New nuclear plants not ‘democratic’, at least for the time being

In the aftermath of Fukushima nuclear disaster, the word ‘nuclear’ has become so sensitive that it touches the nerves of ordinary people. This week, groups of battling protesters clashed with police in France and Germany over a Germany-boundtrainload of nuclear waste. In a poll released by GlobeScan today, there is little public appetite across the world for building new nuclear reactors. Over 70% of respondents believe their country “could almost entirely replace coal and nuclear energy within 20 years by becoming highly energy-efficient and focusing on generating energy from the Sun and wind”. Running counter to public opinion and opposed to German and Swiss governments, the UK has embarked on one of the most ambitious nuclear programmes in Europe, with plans for up to 12 new reactors by 2025. Personally, I do not recommend any expansion of nuclear power until scientists celebrate the birth of nuclear fusion technique which pro-nuclear countries are desperate for. The government’s decision to give a go-ahead to a number of nuclear projects across Britain may be based more on political than environmental considerations.

Some say nuclear power is both Angel and Satan at the same time.  James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia hypothesis, states that “Nuclear power is the only green solution. When, in the 18^th century, only one billion people lived on earth, their impact was small enough for it not to matter what energy source they used. But with six billion, and growing, few options remain; we cannot continue drawing energy from fossil fuels and there is no chance that the renewables, wind, tide, and water power, can provide enough energy and in time. Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendants and for civilisation.” (Jowitt, 2006) Considering the security of natural gas supply in the future, the UK Government committed to retaining the nuclear option for the UK in the Energy White Paper published in 2007.  Up to 30 new nuclear power plants on the sites of existing power plants with the first predicated for 2017.  Nevertheless, the nuclear incidents in Three Mile Island (USA), Chernobyl (Ukraine) in recent history and Fukushima (Japan) this year may completely disprove these views.

Safety – the major concern about nuclear

Nuclear power generation produces enormous amount of nuclear radioactive waste, which is a heavy burden for the natural environment.  Unlike any other human product, nuclear waste will survive for periods of ‘geological scale’.  For instance, the half-life of plutonium-239 is 24,400 years.  For every kilogram of plutonium created today, there will still be 500g left in 24,400 years, 250g in 48,800 years and 125g in 97,600 years and so on.  The extreme toxicity of such a material casts doubts about our rights to saddle our descendants with it, especially when we have not devised practical means of nuclear waste disposal.  It appears that we have entered into a Faustian bargain whereby we are given an unlimited energy source in return for a pledge of eternal vigilance. (Edsall, 1974) (Porteous, 2008)

  

Assessing the extensive nuclear fission technology never goes away from ‘ethics’ and it cannot simply be weighted by cost-benefit analysis.  Some people tend to over-emphasize the short-term benefits and undervalue the long-term problems.  In assessing the risk associated with fissile technology, in which ‘no acts of God can be permitted’, we cannot appeal to experience, because the magnitude of the problems confronting us is unique in human history. (Porteous, 2008) This has been demonstrated by Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island pressurised water reactor incident as well as the recent explosions in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, which was attacked by a devastating earthquake in March 2011.  The radiation released from the plant contaminates everything from soil, water, air to even the whole ecosystem and agricultural/food industries.  The harm to the environment and public health is almost unrecoverable.  Scientists have advised that areas affected by nuclear radiation cannot be occupied by humans for up to 300 years after the incident.

Long-term secure storage of the very small fraction of highly radioactive wastes, as adopted in Finland in very stable geological strata, may be a potential solution to this one outstanding problem. At the same time, the nuclear industry, especially the UK’s, points with ample justification to the very strict controls and high levels of safety within the industry.  However, such statements avoid rather than answer the central question of whether the problems of nuclear plant safety and of containment and disposal are inherently unsolvable.  The table below introduces the major nuclear incidents, including the latest case of Fukushima nuclear crisis, as an illustration of the unendurable risks of nuclear power. The world’s worst nuclear incidents speak for themselves on the significant risks of using nuclear power. 

