Fifty years after the opening of the first atomic power plant in Obninsk near Moscow, nuclear power is gaining appeal as a solution to climate change despite the challenge of storing toxic waste. Studies show that the 439 nuclear power plants worldwide emit minimal greenhouse gases, preventing emissions equivalent to those of Japan each year compared to fossil fuel-generated electricity. However, the risks of accidents, like the one at Chernobyl in 1986, pose difficult decisions for governments considering nuclear power as a tool against global warming. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN Climate Panel, acknowledges that nuclear power is not a simple choice, as it accounts for a significant portion of global electricity generation. "But having the necessary infrastructure and facilities for waste disposal is crucial, and I believe that each country should have the autonomy to make decisions on this matter." Despite the fact that some radioactive waste will remain toxic for thousands of years and there are still no permanent storage solutions for high-level waste even decades after the Obninsk reactor opened in 1954, some countries like Britain are investing in new nuclear power stations. Additionally, Finland and France are constructing new plants, and companies in the United States are starting to apply for licenses. Currently, there are 34 nuclear plants being built around the world. While there is increasing support for nuclear power due to factors such as climate change, energy security, and high oil prices, there are still many who remain opposed 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 way forward, as it takes away resources that could be used for renewable energies like wind, hydro, solar, or tidal power. Norwegian Environment Minister Erik Solheim, whose country does not have nuclear power, also highlights the storage challenges associated with nuclear energy. Despite these concerns, the U.N. climate panel led by Pachauri stated in 2007 that nuclear power could be an effective option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The panel referenced a study stating that nuclear power currently prevents 1.5 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases annually in comparison to the global average emissions from electricity generation. In contrast, Japan emitted 1.4 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2005. Some studies suggest 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 terrorist attacks on nuclear plants or the potential misuse of the technology for creating weapons. Ferenc Toth, a senior energy economist at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), noted that public perception of nuclear power is often influenced by memories of events like the Chernobyl disaster. The IAEA predicts that the leak at Chernobyl could lead to the deaths of 4,000 people near the plant and possibly 5,000 more further away due to radiation-induced cancers. Toth emphasized that the environmental advantages of nuclear power, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, are not as widely recognized. He also suggested that nuclear power could be a viable environmental option for developing countries, including China and India, where it could help decrease pollution and compete with coal due to high transport 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 by the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, which is designed to address climate change until 2012. The UN Climate Panel stated that while there are temporary waste storage facilities, there are no permanent repositories yet for high-level waste like spent light-water reactor fuel. According to Toth, Finland and Sweden are the closest to implementing deep geological storage. The Yucca Mountain storage site in the U.S. could take 10 to 15 years to develop. However, he mentioned that future technologies might allow for recycling of the waste before it needs to be permanently buried.