THE NUCLEAR OPTION A SOLUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING? Despite the promise to make 2005 the year that politicians would face up to the challenges of climate change, the topic remains a low priority in the election campaign. But after the election, Alice Cutler argues, Blair has plans for a return to 'clean' nuclear power. Thile plans continue for new roads, airport expansions seated denial in our society about the seriousness of the situation we face. The G8 countries account for 12 per cent of the world's population and 62 per cent of the total greenhouse gas emissions. It is crucial that we cut our carbon emissions by 60-90 per cent to avert the catastrophic (IPCC). One sign that people are beginning to acknowledge something has to be done is the resurgence of the nuclear power option, once again being hailed as the clean, safe, carbon-neutral way to produce electricity. James Lovelock, famously came out in favour of the nuclear option to reduce the threat of global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Nuclear power has become a lesser evil in the minds of many and a Government white paper recommending that ten new nuclear stations be built is apparently waiting in the wings for after the election. as CND, have traditionally focused on nuclear weapons and on the still unsolved issue of highly dangerous nuclear waste from the radiation associated to it. This article is more concerned with nuclear power and to expose the myth that the nuclear option could provide a solution to cutting With the concerns over climate change and in the desperate search to find non-fossil fuel energy sources, the facts about nuclear power have become blurred. Let us look at what the real science of the matter shows. MYTH: Nuclear power does not create carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. REALITY: Although most reactors do not produce CO2, the nuclear fuel cycle does. Uranium milling, and enrichment, processing mining, dealing with nuclear waste and transportation are all carbon intensive processes. The amount of CO2 produced depends on the grade of uranium ore and the method of enrichment used to process it. The fissile material (U-235) in natural uranium only constitutes around 0.7 per cent, too low for nuclear reactions to occur. This fissile material must be enriched approximately fourfold for it to be able to be used 20 in a reactor. The enrichment process requires enormous processing plants and is hugely energy intensive. Using favourable assumptions (high-grade, easy-to-process shale ore, diffusion enrichment and an easy method of waste disposal), the nuclear option is estimated to produce as much as one third the CO2 produced by gas-fired power stations, per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity. Using more pessimistic assumptions, (low-grade ore, hard-to-process granite ore, centrifuge enrichment and difficult waste disposal) nuclear cycle carbon emissions could equal or even exceed those of gas-fired power stations. There is a deficit of research relating to these statistics with no government that uses nuclear power researching the optimistic claims about carbon emissions made by industry funded scientists. MYTH: There is a limitless supply of fissile material. REALITY: The U concentration of uranium ore is the most crucial factor in determining carbon emissions and so it is important to note that, as with oil, we have already 'picked the low- hanging fruit'. Most easily obtainable U-rich seams have already been mined and the search for high-grade uranium ore is becoming more difficult. This means that the CO2 needed to extract equivalent amounts of uranium will inevitably increase in future years. Although very large amounts of uranium exist in the earth's crust and in the sea, the concentrations are so low that they are not viable, as the energy required for extraction would exceed the energy produced. Uranium mining is also a destructive, energy- intensive process that has had disasterous effects on nearby communities, such as those near the former uranium mines in Germany, the Czech Republic, Australia and Canada. МУТН: Producing UK electricity with nuclear is a good way to cut greenhouse gas emissions. REALITY: Electricity generation is only responsible for around 25 per cent of annual COZ production in the UK. The rest is from transportation and domestic/ industrial/ commercial heating. The electricity we require varies enormously during the day, with high peaks in the morning and evening. However nuclear reactors cannot be switched on/off or cranked up to meet
these varying electricity loads: for safety reasons they work at a fixed rate twenty-four hours a day. This means nuclear power could only make a maximum contribution of 25 per cent to UK electricity generation. So, the actual potential for CO2 reduction is only about 5 per cent. And of course there are other greenhouse gases as well as carbon dioxide. The end result is that nuclear is a very poor way to reduce UK greenhouse gases. MYTH: Nuclear power is a cost-effective way to reduce emissions. REALITY: To build the new reactors being proposed by the nuclear AP 1000MW reactor) would cost industry ithe so-called approximately £1.4 - 2 billion per reactor, assuming that ten were built to get economies of scale. The total cost would be around £14 to 20 billion. possible with massive government subsidies, which would probably be illegal under EU competition rules. A number of studies estimate that nuclear is five to seven times less energies in cost-effective than efficiency or renewable The priority should be reducing CO2 emissions. efficiency, that is measures introduced electricity consumption. FACT: The DTI has consistently invested two to three times more in nuclear energy than in renewable and novel sources of energy. In 2004, the figures were £57.8 million on nuclear technologies and only £19 million on renewable sources. FACT: The estimated time needed to observe legal procedures, carry out public inquiries, training and construction for a nuclear reactor is ten to fifteen years from the decision. We must act sooner than this. FACT: The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (Flowers Report, 1976) said that until a method to deal with nuclear waste has been found, no programme of nuclear fission should be carried out. To this day, no method exists. We should not be embarking on a new nuclear programme without having solved the huge nuclear waste problems of the first programme. Conclusion Nuclear power is not a cost-effective, viable or safe solution and it does not address the core problem of unsustainable energy use. The question remains then, why is the Government considering an unpopular return to nuclear power construction? British Energy (which runs most of the UK's nuclear stations) is already supported by the Government to the tune of £300 Lord Falconer, head of the Government's legal administration and close colleague of Blair, was, in the early 1990s, chief legal executive for British Nuclear Fuels. There he was instrumental in bringing legal injunctions against Greenpeace anti-nuclear campaigners and seeking sequestrations of Greenpeace assets. BNFL is an important UK company with major US Westinghouse holdings and the Government wants to see returns on its investments in the company. Nuclear technology is a major potential export for the UK; countries such as South Korea, China and Taiwan are all possible customers. Could this be 'the tackling of climate change' that Blair meant when he announced his three-point plan to the UK business leaders back in September 2004? He said then that tackling climate change did not have to be an unbearable burden to business, that the UK could benefit from its leading role in the technology and science, and that we had to deal with rising emissions from rapidly developing countries such as China. If Blair and the G8 truly wanted to face up to climate change they would reverse their neo-liberal, market system that puts profit above all else and address the dramatically unsustainable energy consumption of the rich and powerful. A return to nuclear power raises the false and dangerous prospect that 'something is being done', that energy remains plentiful and that no radical changes in our lives and consumption patterns are necessary. Meanwhile power literally remains in the hands of massive energy corporations and undermines the development of truly sustainable, community owned, small scale, local, renewable alternatives. It is typical of a viewpoint that seeks to use ever more technology rather than tackle the underlying causes. The nuclear option represents a further example of exploiting a technology for the short-term benefit of the few with complete disregard for future generations or the health of the planet. The anti-nuclear movement in the UK must rise from the ashes and expose the dangerous myths of nuclear power as part of the solution to global warming and instead demand real climate justice. With thanks for technical information to Dr lan Fairlie, a member o' SERA (Socialist Environment and Resources Association). 21