misconceptions" about nuclear power. Although the tragedies of Chernobyl and Fukushima cannot be forgotten, 12 years after the Fukushima accident, major countries are doing better and better at operating these nuclear power stations.

However, not all organizations share the optimism of Fleck and Shellenberger. In a report from March 2022, the global Greenpeace organization pointed out that, apart from the widespread issues of nuclear safety, compared to other renewable sources, nuclear energy is too expensive and slow to deploy.

Greenpeace notes that existing fossil fuel power plants continue to emit carbon dioxide before they are replaced, and the additional time required to build nuclear power stations has a significant impact on climate goals. Moreover, the mining, transportation, and processing of uranium are not without greenhouse gas emissions.

Greenpeace states that although nuclear power's performance in net-zero emissions and sustainable development is comparable to that of wind and solar power, wind and solar can be implemented faster and on a larger scale, having a quicker impact on carbon emissions and the transition to clean energy.