The truth about greenhouse and nuclear power
Nuclear power currently generates 17 per cent of the world's electricity. Recent US plans to increase nuclear power production to solve its energy crisis will not solve greenhouse gas pollution problems. Nuclear energy is neither an efficient nor an effective way of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, irrespective of problems related to nuclear energy and its waste.
The nuclear industry will point out that no CO2, the most prominent of gases causing the greenhouse effect, is expelled in the production of nuclear power.
However there are indirect emissions at every stage of the nuclear power process, including exploration, construction, transportation, the mining and processing of uranium, disposal of wastes, reprocessing of spent fuel rods, more transportation for reprocessing and finally decommissioning of the reactor. Uranium enrichment in the US alone (where 20 per cent of electricity is generated from nuclear power) releases 14 million tonnes of CO2 pa. In one case, a coal-fired power station was built next to the nuclear reactor to provide electricity for the enrichment process (Safe Energy Communication Council, USA).
Overall, the best estimate for CO2 emissions during the whole nuclear cycle is 50-230 g CO2/kWh electricity produced, depending on the grade of uranium ore. This figure is in the same range as modern combined heat and power plants fuelled by natural gas which produce 150-300g CO2/kWh in direct and indirect emissions (Laka Foundation, 1996, based on W. Biesiot, Commission van Middelkoop).
Some would argue that this marginal advantage in CO2 emissions should be pursued, that reductions in greenhouse gasses must be made at whatever cost (H Nifenecker & E. Huffer in Europhysics, 2001). However the following points need to be considered.
1. Cost
Nuclear power is a very expensive way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In comparison with coal-fired power stations, the cost of CO2 abatement by nuclear power is US$8.82 to $11.76/tonne, compared with US$2.94/tonne CO2 abatement for the so-called 'ecology mix' of co-generation and renewable energy resources (World Information Service on Energy web site).2. Uranium supplies
World supplies of uranium are limited. Assuming a world supply of 6-10 million tonnes uranium and that 70 per cent of the world's electricity were generated by nuclear power, uranium supplies would be exhausted within 20 years (N. Mortimer, The Ecologist, 1991 and W. Biesiot). Therefore nuclear power is not a long-term solution. In addition, immediate action is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and nuclear power plants take 10 years to design, construct and commission. The completed plant has a life expectancy of 40 years, which could lead to disastrous economic consequences if plant had to be mothballed for lack of fuel.3. Nuclear Waste
Nuclear power generation produces highly radioactive uranium and plutonium waste that remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. Currently the proposed 'solution' for dealing with nuclear waste is to bury it under ground - this has inherent dangers of air and water contamination. Even in the 21st Century and after governments have poured millions of dollars into an answer, we still do not have a permanent solution to nuclear waste.Civilian nuclear programs create more separated (weapons grade) plutonium than military programs. Paul Leventhal of the Nuclear Control Institute says that civilian plutonium, like plutonium removed from Weapons, should be disposed of as waste, not used as fuel (as in US proposals). Large quantities of plutonium could be lost unnoticed during reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.
4. Security
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has recorded 550 incidents in trafficking of radioactive materials since 1993. Attempts at smuggling have doubled in the last 5 years and further development of nuclear power plants will exacerbate the problem and encourage proliferation of nuclear weapons. In the first 3 months of 2001, there were 20 confirmed incidents including thefts in Germany, South Africa and Mexico. Most incidents involve low-grade materials, but in April 2000 nearly one kilogram of enriched uranium was stolen in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. The UN's Terrorist Prevention Branch suggests that there could be as many as 130 terrorist groups that pose a nuclear threat. The possibilities are endlessly alarming (New Scientist, May 2001).Following the September 11 attacks, the IAEA has warned of "the potential of terrorists targe ting nuclear facilities or using radioactive sources. The agency noted that "radiation knows no frontiers" and warned that "safety and security of nuclear material is a legitimate concern of all states".