Fifty years after the opening of the first atomic power plant in Obninsk near Moscow, nuclear power is becoming more appealing environmentally due to climate change, despite the lack of final storage for highly toxic waste. Studies show that the world's 439 nuclear power plants emit very few greenhouse gases, preventing emissions equivalent to those of Japan each year compared to fossil fuels. However, the risks of accidents, like the one at Chernobyl in 1986, create difficult decisions for governments considering nuclear power as a solution to combat global warming. According to Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN Climate Panel, nuclear power is not a simple choice, as it accounts for a significant percentage of the world's electricity generation. In order to handle toxic waste that will remain hazardous for thousands of years, countries need to have proper institutions and disposal facilities in place. This decision is ultimately up to each individual country. 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 have started applying for licenses to build new plants. The global nuclear industry is expanding, with thirty-four plants currently under construction. While some people are becoming more accepting of nuclear power due to factors such as climate change and energy security, others remain opposed to it. Jan Beranek of the Greenpeace environmental group expressed skepticism about the idea of a 'nuclear renaissance', arguing that nuclear energy is not a viable solution and instead, resources should be invested in renewable energies. Norwegian Environment Minister Erik Solheim also raised concerns about the storage issues associated with nuclear power, advocating for technology to bury carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel power plants. Despite these reservations, the U.N. climate panel in 2007 stated that nuclear power could be an effective option for mitigating 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 emissions. This is similar to Japan's greenhouse gas emissions in 2005, which were 1.4 billion tonnes. However, other research suggests that nuclear emissions may be higher due to factors like ore processing and decommissioning. Additionally, 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, evoking memories of disasters like Chernobyl. The IAEA predicts that the leak at Chernobyl could result in the deaths of 4,000 people near the plant and 5,000 further away due to radiation-induced cancers. Toth mentioned that the environmental advantages of nuclear power, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, are not as well-known. He also stated that nuclear power could be a viable environmental option for developing countries, citing China as an example where it could help reduce smog in cities like Beijing. Additionally, an IAEA study suggested that nuclear power could be a competitive alternative to coal mines over long distances in India 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, despite not having any restrictions under the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol until 2012. The UN Climate Panel stated that while there are temporary waste storage sites, there are currently no permanent repositories for high-level waste like spent light-water reactor fuel. Toth mentioned that Finland and Sweden are the closest to implementing deep geological storage. The Yucca Mountain site in the United States could take up to 10 to 15 years. However, he suggested that future technologies might allow for recycling of the waste before it needs to be permanently buried.