Fifty years after the opening of the first atomic power plant in Obninsk near Moscow, nuclear power is becoming more appealing due to climate change concerns, despite the lack of a final solution for storing toxic waste. Studies show that the world's 439 nuclear power plants release minimal greenhouse gases, preventing emissions equivalent to those of Japan each year compared to fossil fuel-generated electricity. However, the risks of accidents, such as the one at Chernobyl in 1986, present difficult decisions for governments considering nuclear power as a tool against global warming. According to Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN Climate Panel, nuclear power is not a simple choice, as it currently accounts for a significant portion of global electricity generation. In order to handle toxic waste that can remain hazardous for thousands of years, countries need to have proper institutions and disposal sites in place. Each country has the right to make its own decisions regarding this matter. Despite the lack of permanent repositories for high-level waste even decades after the Obninsk reactor opened in 1954, some countries like Britain, Finland, and France are investing in new nuclear power stations. Additionally, companies in the United States are beginning to file licence applications for new plants, with a total of thirty-four plants currently under construction globally. While some are in favor of nuclear power due to factors such as climate change, energy security, and high oil prices, others continue to oppose it. Jan Beranek from Greenpeace believes that the idea of a 'nuclear renaissance' is gaining popularity as countries consider nuclear power as a solution for climate change and energy security. However, he argues that investing in nuclear energy is not the best option, as it takes away resources that could be used for renewable energy sources like wind, hydro, solar, and tidal power. Norwegian Environment Minister Erik Solheim agrees, pointing out the challenges of storing nuclear waste. Instead, Norway advocates for technology to capture and bury carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel power plants. Despite these concerns, the U.N. climate panel led by Pachauri stated in 2007 that nuclear power can effectively help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The panel cited a study that highlighted how nuclear power helps in avoiding 1.5 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases annually, in comparison to the global average emissions from electricity generation. In 2005, Japan's greenhouse gas emissions were around 1.4 billion tonnes. However, other research suggests that nuclear emissions could be higher due to factors like ore processing and decommissioning. There are also concerns about the environmental impact of nuclear power, as well as fears of terrorist attacks on nuclear plants or the potential misuse of technology for making bombs. Ferenc Toth, a senior energy economist at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), mentioned that the immediate association with nuclear power is still linked to incidents like Chernobyl. The IAEA estimates that the radiation leak at Chernobyl could result in the deaths of 4,000 people living closest to the plant and an additional 5,000 people further away. Toth pointed out that the environmental benefits of nuclear power, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, are not widely recognized. He also stated that nuclear power could be a viable option for developing countries, like China, to reduce air pollution in cities like Beijing. In India, a study by the IAEA suggested that nuclear power could be a cost-effective alternative to coal power plants located more than 800 kms away due to high transportation costs. He observed that large developing countries were also exploring ways to reduce their increasing greenhouse gas emissions in the long run, even though they are not currently restricted under the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, which aims to combat climate change until 2012. The UN Climate Panel mentioned that while there are temporary storage facilities for waste, there are no permanent repositories for high-level waste like spent light-water reactor fuel. Finland and Sweden are closest to implementing deep geological storage, according to Toth. The Yucca Mountain site in the United States may take a decade or more to be completed. However, he also mentioned that advancements in technology could potentially allow for the recycling of waste before it needs to be permanently buried.