Fifty years after the opening of the first atomic power plant in Obninsk near Moscow, nuclear power is gaining more environmental support due to its low greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the lack of permanent storage for highly toxic waste, nuclear power plants worldwide are helping to reduce emissions equivalent to that of Japan's yearly output. However, the risk of accidents, like the one at Chernobyl in 1986, poses a dilemma for governments considering nuclear power as a solution to combat climate change. According to Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN Climate Panel, nuclear power accounts for a significant portion of global electricity generation and cannot be overlooked as an option. In order to handle toxic waste that will remain hazardous for thousands of years, countries must have appropriate institutions and disposal sites in place. Each nation has the right to make its own decisions regarding nuclear waste management. Despite the lack of permanent repositories for high-level waste, several countries, including Britain, Finland, and France, are investing in new nuclear power stations. Additionally, companies in the United States are beginning to seek licenses for new plants, with 34 currently under construction globally. While some are embracing nuclear power due to factors such as climate change and fluctuating oil prices, others remain opposed. Jan Beranek of Greenpeace believes that there is a lot of excitement surrounding the idea of a 'nuclear renaissance', with countries considering nuclear power as a solution to climate change and energy security. However, Beranek argues that nuclear energy is not the way forward, as it is diverting investment away from renewable energy sources like wind, hydro, solar, and tidal power. Norwegian Environment Minister Erik Solheim also points out the challenges of nuclear power, highlighting the storage issues. Despite these concerns, the U.N. climate panel chaired by Pachauri acknowledged in 2007 that nuclear power could be an effective option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The panel referenced a study which stated that nuclear power currently prevents 1.5 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases from being emitted annually in comparison to the global average for electricity generation. In contrast, Japan's greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 totaled 1.4 billion tonnes. Other research suggests that nuclear emissions may be higher due to factors like ore processing and decommissioning. Furthermore, there are concerns about the environmental impact of nuclear power, as well as worries about potential terrorist attacks on nuclear plants and the misuse of technology for weapons. Ferenc Toth, a senior energy economist at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), noted that the immediate association with nuclear power is often negative, such as the Chernobyl disaster. The IAEA predicts that the leak at Chernobyl could result in the deaths of around 4,000 people due to radiation-induced cancers among those who live closest to the plant, with another 5,000 deaths possible among those further away. Toth pointed out that the environmental advantages of nuclear power, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, are not as well-known. He also mentioned that nuclear power could be a viable environmental option for developing countries, citing how it could help countries like China reduce smog in cities like Beijing. Additionally, an IAEA study suggested that nuclear power could be a competitive alternative to coal in India, especially in areas located more than 800 kms away from coal mines due to the high costs of transportation. He observed that large developing countries were also exploring ways to reduce their increasing greenhouse gas emissions in the long run, despite not being subject to limitations under the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol until 2012. The UN Climate Panel stated that while there are temporary storage facilities for waste, there are currently no permanent repositories for high-level waste like spent light-water reactor fuel. Finland and Sweden are closest to implementing deep geological storage, with the Yucca Mountain site in the U.S. possibly taking 10 to 15 years. However, advancements in technology could potentially allow for recycling of the waste before permanent disposal is necessary.