Stichting Laka

Publicatie Laka-bibliotheek:
A Backdoor Comeback: Nuclear energy as a solution for climate change?

Auteur	P.Ward, WISE Amsterdam, NIRS
	6-01-2-15-39.pdf
Datum	februari 2005
Classificatie	6.01.2.15/39 (KE & BROEIKAS - ALGEMEEN KLIMAAT & CO2 REDUCTIE)
Voorkant

Summary

Climate change is widely acknowledged as being one of the most pressing issues for the global
community. Climate change affects many aspects of the environment and society, including human
health, ecosystems, agriculture and water supplies, local and global economies, sea levels and
extreme weather events. Many in the nuclear industry have seen climate change as a 'lever' by
which to revitalise the fortunes of nuclear power.

However, in various stages of the nuclear process huge amounts of energy are needed, much more
than for less complex forms of electricity production. Most of this energy comes in the form of
fossil fuels, and therefore nuclear power indirectly emits a relatively high amount of greenhouse
gases. The emissions from the nuclear industry are strongly dependent on the percentage of
uranium in the ores used to fuel the nuclear process, which is expected to decrease dramatic.
Recent study estimates that nuclear power production causes the emission of just 3 times fewer
greenhouse gases than modern natural gas power stations.

To reduce the emissions of the public energy sector according to the targets of the Kyoto Protocol,
72 new medium sized nuclear plants would be required in the EU-15. These would have to be built
before the end of the first commitment period 2008-2012. Leaving aside the huge costs this would
involve, it is unlikely that it is technically feasible to build so many new plants in such a short time,
given that only 15 new reactors have been built in the last 20 years.

If we would decide to replace all electricity generated by burning fossil fuel with electricity from
nuclear power today, there would be enough economically viable uranium to fuel the reactors for
between 3 and 4 years. With the use of fast breeder reactors a closed cycle could be reached that
would end the dependency on limited uranium resources. But despite huge investments and
research over the last decades, breeder reactors have been a technological and economic failure.

Switching the entire world's electricity production to nuclear would still not solve the problem.
This is because the production of electricity is only one of many human activities that release
greenhouse gases. Others include transport and heating, agriculture, the production of cement and
deforestation. The CO2 released worldwide through electricity production accounts for 9% of total
annual human greenhouse gas emissions.

Numerous studies have shown that the single most effective way to reduce emissions is to reduce
energy demand. Studies of future energy scenarios show no evident correlation between CO2
emissions and nuclear power. In fact the scenario with the lowest emissions was not the one with
the greatest use of nuclear power, but the one in which the growth in demand was minimised.

There are also a lot of alternative energy sources. The costs of renewable sources are falling
rapidly: in the last 10 years the cost per kWh of electricity from wind turbines fell by 50%, and that
from photovoltaic cells fell by 30%. The costs of nuclear power are rising, despite the fact that
nuclear power has been hugely subsidised over the last half century. Some of the costs of nuclear
energy have been excluded from the price. Examples include costs of decommissioning and
liability costs.

In the medium term it is possible to supply all of the world's energy needs through renewable
sources based on current technology. Renewable energy sources have multiple benefits. They are
free from greenhouse gas emissions and can also increase diversity in the energy market. They can
provide long-term sustainability of our energy supply and can be used in rural areas of less
developed countries that are not connected to gas and electricity networks.

There are many serious problems associated with nuclear power that have existed since its
introduction and are still not resolved. For the storage of high radioactive nuclear waste there are
still no final repositories in operation. In the last decades researchers have been working on the
technology to reduce radioactivity and the decay time of nuclear waste, the so-called transmu-
tation process. There is no guarantee that this expensive research will be successful, and these tech-
niques can only be applied for future spent fuel and not for the present amount of nuclear waste.
Although much progress has been made in increasing safety standards reactors are still n ot
inherently safe and problems are still common. Apart from possible technical failures, the risk of
human error can never be excluded. This risk will grow now that the onset of privatisation and
liberalisation of the electricity market has forced nuclear operators to increase their efficiency and
reduce costs. The reductions in the size of the workforce have in some cases led to concerns over
safety.

One of the by-products of most nuclear reactors is plutonium-239, which can be used in nuclear
weapons. Nuclear installations could also become targets for terrorist attacks and radioactive
material could be used by terrorists to make "dirty bombs".

In the event of a nuclear disaster the health concerns are obvious. Exposure to radioactive fallout
would lead to an increased risk of genetic disorders, cancer and leukaemia. There are also health
risks associated with the day-to-day production of nuclear power. Employees working in power
plants are exposed to low-level radioactivity.