Is Nuclear Energy required in order to fight Climate change?

Question

Please share research and details that support this

Trudi Schifter · Answer

The Answer from Open AI Chat GPT: 
No, nuclear energy is not strictly required to combat climate change, but it is one of the most effective and scalable low-carbon energy sources available. Many experts argue that achieving net-zero emissions without nuclear would be far more difficult, expensive, and slower .
1. Why Nuclear is Important for Climate Action
✅ Near-Zero Carbon Emissions: Nuclear power emits no CO₂ during operation, unlike coal and natural gas.
✅ Reliable Baseload Energy: It provides continuous, 24/7 power , unlike wind and solar, which depend on weather conditions.
✅ Proven Large-Scale Solution: Countries like France and Sweden have used nuclear power to achieve low-carbon grids quickly .
🔹 Example:
France generates ~70% of its electricity from nuclear and has some of the lowest carbon emissions per capita in Europe . Germany phased out nuclear but had to increase coal usage , leading to higher CO₂ emissions .
2. Could We Fight Climate Change with 100% Renewables Instead?
🔸 Challenges of Relying Only on Wind & Solar:
Intermittency: The sun doesn’t always shine , and the wind doesn’t always blow . Energy Storage is Expensive: Battery storage technology isn’t yet cost-effective at the scale needed. Land & Resource Use: Large-scale solar and wind farms require vast amounts of land and rare earth materials .
🔹 Example:
California has high renewable energy adoption but still imports fossil fuel electricity during peak demand. Denmark relies heavily on wind but depends on neighboring countries (Norway, Sweden, Germany) for backup power.
How Nuclear Helps Renewables:
✅ Acts as a stable "backup" when solar and wind output drops.
✅ Reduces reliance on large-scale battery storage , which is expensive and resource-intensive.
3. What Do Climate Scientists and Experts Say?
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change):
The IPCC's net-zero scenarios include a mix of nuclear, renewables, and carbon capture . While 100% renewables are theoretically possible, most pathways to net-zero include nuclear to ensure energy reliability.
International Energy Agency (IEA):
Calls nuclear “indispensable” in achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Says nuclear reduces the cost of decarbonization compared to a grid relying only on wind, solar, and storage.
Countries Betting on Nuclear for Climate Goals:
✅ China – Building over 20 new nuclear reactors to cut coal dependence.
✅ United States – Extending nuclear plant lifetimes and funding small modular reactors (SMRs) .
✅ United Kingdom – Investing in nuclear as part of its net-zero strategy .
4. Conclusion: Is Nuclear Required for Climate Action?
🔹 No—It is technically possible to decarbonize without nuclear, but it would require:
✅ Massive expansion of wind, solar, and hydro
✅ Huge advances in battery storage and grid technology
✅ Increased energy efficiency and major behavioral changes
🔹 Yes—Nuclear makes the transition easier, cheaper, and more reliable.
It provides stable, clean energy without the storage and intermittency issues of renewables. Many climate experts agree that excluding nuclear makes net-zero harder and more expensive .
Final Thought:
Can we fight climate change without nuclear? Yes, but it would be significantly harder and riskier. Keeping nuclear in the mix makes the clean energy transition faster and more reliable.

Taxonomy