Climate Change and Nuclear Energy
---Dr.Debesh Bhowmik
The World Energy Outlook
estimates that global energy use will have increased by 67% in 2030 compared to
levels in 2000 (IEA, 2002), and it is generally accepted that world energy
demand will double by 2050 (WNA, 2004a). How to satisfy these energy demands
while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions is one of the most
pressing questions of our time.
Their arguments are summed up in
the following statement by the World Energy Council (WEC): "Nuclear
power is of fundamental importance for most WEC members because it is the only energy
supply which already has a very large and well diversified resource (and
potentially
unlimited
resource if breeders are used), is quasi-indigenous, does not emit greenhouse
gases,
and has either
favourable or at most slightly unfavourable economics. In fact should the
climate
change threat
become a reality, nuclear is the only existing power technology which could
replace coal in
base load."
However, their argumentsare based
on a number of myths, namely that:
[i] Nuclear power does not emit
greenhouse gases;
[ii] There is a plentiful supply
of fuel for the nuclear fission process;
[iii] Nuclear power is
economically viable;
[iv] There are no viable
alternative solutions;
[v] There are no other major
problems associated with nuclear power;
[vi] The fast breeder technology will eventually
mature and provide unlimited resources.
The arguments for nuclear power
as a potential mitigator of GHG emissions have not gone away; nor has the need for
such mitigators. The countries attending the 2011 G8 Summit in Deauville,
France, confirmed their commitment to long term efforts to limit “the increase
in global temperatures [to] below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, consistent with
science” and their support for “reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in
aggregate by 80% or more by 2050, compared to 1990” in developed countries .
Nuclear
power has the potential to continue to play a significant role in the effort to
limit future GHG emissions while meeting global energy needs. Nuclear power
plants produce virtually no GHG emissions during their operation and only very
small amounts on a life cycle basis. Yet the scientific consensus is that GHG
emissions will need to peak within the next decade or so and then decline by
50%– 85% from today’s levels by 2050 in order to avoid adverse climate change
impacts in ecological and socioeconomic systems. The twin challenges over the
next 10–20 years will be to keep promoting economic development by providing
reliable, safe and affordable energy services while significantly reducing GHG
emissions.
Nuclear
power is among the energy sources and technologies available today that could
help meet the climate– energy challenge. In the electricity sector, nuclear
power has been assessed as having the greatest potential (1.88 Gt CO2-equivalent
(CO2-eq.)) to mitigate GHG emissions at the lowest cost: 50% of the
potential at negative costs due to co-benefits from reduced air pollution, the
other 50% at less than $20/t CO2-eq. Nuclear energy could account for about 15%
of the total GHG reduction in electricity generation by 2050. Nuclear energy can contribute to resolving
other energy supply concerns and has non-climatic environmental benefits. The
economics of nuclear power are competitive and will be further enhanced by the
increasing CO2 costs of fossil based electricity generation.
The estimated ranges of levelized
electricity costs from natural gas, coal and nuclear sources largely overlap
between 5 and 10 US cents/kW•h. Including the costs of CO2 capture and
geological disposal and increasing charges for CO2 emissions would further improve
the competitiveness of nuclear power.
The above arguments can be
challenged in the following manners.
Nuclear power could at best make
only a negligible contribution to CO2 reduction; even then many years after
massive cuts are needed and only by depriving real climate solutions of
funding. Currently 439 commercial nuclear reactors3 supply around 15 percent of
global electricity, providing only 6.5 per cent of overall energy consumption.4
Even if today’s current installed nuclear capacity was doubled it would lead to
reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions of less than five percent and
would require one new large reactor to come online every two weeks until 2030.
An impossible task: even in countries with established nuclear programmes, planning,
licensing and connecting a new reactor to the grid typically takes more than a
decade. Worldwide, plans for more than 200 new reactors have been announced;
even under the most optimistic conditions, only a small fraction of these would
be able to generate electricity before 2020.
As of 2008, thirty-one countries 4
operated 441 nuclear power plants 5 representing about 372 gigawatts
("GW") of total installed capacity. Together, the world's fleet of nuclear power
plants represents roughly 12,600 reactor years of experience. Moreover,
"[fifty-six ] countries operate... 284 research reactors and a further 220
reactors are used to power ships and submarines," bringing the world total
to 943 nuclear reactors.' In 2005, nuclear plants supplied 15 percent of the
world's power, generating a total of 2768 terawatt-hours ("TWh") of
electricity.19 In the U.S. alone, which has 29.2 percent of the world's
reactors, nuclear facilities accounted for just 19 percent of the national
electricity generation." In France, however, 79 percent of electricity
comes from nuclear sources, and nuclear energy contributes to more than 20
percent of national power production in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Sweden,
Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.
It is true that the actual
fission process whereby electricity is generated does not release
greenhouse gases. However, in
various stages of the nuclear process (e.g. mining, uranium
enrichment, building and
decommissioning of power plants, processing and storing radioactive
waste) 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 generates a relatively high amount
of greenhouse gas emissions.
