Chain reaction: The nuclear debate is among the most pressing of our times.

Giles Crosse lines up the arguments.

Following the precautionary principle, avoiding the construction of more nuclear power stations worldwide is a sensible idea.

But this doesn’t hide the fact the planet is facing an energy crisis. While plenty of alternative and renewable sources of power exist, whether they can be adopted in sufficient time, or provide the true volumes required seems uncertain.

Unprecedented growth in places like India or China is driving the global power crisis. Combine this with visible effects of climate change, created by CO2, and the dilemma looks challenging.

The World Information Service on Energy (WISE) is an information and networking centre for citizens and environmental organisations concerned about nuclear energy, radioactive waste, radiation, and related issues.

WISE argues that, ‘If each of the United States used electricity as productively as the top ten states actually did in 2005 (adjusted for each state’s economic mix and climate), 62 per cent of U.S. coal fired electricity would become unnecessary.’

WISE says: ‘These economic arguments are the core of any rational nuclear debate, because if nuclear power isn’t necessary, competitive, and effective at climate protection, then one needn’t debate its other attributes.’

Time bomb?

Plainly, if it can be proven that the nuclear option isn’t truly necessary, there can be little argument for taking the risks involved in its deployment. But according to the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), these arguments aren’t being listened to.

‘President Obama’s announcement yesterday of a ‘conditional’ $8.3 billion loan ‘guarantee’ to the Southern Company for construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia obscured an important fact about the loan guarantee program: taxpayers are not just providing a guarantee, they also will be providing the actual loans,’ reveals NIRS in a 17 February 2010 bulletin.

So not only is the US pushing ahead, it’s also using taxpayers’ money to do so. “Giant nuclear utilities will be raiding the federal treasury for money to build reactors, and they are expecting the taxpayers to bail them out if the project goes bad,” explains Michael Mariotte, Executive Director of NIRS.

There may be other issues relating to reliability. ‘Of all 132 U.S. nuclear plants built, just over half of the 253 originally ordered – 21 per cent, were permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems.’ claims WISE.

‘In 2008, five German states got 30 to 40 per cent of their annual electricity from windpower, over 100 per cent at windy times, and so do parts of Spain and Denmark, without reliability problems.’ WISE continues. ‘Denmark is 20 per cent wind powered today and aims for 50 to 60 per cent (the rest to come from low or no carbon cogeneration).’

Most intriguingly, WISE also reckons ‘A gram of silicon in amorphous solar cells, produces more lifetime electricity than a gram of uranium does in a light water reactor.’

Tracing the truth

The claims and counter claims are confusing. Nuclear advocates cite poor reliability as a key driver against renewables like wind or solar, but if WISE figures are right, it’s nuclear itself that’s lacking.

Equally, streamlining existing supplies and cutting energy usage could be the safer path to take. Ben Ayliffe, a Senior Nuclear Campaigner for Greenpeace, is someone who may know:

“Europe’s leading energy consultants, Poyry, claim that if the UK hits the renewables targets we’ve already signed up to, then we will have enough electricity without any new coal or nuclear plants,” he says. “The question really is whether we can afford to throw billions of pounds and years of effort chasing yet more nuclear pipe dreams.”

“Nuclear power is inadequate, unnecessary and dangerous. Nuclear is inadequate because it offers too little, too late. At best it will deliver only a 4 per cent emissions reduction, sometime after 2020. Our binding target is a 34 per cent cut, by 2020.”

“Nuclear is presented as a key pillar of energy strategy. It’s not. It’s shrapnel. Nuclear is unnecessary because we can reduce emissions and keep the lights using better technologies instead.”

“In the next decade meeting our existing renewables and efficiency targets would safely close the ‘energy gap’ and cut emissions, while leaving plenty of potential to expand renewables even further later.”

“Nuclear is dangerous because the disposal of radioactive waste remains unsolved and because it increases the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. There is another danger: the danger of distraction.”

“Renewables and energy efficiency are booming in other countries, it could be the cornerstone of a green economic recovery, quickly secure power and be a springboard for greater emission reductions in future.”

“But despite the UK ’s abundant wind, waves and engineering skill, lack of government focus and priority means Britain’s renewables industry remains tiny. Some see nuclear as an important ‘tool in the box’. We think it’s a spanner in the works.”

Solving the crisis

Ayliffe then seems largely convinced there’s no need for nuclear, nor is its safety record justifiable. So what else is going to do the job, and do the figures match up?

“In the long term, we expect solar power to become dominant, in the short to medium term, wind power is particularly well suited to the UK, as are tidal and wave power, although they are less developed technologies.”

“We could also make better use of the fossil fuels we burn by switching to CHP generators in a decentralised grid, which could more than double the energy we get from them. The fastest, cheapest, safest and easiest way to reduce carbon emissions is energy efficiency measures.”

What are the true timescales before gas and coal shortages become critical? “It’s possible that we may have already passed peak gas, we won’t know for sure when that occurs until a few years afterwards.”

