Mr. Grossi, many say that the World Climate Conference here in Glasgow is about nothing less than preserving the earth.

Does nuclear power threaten or help save the planet?

Christian Geinitz

Business correspondent in Berlin

  • Follow I follow

Nuclear power is not a threat, it is part of the solution to save the climate.

Almost a third of the world's clean electricity comes from carbon-neutral nuclear reactors.

Half of the countries in Europe use nuclear energy, and some nations even want to use it more intensively.

And that is also the case in the emerging countries of the south.

That nuclear power is a problem is a persistent narrative.

But I see clear signs that this is being questioned in view of the urgency of the climate debate, including in Germany, by the way.

That's right, because without nuclear power it would be almost impossible to achieve decarbonization.

What would global warming be like if nuclear power didn't exist?

Much worse than already.

Remember that China is already by far the largest emitter of CO-2.

What would it look like without their nuclear energy?

The US gets 20 percent of its electricity from this source and more than half of its green electricity.

The situation is similar in France or parts of Eastern Europe.

How is nuclear power being received here at the COP26 climate conference?

That is very revealing.

We see a growing interest in nuclear power.

Many developing countries come to us, to the IAEA, and ask for advice.

Because they want an option for stable supply at stable prices, which is exactly what nuclear power offers.

It will not save the world on its own, but it is an indispensable part of the solution.

So nuclear power is not dead, as people think in Germany?

On the contrary, it is alive, it is healthy, and it is growing.

Even if Germany has decided for itself that she is dead.

The climate debate has been around for a long time, but perhaps it is only now that many people realize that time is running out.

We have to save the climate as soon as possible, because we cannot afford the luxury of a beauty contest among clean energy sources.

When a source is available, we cannot simply discard it because of political preferences.

In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the focus here in Glasgow is on adapting to the effects of the climate, known as adaptation.

Nuclear can't do much for that, can it?

Yes, a lot, although that is often not seen.

I'll give you a few examples: With isotopic technologies, the acidification of the oceans can be measured so that one can adjust to it in a targeted manner.

With irradiation you can develop heat-resistant crops, with other methods you can achieve that plants need less water.

Our own nuclear research laboratories and many partners help the world deal with global warming.

This helps poorer countries in particular to survive economically.

What hardly anyone knows: the famous PCR tests that really save lives in the current corona pandemic are originally based on nuclear technology.

That all sounds good, but nuclear power is terribly dangerous, as we saw in Fukushima.

It was a bad accident that shouldn't have happened.

But that was not due to the nuclear technology itself, but to the fact that safety standards were not adhered to.

Fission is not the problem; the problem arises when people don't do what they should be doing.

It was the same in Chernobyl.

You can't judge an industry by accidents!

The nuclear industry is arguably the safest industry in the world and the most regulated.

I can judge that, because we deal directly with the regulators and we set the safety standards.

And yet many people die in nuclear accidents, for example in Fukushima.