Table-1:GHG Emission from different
sources
Generation Method /Greenhouse Gas
Emissions (CO2-eq. /kWh)
[a]W ind /20
[b]Hydroelectric /33
[c]Nuclear /35
[d]Gas Combined Cycle /Ca. 400
[e] Coal /Ca. 1000
From the data above it can be
concluded that nuclear power emits about the same quantity of
greenhouse gases as electricity
produced from a number of renewable sources, but much
less than fossil fuel sources: 12
times less than gas power stations and almost 30 times less
than coal power stations. Much of
these emissions occur when energy is used for the mining
of uranium, during transports and
in the enrichment process that makes uranium usable as
reactor fuel. The emissions
during decommissioning of a nuclear reactor are probably underestimated in
these analyses, because in practice these emissions turn out to be much higher
than was assumed theoretically.
In a number of other studies
similar emissions data are reported, where nuclear power emissions
are calculated in the range of
30-60 g CO2-eq. /kWh .
According to their data, nuclear
power production causes the emission of just 3 times
fewer greenhouse gases than
modern natural gas power stations. This figure is based on rich
ores with over 0.1% uranium
content. Moreover they expect a dramatic decrease of the percentage of uranium
content in ores, which will make the extraction of the uranium much more
energy consuming. The emissions
from the nuclear industry are strongly dependent on the
percentage of uranium in the ores
used to fuel the nuclear process. The global average uranium
content in ores is currently
about 0.15% .
We have calculated the number of
new nuclear power stations that would be needed to reduce the emissions of the
public energy sector by 2012 according to the targets of the Kyoto Protocol in
the EU-15 (EU prior to the expansion). Although the Protocol does not actually stipulate
the sectors in which emissions reductions are to be made, we have made the calculations
assuming that each sector contributes according to the levels of its current
contribution to total emissions. This means that while this sector accounts for
39% of emissions it should be responsible for 39% of emissions reductions .
Assuming that electricity
generation from nuclear power plants does indeed cause the indirect
emission of 35g CO2-eq./kWh (Öko,
1997), 72 new medium sized plants of 500MW each
would be required in the EU-15.
(For an explanation of the calculations and assumptions
please refer to appendix 1).
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 (WISE, 2003). Furthermore, with so many new
reactors, the world supply of
uranium would be exhausted very quickly.
Note that that [i]Electricity is only a small
part of the climate problem.[ii]Nuclear energy is neither sustainable nor
infinite.
[iii]Nuclear
power expansion increases the risk of an accident
[iv]Nuclear power expansion would
increase the volume and unresolved risks of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive
waste far into the distant future.[v] Nuclear power expansion would seriously
undermine global security by significantly increasing opportunities for nuclear
proliferation and terrorism.[vi]
To
propose nuclear expansion in the name of climate change is effectively adding
one uncertain, potentially catastrophic health,environmental and security
threat to another. Nuclear power poses an unacceptable health, safety and
security risk. In fact, as climate change impacts increase, so too do the
safety risks associated with nuclear power.
[vii]In addition to the routine
discharges from nuclear operation radiation exposure is caused by mining the uranium
used to make the fuel for the nuclear reactors. Uranium miners - such as those
in Canada, the USA, Namibia and Sweden - breathe radon which is derived from
uranium. This gets into their lungs where it emits so-called ‘alpha particles’
which can cause lung cancer. One risk assessment indicates that each year 44
uranium miners receive fatal doses of radiation.
[viii]The RoyalCommission on
Environmental Pollution stated; ”We must assume that these wastes will
remain dangerous and will need to be isolated from the biosphere for hundreds
of thousands of years. In considering arrangements for dealing safely with such
wastes man is faced with timescales that transcend his experience.”
In 1976 the Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution concluded:“it is entirely credible that plutonium in
the requisite amounts could be made into a crude but very effective weapon that
would be transportable in a small vehicle. The threat to explode such a weapon unless
certain conditions were met would constitute nuclear blackmail and would
present any government with an appalling dilemma. ...We should not rely for
energy supply on a process that produces such a hazardous substance as
plutonium unless there is no reasonable alternative.”
[ix] The United Nations
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) periodically
carries out assessments of exposures of the public and workers to various
sources of radiation, including natural sources, enhanced sources of naturally occurring
radioactive material, manufactured sources for peaceful purposes such as nuclear
power production and medical use of radiation, and manufactured sources for military
purposes including nuclear testing. According to UNSCEAR’s latest report , the
average worldwide public exposure from globally dispersed radio nuclides from
nuclear fuel cycle installations is estimated to be 0.18 μSv per person per
year of operation. Average annual exposure to local populations is 25 μSv for mining and milling
(within 100 km of the site), 0.2 μSv for uranium enrichment and fuel
fabrication, 0.1 μSv for nuclear power reactors and 2 μSv for fuel reprocessing
(within 50 km of the site). The World Health Organization released a report on
23 May 2012 assessing radiation exposure for the first year following the
Fukushima–Daiichi accident. In the two areas with the highest impact within
Fukushima prefecture, the dose is between 10 and 50 μSv. Outside of these two
areas, but within Fukushima prefecture, the dose is estimated to be between 1
and 10 μSv. Estimates for exposure in the rest of Japan are between 0.1 and 1 μSv
and for the rest of the world are below 0.01 μSv .
