Fifty years after the opening of the first nuclear power plant in Obninsk, climate change is increasing the popularity of nuclear power despite concerns about storing toxic waste. Studies show that nuclear power plants produce minimal greenhouse gas emissions, preventing emissions equivalent to those of Japan each year compared to fossil fuel-generated electricity. However, the potential for accidents, such as the one at Chernobyl in 1986, poses challenges for governments considering nuclear power as a solution to combatting global warming. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN Climate Panel, acknowledges that nuclear power is a significant source of electricity globally, but emphasizes that it is not a straightforward choice. "In order to handle waste, appropriate institutions and disposal locations need to be established. I believe that each country should have the sovereignty to make decisions regarding this matter." Despite the lack of permanent repositories for high-level waste, with some being toxic for thousands of years, various countries such as Britain, Finland, and France are investing in new nuclear power stations. In the United States, companies have started filing license applications and there are currently thirty-four plants under construction globally. While some individuals are becoming more accepting of nuclear power due to factors such as climate change and high oil prices, there are still others who maintain their opposition to it. Jan Beranek from Greenpeace believes that the idea of a 'nuclear renaissance' is gaining popularity as countries consider nuclear power as a solution to climate change and energy security. However, he argues that investing in nuclear energy is not the best approach, as funds could be better spent on renewable energies like wind, hydro, solar, or tidal power. Norwegian Environment Minister Erik Solheim also points out the storage challenges associated with nuclear power, advocating instead for technology to capture and bury carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel power plants. Despite differing opinions, the U.N. climate panel led by Pachauri stated in 2007 that nuclear power is an effective strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The panel referenced a study that stated nuclear power currently prevents 1.5 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases annually compared to the global average emissions from electricity generation. In comparison, Japan's greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 were 1.4 billion tonnes. 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 fears of terrorist attacks on nuclear plants or the potential misuse of the 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 due to events like the Chernobyl disaster. The IAEA predicts that around 4,000 people closest to the Chernobyl plant and possibly another 5,000 further away will die from radiation-induced cancers. Toth highlighted that the positive environmental impacts of nuclear power, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, are not as well-known. He suggested that even developing countries could benefit from nuclear power as an environmentally friendly option, citing examples like China using it to combat urban pollution. In India, a study by the IAEA showed that nuclear power could be a more cost-effective option than coal due to high transportation costs over long distances. He observed that large developing countries are also exploring ways to reduce their increasing greenhouse gas emissions in the long run, despite not being bound by the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol until 2012. The UN Climate Panel mentioned that while there are temporary waste storage facilities, there are currently no permanent repositories for high-level waste like spent light-water reactor fuel. Toth stated that Finland and Sweden are the closest to implementing deep geological storage. The Yucca Mountain site in the U.S. 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.