Rebutting nuclear proponents

The debate on nuclear energy has been much heated since the Fukushima nuclear incident.  George Monbiot, a green campaigner, published an article in Guardian in March this year arguing that nuclear power must continue to be an option on the conditions that it can be shown to be low-carbon, disconnected from the military and there are solutions for the problem of waste.  His argument points to the fake green credentials for the nuclear industry which has already left.  Instead, Monbiot was using the genuine fear of climate change to reposition the industry.

Nuclear is not a green alternative and it cannot be made safe with the current technology.  Although nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases inside a reactor, almost every other part of the complex nuclear cycle does.  The mining and transport of uranium, processing of nuclear fuel, the construction of reactors and the storage nuclear waste all emit greenhouse gases in a cradle-to-grave analysis.  In 2008, the International Energy Agency reported that if nuclear capacity quadrupled globally by 2050, it would still only account for 10% of energy production.  According to Greenpeace, this would reduce carbon emissions by less than 4% only, which is far from needed to curb climate change.  Also, the enormous quantities of nuclear waste produced tarnish the ‘clean’ image of nuclear.  There is currently no technique to process the toxic waste.  Even the ‘reprocessing’ of nuclear fuel creates more waste.

With regard to costing, nuclear electricity is competitive in the market just because of substantial government subsidies.  In 2005, the US Government granted US$13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to the nuclear industry.  In the UK, the Government have offered the industry preferential tax breaks, guaranteeing to help cover the cost of the clean-up of old power stations. They also capped the price of processing waste.  These financial measures actually shift the cost of nuclear power worth millions of pounds from the industry onto the public.

A genuine green alternative is to pump this money into a huge expansion of renewable energy resources – tidal, offshore wind, geothermal and hydropower in particular. On demand-side management, the government should reduce energy demand through developing smart grids and mandating insulation schemes.  For example, banning the waste of electricity keeping advertising hoardings illuminated all night is a feasible option.  By so doing, carbon emissions will be reduced, energy use cut and millions of jobs created. (Empson, 2011)

Opportunities for renewables

Anti-nuclear protests were seen in Europe where people live with as many as 143 nuclear power plants.  In the past two months, Switzerland and Germany announced that all the nuclear power plants in their territories will be shut down by 2034 the latest and financial resources channelled to develop renewable energy and technology.  It means that by 2022 there will be a big market for renewables to fill the energy gap of 20% that is currently shared by nuclear power in Germany.  After Fukushima incident, Italy, Thailand, China and Japan itself have suspended their nuclear development programmes.   So, the contribution of Fukushima nuclear accident is opening opportunities needed for renewables.  As the world is re-examining nuclear power, according to the sustainability research department of CLSA, it is possible that the use of renewable energy can grow by 30-50%.  Although it is impossible for all nuclear plants to switch to renewables over night, if 30% of nuclear plants are to change, solar and wind power generated will reach 16 trillion GW (gigawatts) from 2012 to 2015.  The latest forecast in BP 2030 Energy Outlook shows that the development pace of renewables will exceed that of oil in 20 years’ time.  All the signs at the moment are pointing to the massive potential opportunities for renewables.

References:

Edsall, J. T. (1974). Hazards of Nuclear Fission Power and the Choice of Alternatives. Environmental Conservation , 1 (1), 32.

Empson, M. (2011, March 26). Nuclear power isn't green and it won’t save the planet. Retrieved July 5, 2011, from Socialist Workers Online: http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=24288

Porteous, A. (2008). Dictionary of Environmental Science and Technology. West Sussex: Wiley.

Read the full book chapter "Looking to renewable energy" in M. Kennet, The Handbook of Green Economics: A Practitioner's guide. Reading: Green Economics Institute.

Email me at winstonkm.mark@googlemail.com