Radiation
exposure levels stemming from uranium mining, refining and nuclear power
generation facilities are significantly lower than naturally occurring
radiation exposure levels. In the case of a major nuclear accident, radioactive
contamination of the environment close to the site can be severe, but exposure
levels within areas nearest Fukushima–Daiichi are significantly below natural
background radiation levels. The global averages are shown in the coloured bars,
and regional variations are indicated with error bars. Major sources of
external exposure are cosmic rays from outer space and natural
terrestrial radionuclides existing in the Earth’s soil and in building
materials such as granite and marble. The level of exposure to cosmic rays
depends primarily on latitude and altitude. Exposure also arises from the
intake of radionuclides in the Earth’s soil by inhalation (mainly radon) and
ingestion (in the form of food and drinking water). Altogether, worldwide
exposure to natural radiation sources for an average individual is 2420 μSv per
year, with a typical range of between 1000 and 13 000 μSv per year .
Lastly, Nuclear smuggling –
much of it from civil nuclear programs – presents a significant challenge. The
IAEA’s Illicit Trafficking Database records over 650 confirmed incidents of
trafficking in nuclear or other radioactive materials since 1993. In 2004
alone, almost 100 such incidents occurred. Smuggling can potentially provide
fissile material for nuclear weapons and a wider range of radioactive materials
for use in ‘dirty bombs’.
Civil nuclear
plants are potentially “attractive” targets for terrorist attacks because of
the importance of the electricity supply system in many societies, because of
the large radioactive inventories in many facilities, and because of the
potential or actual use of ‘civil’ nuclear facilities for weapons research or
production.A 2004 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that a
major terrorist attack on the Indian Point reactor in the US could result in as
many as 44,000 near-term deaths from acute
radiation syndrome and as many as 518,000 long-term deaths from cancer among
individuals within fifty miles of the plant. The attack would pose a severe
threat to the entire New York metropolitan area. Economic damages could be as
great as US$2.1 trillion.
The
IAEA Director-General Mohamed El Baradei in 2005 addressed a range of serious
nuclear security problems in his address to the 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review
Conference: “In five years, the world has changed. Our fears of a deadly
nuclear detonation – whatever the cause – have been reawakened. In part, these
fears are driven by new realities. The rise in terrorism, the discovery of
clandestine nuclear programmes, the emergence of a nuclear black market etc.
But these realities have also heightened our awareness of vulnerabilities in
the NPT regime. The acquisition by more and more countries are sensitive
nuclear know-how and capabilities. There is uneven degree of physical protection of
nuclear materials from country to country. The limitations in the IAEA’s
verification authority – particularly in countries without additional protocols
are in force. The continuing reliance is on nuclear deterrence. The ongoing
perception of imbalance between the nuclear haves and have-nots prevail. And
the sense of insecurity persists, unaddressed, in a number of regions, most
worryingly in the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula.”
The Economic reasons why nuclear
power will not be favoured against renewables and energy efficiency, unless it
receives a subsidy, are that it is far too expensive to consider realistically.
In February 2000 the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD published a report on ‘Reduction
of Capital Costs of Nuclear Power Plants’.It was reported that there had been
very few orders for nuclear power since the early 1990s and that energy liberalisation
would place nuclear economics under increased scrutiny. It was noted that
although attempts have been made to cut capital costs of nuclear - which account for some 60% of
generation costs – through development of new reactor designs “[t]o date it
is not clear to what extent this had been achieved.” However, it was noted
that in the future significant technical progress is needed to reduce capital
costs and increase efficiency. The report concluded: “In order for nuclear power
to remain a viable option for the next millennium, the cost of electricity from
nuclear power plant must be greatly reduced to be competitive with alternative
sources”.Research
financed by the British Nuclear Industry Forum concluded that nuclear power
required a subsidy of the order of £232 per year per kW of installed capacity. It was noted
above that some renewable are cheaper than coal and nuclear and therefore
require no subsidy. Gordon MacKerron, senior fellow in science and technology
policy research at the University of Sussex has stated: “it will still be
the case for most of the countries most of the time that nuclear power will not
be the best way of reducing carbon emissions”.Although at present the future is
bleak for nuclear power, the present stagnation could be ended if a subsidization
mechanism is agreed at the climate negotiations. Such a subsidisation mechanism
would be a significant drain on precious resources which would be much better
spent on the real solutions.
