By Zoltán Dujisin
BUDAPEST, Apr 20 2007 (IPS)

Representatives of the nuclear industry met this week to discuss strategies to meet challenges posed by what they assume will be “the nuclear century.”

The World Nuclear Fuel Cycle 2007 conference, organised by the Nuclear Energy Institute and the World Nuclear Association, took place in Budapest in Hungary Apr 17-19.

Participants agreed that in view of the growing need to curb the emission of greenhouse gases, believed to be the main force behind global climatic warming, nuclear energy presents the most readily available and realistic response to energy needs.

But even though the last decade has seen the construction and planning of new nuclear plants accelerate worldwide, there was acknowledgment that the “renaissance” of nuclear energy will require additional time and effort.

“This industry has already lost 25 years, because of Chernobyl and because the collapse of the Soviet Union affected fuel supply,” Gerard Pauluis, manager at Synatom, the Belgian Society for Nuclear Fuel, told the conference.

Speakers at the conference agreed that the memory of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 had done much to damage the nuclear industry’s reputation, but were optimistic about overcoming its legacy.

“We are still short of manpower and of infrastructure, and more reactors need to be built,” Pauluis added. “The renaissance will take longer than expected. This will definitely be the nuclear century, but after we are all gone.”

Maurice Lenders, executive director at Urenco, a supplier of enriched uranium, added that “only in Finland we can see signs of a renaissance,” where environmental impact assessments are under way for building new nuclear installations.

Speakers at the conference noted that the industry faced difficulties as a result of the supply in nuclear fuel consistently lagging behind demand, pushing up prices for uranium.

“We are not cooperating, and though there are also external factors, sometimes we are our own enemy,” Germán Garcia Calderón, finance and procurement director at Enusa, a nuclear fuel supplier, told the audience. “We have to regulate ourselves because our market is still not mature.”

But in a conference where the focus was clearly on the commercial side of the nuclear industry, environmental and security concerns were left in the background.

Among environment groups there are divisions on nuclear energy, with some favouring it as a clean alternative, and others pointing to the challenge posed by nuclear waste, bound to grow hand in hand with the industry’s expansion.

The reprocessing of nuclear waste, making it reusable, is one of the available options, but is opposed by some as it produces high rate plutonium which could be stolen and used for nuclear weapons. Reprocessing is accepted in France but not allowed in the United States due to fears of proliferation.

Some are also concerned over health effects on communities living around nuclear plants. But research has not yet confirmed an increase in the rates of cancer mortality in the vicinity of nuclear power stations, except in locations where accidents have taken place.

Yet even though admittedly small, the occurrence of an accident can have very serious consequences for human health, and many environmentalists are concerned about the risks, in spite of assurances by the industry that security is being taken seriously.

“This meeting was more focused on producers and buyers, but obviously security is above everything,” Paco Tarin, manager at Enusa, told IPS. “Future nuclear reactors will be safer, cheaper, and easier to operate.”

Like other representatives of the industry, Tarin does not see any reliable alternatives to nuclear energy.

“Nuclear energy is the only clean, reliable and increasingly cheap source. Prices for oil and coal are going up. There is really no other option.”

“Nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases, which is why an increasing number of people are supporting it as a solution,” Tarin said. “Not only public opinion, but many environmentalists are seeing nuclear power as the solution.”

Tarin said he was “a big supporter of solar and wind energy, but when the wind doesn’t blow, or the sun doesn’t shine, you don’t have energy, it’s not reliable. You can install a large capacity, invest large amounts of money, but in some cases you will get very little in exchange,” he told IPS.

He noted, however, that all forms of energy are needed, “especially if we are going to help the development of poorer countries.”

“Unfortunately clean energies are the most expensive ones, so if we want to reduce greenhouse emissions and give electric energy to all developing countries, we will need all energies, but especially nuclear energy.”

Excerpt: