• English Site
• >World
• >Energy and Natural Resources
• >

  The Nuclear Temptation: The Perils of Pushing Atomic Energy as the Climate Change Panacea

The Nuclear Temptation The Perils of Pushing Atomic Energy as the Climate Change Panacea

By Philip Bethge

Part 4: 'The Greatest of Destructive Forces'

More than anything, it’s the use of plutonium in making bombs that hinders the nuclear industry’s peaceful ambitions. After America dropped the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower announced in his historic "Atoms for Peace" speech on Dec. 8, 1953 that "this greatest of destructive forces can be developed into a great boon for the benefit of all mankind." But half a century later, the nuclear disasters at Windscale, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have long since blurred Ike's grand vision. Civilian reactors and military bombs continue to be nuclear "Siamese twins," argues Rebecca Harms, a Green Party member of the European Parliament.

The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was supposed to stem the spread of nuclear weapons, but its inadequacy is all too apparent in the wake of atomic bomb tests in Pakistan, India and North Korea—not to mention Iran's brash nuclear ambitions. In 2005 alone, the IAEA cataloged 103 cases of illegal trading or "unauthorized activities" involving nuclear materials worldwide.

US President George W. Bush believes the nuclear fuel trade can still be brought under control. His administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Program aims to restrict fuel reprocessing and the plutonium industry that goes with it to the United States and select partner countries. These nations would supply other program members with fuel elements for their conventional nuclear power plants. The plan sounds great but probably isn't realistic. India, for example, was insulted when it was asked to join the GNEP as just a customer and not a reprocessing nation.

An Uncertain Bet

Whether nuclear energy is experiencing a renaissance or is simply benefiting from a reinvigorated public relations campaign is unclear. One thing seems certain, though: Countries like China and India will not be able to continue growing at a furious pace without new reactors to power their economies. And France and the United States, both already heavily dependent on nuclear power, will need to at least replace their aging plants and could build new reactors as well.

It comes down to basic economics. Despite the extremely expensive initial investment of €3-4 billion per power plant, nuclear energy could soon become competitive once again. According to the MIT study "The Future of Nuclear Power," the future price of carbon dioxide emissions will be critical. A further increase in the price of natural gas and oil could also give atomic energy a boost.

But the nuclear renaissance remains an uncertain bet. Little has happened so far: In 1990 there were 83 reactors under construction worldwide; in 1998 that figure dropped to 36 and fell further to only 29 today. And the World Nuclear Association has pegged the number of planned reactors at 64, which isn’t exactly encouraging.

Whether the world is prepared to continue to accept the risks inherent in atomic energy remains in question. Around 300,000 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste has piled up in the 50 years of its civilian use. Some 10,000 tons are added each year, yet there is not a single permanent storage facility for radioactive waste anywhere in the world. And a truly safe reactor, which automatically stops a nuclear chain reaction during an accident, remains undeveloped.

The industry promises that fourth-generation nuclear reactors will be highly efficient, produce little waste and contribute minimally to nuclear proliferation. Those are the standards the US government is pursuing with its "Generation IV International Forum" initiative, which has encouraged the development of new reactors since 2000. There are plenty of ideas: reactors that use liquid salts to work at high temperatures up to 1,000 degrees Celsius and extremely fast reactors that can be cooled by gas, sodium or lead. But prototypes of such reactors won't be ready before 2030. Until then, power plants barely indistinguishable from current ones -- such as the European Pressurized Reactor -- will have to champion the atomic cause.

Regardless of the industry's rosy outlook, catastrophic accidents like the one at Chernobyl in 1986 remain possible. Another meltdown could stigmatize the technology once again and raise questions about the billions already spent on its development and whether they should have gone toward newer and more environmentally safe technologies.

The nuclear industry's proponents are fond of arguing that atomic energy could combat climate change, but critics say this is nothing more than a last-ditch effort by a flagging industry to save itself. Nuclear critics have actually calculated the number of new reactors necessary to enable a notable reduction in CO2 emissions.

"Thousands of new nuclear reactors would have to be built to replace only 10 percent of fossil fuel energy sources," says Paulitz. "That isn't just horrifying vision for the environment, but also one for security policy."