|
2005 saw the revival of Nuclear Power. This was partly due to the success of environmentalists and scientists in persuading decision makers about the seriousness of Climate Change. But it’s also due to expediency. To politicians who have failed to deal with the reality of climate change in the past, nuclear power appears like a "get out of jail free" card.
2006, however, will see the revival of the Anti Nuclear Campaign. For the simple reason that any decision to go for a new Nuclear Power programme will actually prevent us from stopping climate change.
We ask the following 10 Questions of Nuclear Power (and find that Nuclear Power is never the Answer).
Q1: Is Nuclear Power carbon free?
A: No.
To generate electricity from uranium requires a complex chain of industrial processes from mining to decommissioning.
A complete life-cycle analysis shows that generating electricity from nuclear power emits between 20% and 40% of the carbon dioxide of a gas-fired power station (see "Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance" by Jan-Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith). If the CFCs and other more powerful greenhouse gases from power stations are also taken into account the percentage is even higher.
Q2: Is Nuclear Power a short-term solution to our energy problems?
A: No.
Many politicians are arguing that we only need a single tranche of nuclear power stations to deal with the immediate energy gap. However, it is unlikely that any nuclear power stations will be built and operating within the next 20 years and it will probably be about 30 years before the nuclear power stations have generated sufficient energy to pay back the initial energy investment.
However the problem with climate change is that we need to make savings of between 60% and 80% over the next 20 to 30 years. Nuclear Power can contribute nothing within this timescale.
Q3: Is Nuclear Power a long-term solution to our energy problems?
A: No.
There is a serious problem with the long-term future of nuclear power. We are running out of uranium reserves. This problem is sometimes called "Peak Uranium". At present, some 440 nuclear reactors are operating worldwide, with a combined capacity of some 363 GW. These reactors require about 67,000 tonnes of natural uranium per year. The present reserves and resources are about 3.5 million tonnes. This is enough to last some 50 years at the current consumption rate.
However, an expansion of nuclear power across the world will reduce this figure dramatically. It is likely that there will not be enough uranium to fuel nuclear power stations for their full 25 year lifespan, if there is significant expansion of nuclear power.
So Nuclear Power is neither a short-term solution nor a long-term solution.
Q4: Is Nuclear Power safe?
A: No.
Nuclear proponents will argue that, apart from Chernobyl in 1986, there has been no serious nuclear accident across the world. But this ignores the fact that we have been very lucky up to now. We cannot guarantee that we will be so lucky in the future.
Apart from serious accidents like Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl, there have been recent near misses at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Long Island (1997), Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio (2002), Sellafield reprocessing plant in Cumbria (April 2005) and at the Forsmark nuclear power plant in Sweden (June 2005). Indeed, since the Chernobyl disaster, there have been at least 22 major accidents at nuclear power stations of which 15 involved radiological release. Of these, 2 came close to meltdown.
Q5: Is Nuclear Power economic?
A: No.
In the early 1990s, the Conservative government privatised electricity supply. However, the one thing that investors would not touch was the nuclear power industry. It was too huge a risk to contemplate. So the nuclear industry has stayed in Government hands. It seems that the only people that will invest in Nuclear Power is the unwitting British tax payers.
Michael Meacher - the former Environment Secretary - has estimated that the likely cost of a new nuclear programme could be in the order of £70 billion or £80 billion.
Q6: Is there a solution to Nuclear Waste?
A: No.
For the past 50 years the nuclear industry has been searching for a long-term solution, and so far it has been unsuccessful. It is safe to assume therefore that a solution is unlikely to be found, other than the fact that the huge volumes of low, medium and high level radioactive waste will need to be constantly monitored and kept secure from terrorism for at least another 1000 years, maybe longer.
Q7: Is it possible to stop weapons proliferation?
A: No.
The issue of nuclear proliferation is often forgotten, yet it is perhaps the most serious issue for the future of mankind. The link between civil nuclear power programs and the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons is well established. Indeed our current government is concerned about Iran’s nuclear power programme, because it believes that Iran is using this to develop nuclear weapons.
Q8: Is there a safe level of radiation?
A: No.
The presence of leukaemia hot-spots around nuclear installations is well known although the nuclear industry has tried to obfuscate the issue. In 2005, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reported on the dangers of low-energy, low-dose ionizing radiation concluded that there appears to be no safe radiation exposure level. The NAS report entitled "The Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation Report VII - Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" found that the risk of getting cancer from radiation released into the environment by US nuclear reactors is approximately 35 per cent higher than current US Government risk estimates.
Q9: Will Nuclear Power provide security of energy supply?
A: No.
Proponents of Nuclear Power say it will give us security of supply. Why? There are NO uranium mines in the UK. The major world sources for uranium in the future will be Kazakhstan and Namibia - hardly countries that you could rely on in a crisis.
Q10: Are there ANY arguments in favour of Nuclear Power?
A: No.
I have yet to see any decent arguments in favour of nuclear power. Bernard Ingham, the Secretary of "Supporters Of Nuclear Energy", regularly gives talks entitled "The Case for Nuclear Energy". I have read the transcript; it merely offers bland criticism of renewables, energy conservation and environmentalists. The reality is that there is no intrinsic case for nuclear energy.
So we have asked 10 Questions of Nuclear Power and each answer has been No.
Nuclear Power is still a nebulous answer waiting for a question.
So its still, "Nuclear Power - No Thanks".
A shortened version of this article appeared in Exeter's campaigning "Flying Post" in Feb 2006.
|