“If it hasn’t happened already, it’s likely to happen within a few years, or a decade or two at the outside. Peak coal, on the other hand, could be centuries away. This is a big problem, as coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels, and you can, at an enormous carbon cost, make oil and gas out of it.”

“Peak oil, gas and coal are not the points where these fuels run out, but the point when supply ceases to grow, whilst demand continues to do so, leading to continuous price increases. It’s not really possible to predict when these fuels will actually run out, as the price increases will change consumption patterns in unpredictable ways.”

Something just as unpredictable is why innovative ideas for global solutions, like solar panels in Africa, or Norwegian osmosis plants remain widely ignored by today’s governments?

“These ideas aren’t necessarily ignored, sometimes an idea which will take many years to implement gets a lot of press when it is first suggested. The fact that it doesn’t appear straight away may be because there was a flaw in the idea which hadn’t been spotted, or may just be because it takes many years to implement.”

“However, there’s also the problem of established industries, such as nuclear and fossil fuels, having more influence over government policy than emerging industries.”

Perhaps the most widely feared question is whether there’s a way to make nuclear safe?

“Not really safe, no. Not building any more reactors would help, but we don’t have a safe method for long term storage of the waste we already have. We’ve created a hazard which will remain dangerous for over a million years. The best we can do is to stop making it worse.” 

Given this, what is the international future likely to look like? “If we were going to rely on nuclear power to solve climate change, we’d need many nuclear power stations in every country on earth.”

“This, of course, would require an unimaginable increase in the resources given over to the industry, and would result in several Chernobyls a year until nuclear weapons technology, which would spread with civil nuclear technology, finished us off.”

“So, obviously we are not going to do that. What we might do is build a few more reactors in wealthy nations, until the true financial costs, or another large scale accident, put a stop to it. If that prevents us from developing the real solutions to climate change, then in the long term it could be equally as devastating”

Stopping the rot

Yet more damaging nuclear news seems to appear almost daily. The Bellona Foundation is an international environmental NGO based in Norway, employing nuclear physicists among its staff.

In February 21, 2010 data, Bellona suggests ‘Legislators in Russia’s Far Northern Murmansk Region, on the Kola Peninsula, have signalled a green light to the interment of liquid radioactive waste in their region.’

Shockingly, Bellona says ‘The country still has no law governing the management of radioactive waste, but the new law, environmentalists said, will allow injecting liquid radioactive waste underground, which runs contrary to other Russian legislation already in force, namely, the Law on Protection of the Environment and the Water Code.’

This is one of the worst parts of the nuclear problem. Nuclear waste, without strictly controlled legislative procedures, is presently transported worldwide. Nation States can pass off their waste to whoever they choose.

US based Beyond Nuclear has just reported on a January 21, 2010 row kicking off in France:

EDF, the electricity group that runs 58 reactors in France, claims that Areva has ceased transportation of irradiated fuels at EDF reactor sites to the Areva reprocessing plant on the Normandy coast.’

EDF also claims that Areva has blocked the import of uranium, needed to fuel the country’s nuclear power plants. The two companies are apparently at loggerheads over a new one billion dollar Areva contract with EDF to process irradiated fuel.’

‘Areva has denied that it has stopped uranium supplies but admits blocking transportation and treatment of irradiated fuel.’

There’s really no excuse when money matters mean nuclear waste, potentially threatening to global life, is held up for transportation. Just where these irradiated fuels are sat, awaiting a resolution, is another interesting question.

Beyond Nuclear even reckons: ‘Areva’s La Hague reprocessing plant has annually discharged 100,000,000 gallons of radioactive liquid wastes into the English Channel via an underwater pipeline.’

‘The sediments at the foot of this pipe would be considered intermediate level radioactive waste under British laws and regulations, requiring deep geologic disposal. Despite this, they are allowed to remain on the seafloor, eroding and carried away by the ocean’s currents.’

What are your views?  Not sure? Read the resources below for more information. Add your comment below. We welcome your thoughts and proposals. Not a Planetary Citizen? Sign up to Our Future Planet today!

Resources:

Top Ten Talking Points on the Environmental Devastation Caused by Reprocessing High‐Level Radioactive Waste
Nuclear Monitor: Don’t Nuke the Climate!
Nuclear Monitor: RADIOACTIVE WRECK -The Unfolding Disasters Of U.S. Irradiated Nuclear Fuel Policie
EREC & Greenpeace Report -[r]evolution: A SUSTAINABLE USA ENERGY OUTLOOK
"LOW-LEVEL" RADIOACTIVE WASTE IS NOT LOW RISK
Nuclearconsult.com - Nuclear Consultation Public Trust in Government
WWEA: Wind turbines generate more than 1 % of the global electricity
JUST SAY NO to the radioactive waste reprocessing relapse
United States Commercial “Low-Level” Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites Fact Sheet

Video’s:

Comments (1)