“Countries seem to be waking up to the realization that they can’t meet their climate, energy, and national security goals without nuclear energy.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a longtime nuclear-energy critic, said in June she had changed her mind about California’s last nuclear plant, at Diablo Canyon. Closing it, she said, makes little sense “under these circumstances.”

Even before the current global energy crisis, experts warned for years that nuclear phaseouts like Germany’s would crunch energy supply at a time when countries are shifting from fossil fuels to meet climate mandates. Nuclear energy has been on the decline for decades. In 1996 it provided about 17% of global energy production; today it’s around 10%. After the 2011 Fukushima accident, anti-nuclear sentiment swept the world, with Japan and Germany leading the way to complete nuclear phaseouts. In the U.S., 12 reactors have been closed since 2012. The Energy Information Administration projects that the nuclear share of American power generation will decline to 11% by 2050, from 20% today.

Some countries are reconsidering. The war in Ukraine has led even fervent nuclear critics to face the reality that trading domestic nuclear energy production for reliance on Russian fossil fuels has been counterproductive. A prime example is the European Union’s recent decision to classify nuclear energy as “green,” potentially opening up billions of euros in investment.

EU member states are also beginning to act. Belgium’s Green Party did an about-face to extend the life of the country’s remaining two reactors by a decade. Poland is building its first plant, while the Czech Republic plans several reactors. Though France once flirted with shutting down 14 of its 58 reactors at the time, the country is now doubling down on nuclear energy, including next-generation designs. The Dutch government is moving toward construction of two new plants in response to war-induced energy shortages. The Netherlands has even urged Germany to keep its remaining nuclear plants online, though Berlin remains stubborn.

---

The story is similar in Asia and the Pacific. Japan plans to reverse its denuclearization by bringing nine nuclear reactors fully online this winter, while its 2030 emissions goal is based on restarting a total of 30 reactors, according to a senior official. South Korea recently announced its ambition to boost nuclear generation by 30% over eight years. Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines are all investing in nuclear energy. Last month Indonesia unveiled legislation to begin building its first nuclear power station. China has slowly but surely established itself as the world’s largest investor in new nuclear energy projects.

The U.S., too, seems to be changing course. In April President Biden announced $6 billion in aid to struggling plants such as Diablo Canyon. Private investors and government agencies are pouring billions into next-generation nuclear designs called small modular reactors. West Virginia recently repealed its decades-long ban on nuclear power for that purpose. Wyoming convinced Bill Gates’s company TerraPower to build its first plant there, while NuScale, the company that created the first commercial small modular reactor design to be officially approved in the U.S., is building several next-generation reactors at the Idaho National Laboratory.

Antinuclear activists have spent years fomenting fear about atomic power. Many countries took the bait and prematurely closed plants that were producing clean, reliable energy. Now, reality is forcing them to rethink. A report published by the International Energy Agency last month concludes that the “policy landscape is changing, opening up opportunities for a nuclear comeback.” Countries seem to be waking up to the realization that they can’t meet their climate, energy, and national security goals without nuclear energy.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-global-nuclear-comeback-green-energy-fossil-fuels-supply-climate-mandates-power-generation-11658170860?st=jf1ovvdis2tbrxt&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink