|
|
CLIMATE CHANGE: Divisions Surface Over Nuclear Option
By Julio Godoy
BERLIN, Apr 19, 2007 (IPS) - Several governments are planning new investment in
nuclear energy, ignoring opposition by
environmental scientists who say that nuclear power is not a solution to
providing carbon-
free energy.
Emission of carbon through burning of fossil fuels is believed by leading
scientists around
the world to lead to global warming, and consequently disruptive climate
change.
But environmental scientists say nuclear energy is not an option because
it is doomed by
insecure technology, diminishing uranium reserves, and greenhouse gas
emissions
associated with the exploitation of such reserves. The greenhouse gases
are principally
carbon dioxide and methane.
"Nuclear power cannot be considered an environmentally viable alternative
in stopping
global warming and climate change," Ottmar Edenhofer, head economist at
the German
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research told IPS.
Edenhofer, who co-authored the fourth assessment by the Intergovernmental
Panel on
Climate Change released in February, believes that eventually "nuclear
power will play a
minor role in the global energy agenda."
As of now, 435 nuclear light water reactors (LWRs) are in operation
worldwide, generating
17 percent of the world's electricity, he said. "If we consider that
electricity generation in
the coming three decades could double, some 400 new LWRs would be needed
just to
maintain constant this nuclear power share."
But only 28 new LWRs are under construction or planned worldwide, he said.
Edenhofer sys nuclear power could become an energy alternative only if
fast breeder
reactors (FBRs) are put to massive use.
The theoretical advantage of FBRs is that they generate fuel by producing
more fissile
material than they consume. This should improve efficiency and avoid the
problem of
disposal of radioactive waste.
But the actual technology has so far prevented commercial use of FBRs.
Practically all FBRs
tested around the world have been shut down, or work under constant alerts
due to
repeated accidents or technical deficiencies.
The French Super Phenix power plant was intended to produce about 20
percent more fuel
than it consumes. But the reactor never functioned commercially, and the
French
government ordered its closure in 1998.
The reactor cost around 12 billion dollars, and never produced a watt of
electricity. The
Japanese FBR Monju had a similar fate. After numerous accidents, it was
closed in 1995.
"There is no consensus in the industrialised world to continue working on
FBR technology,"
Edenhofer said.
Nuclear power can be phased out without losing electricity if enough
investment is made
in renewable energy resources, such as the sun, water, wind, and
geothermal power,
Edenhofer said.
"In 2030, such sources could represent up to 30 percent of the world's
total electricity
output."
At a meeting on climate change and environmental policy organised early
March by the
German newspaper Die Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 14 distinguished
German
environmental experts concluded that "nuclear power reactors are not a
help."
Risky technology and disposal of dangerous radioactive waste are only two
problems
nuclear power brings. What is less known is the greenhouse gas emissions
arising from
nuclear production.
Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, two physicists from the
Netherlands and
the United States say carbon dioxide emissions that rise through
extraction and
processing of uranium, used as combustible material in all nuclear
reactors, also lead to
global warming.
In a paper 'Nuclear Power: the Energy Balance' published in 2005, and
updated since, the
scientists say that exploitation of uranium reserves will lead to
exhaustion of easily
accessible ores, and ultimately cause large carbon dioxide emissions.
"As rich (uranium) ores become exhausted (the) ratio of the emissions
brought about by
the use of nuclear energy and that of a gas-burning plant of the same net
(electrical)
capacity increases," they say. That makes use of nuclear energy
"unfavourable compared
to simply burning the (remaining) fossil fuels directly."
Mines with a rich concentration of uranium and of easy access mean fewer
emissions. But
inaccessible material demands higher energy input for extraction and
preparation.
"In the long term the use of nuclear energy provides us with no solution"
to the problem of
growing energy demands and the constraints imposed by global warming and
climate
change, Storm van Leeuwen and Smith say.
But in France and Finland, in former Soviet bloc countries, and in
emerging developing
countries like India and China, nuclear power continues to be considered
an alternative.
The French government authorised a new nuclear reactor Apr. 12, to be
built in
Flamanville on the Atlantic coast, some 300 km west of Paris. The reactor
is expected to
go into production by 2012. The estimated cost of putting up the plant is
4.3 billion
dollars.
Pierre Gadonneix, chief executive of the French monopoly electricity
provider Electricité de
France said that the reactor "will make a decisive contribution to France
and Europe's
energy independence by providing safe, competitive electricity that does
not generate
greenhouse gas emissions."
But environmentalists say new technology can be faulty. A similar Finnish
reactor on
Olkiluoto peninsula in the south-east of the country, under construction
since 2005, has
been dubbed "the French nuclear disaster" by locals, due to numerous
problems, which
have delayed its completion.
The reactor is being built by the French state-owned nuclear giant AREVA,
which is also to
build the new Flamanville reactor.
Activists from Greenpeace occupied the Olkiluoto site Apr. 4 to protest
against the
dangers associated with the reactor.
"Since the beginning of the construction in mid-2005, problems have
proliferated, leading
to a delay of one and a half years, in as much time of construction work,"
Greenpeace
France said in a statement.
Frédéric Marillier, coordinator on nuclear matters at Greenpeace France,
and who took part
in the demonstration in Olkiluoto, told IPS that "in 2006 alone, at least
700 violations of
quality and safety were documented at the Olkiluoto reactor. This project
gives us French
people a foretaste of what waits for us with the construction at
Flamanville." (END)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
What is RSS?
