Thu 30 Mar 2006
Green Opposition to Nuclear Energy was a Historical Mistake
Posted by diderot under Global Warming , Environment , NuclearEnvironmentalists now consider nuclear energy as clean
by Bruno Comby
As a dedicated environmentalist, I consider it paradoxical to see some environmental groups opposed to nuclear energy. Green opposition to nuclear power plants is in fact a major historical mistake. Their announced concerns are for health, safety, and the protection of nature. In these respects nuclear power is by far superior to the alternatives - burning fossil fuels (coal, petroleum and gas) which pollute the atmosphere, wind turbines or the use of solar photovoltaic cells for the production of electricity, and biomass (growing crops to be burned and burning crop residues) which alter the landscape and produce only minute amounts of energy.
It is a fundamental fact that population growth and increasing standard of living are precipitating an energy crisis which is not being met, and which cannot be met in the long term, say in the lifetime of our children and grandchildren, without recourse to nuclear fission.
Well-designed, well-constructed, well-operated and well-maintained nuclear energy is very clean, safe, durable and economical.
It produces little carbon dioxide, and no sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides; these are produced in vast quantities when fossil fuels are burned, and they are injected (dumped) into the atmosphere.
Unlike solar cells, wind turbines and growing biomass which cover large areas, a nuclear power station is very compact; it occupies typically the area of a football stadium and its surrounding parking lots.
While a little carbon dioxide is emitted in construction (but the same can be said of windmills and photovoltaic cells), none is emitted in operation; thus nuclear power makes a minimum contribution to the greenhouse effect.
Nuclear power produces a very small volume of waste, which is completely contained and decays spontaneously.
On the other hand, many industrial wastes are chemically stable and eternal, not contained properly, and produced in great quantities. In general, industry could greatly benefit the environment by applying to industrial and chemical wastes the methods currently applied to the management of nuclear wastes.
Renewable energies should not be excluded from our consideration. It should be recognised that they have important niche roles to play, although their industrial potential is only a small percentage of the global demand in energy which must be met otherwise.
Fear of the unknown is the merchandise of the anti-nuclear organizations. They preach fear of radiation in general, fear of radioactive waste in particular, fear of another major accident such as Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, and fear of nuclear weapons proliferation. Their campaigns depend upon the fact that the public is inadequately informed of the true health effects of radiation, and of the fact that radiation is present everywhere in the environment. They take advantage of a widespread but mistaken interpretation of the studies of the health of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing (the LNT hypothesis), that every ionizing event is deleterious to the health, and the related concept of collective dose. A moderate amount of irradiation is beneficial, if not essential, to life.
There are those who have fallen in love with the pristine beauty of solar cells and wind turbines but refuse to accept the observation that they are quantitatively incapable of supplying a significant share of the energy required by an industrial civilization.
There are those who profess conservation, which in the face of population growth can delay the crisis by a few years at most.
And there are those who seek a “simpler” life. The lifestyle in developed countries (North America, Europe, Japan) could indeed evolve to become less energy-intensive and still maintain a good standard of living, but this evolution requires time (decades at least) and in the meanwhile large amounts of energy will still be necessary to face the increasing needs of China, India, Brazil, Africa, and other developing countries.
The only serious argument against nuclear power is the fear of nuclear weapons proliferation, that is, that some separated military-grade plutonium, or some highly enriched uranium may fall into mischievious hands, and be fashioned into a bomb. But at this point in history, it can be observed that not even one of the States possessing nuclear weapons reached that condition by the use of commercial nuclear power plants. However we should remain vigilant in this regard, and the IAEA’s non-proliferation missions should be reinforced.
It is difficult to attribute the anti-nuclear position of the greens to ignorance. We have spoken briefly with one of their principal science advisors following his public statement that “we must reduce the emission of carbon dioxide by all means possible”; We asked him whether that included nuclear energy, and he quietly said “We’re not all stupid.” His smile was almost audible over the telephone wire.
Trends are changing. An increasing number of environmentalists now join EFN, the association of Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy (www.ecolo.org) which already gathers over 6000 members and supporters in 48 countries. A new paradigm is appearing as time passes : the old-fashioned anti-nuclear trend is plunging, and pro-nuclear environmentalists are now in the headlines. Recently, Pr. James Lovelock (FRS), a member of EFN, author of the Gaia theory which considers Gaia (the Earth) as a self-sustained living organism, unanimously respected in the environmental community as the father of the development of environmental consciousness since the 1960’s, was on the front pages in the international press (including “The Independent” in the UK, “Le Monde” in France, “Insight” in the United States…) saying that “Nuclear power is the only green solution”.
The opposition of the environmental movement to civilian applications of nuclear energy is fading away, and will in the future be revealed as among the greatest mistakes of our times.
Bruno Comby, EFN founder and president (http://www.ecolo.org ), is the author of 10 books published in 15 languages on environmentalism and healthy living including the bestseller “Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy” (published by TNR Editions). He is a graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique in France, and holds a postgraduate qualification as nuclear physicist from the Superior National University of Advanced Technology in Paris (ENSTA). For more information on the author visit : http://www.comby.org
© EFN, all rights reserved
http://www.ecolo.org/archives/archives-nuc-en/2004-07-29-Historic-mistake.htm
4 Responses to “Green Opposition to Nuclear Energy was a Historical Mistake”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 31st, 2006 at 2:35 am
In response to the Government’s current Energy Review, the Sustainable Development Commission nuclear report draws together the most comprehensive evidence base available, to find that there is no justification for bringing forward a new nuclear power programme at present. The report, Nuclear power in a low carbon economy, has been agreed by all 16 SDC commissioners.
Based on eight new research papers, the SDC report gives a balanced examination of the pros and cons of nuclear power. Its research recognizes that nuclear is a low carbon technology, with an impressive safety record in the UK. Nuclear could generate large quantities of electricity, contribute to stabilising CO2 emissions and add to the diversity of the UK’s energy supply.
However, the research establishes that even if the UK’s existing nuclear capacity was doubled, it would only give an 8% cut on CO2 emissions by 2035 (and nothing before 2010). This must be set against the risks.
The report identifies five major disadvantages to nuclear power:
1. Long-term waste – no long term solutions are yet available, let alone acceptable to the general public; it is impossible to guarantee safety over the long-term disposal of waste.*
2. Cost – the economics of nuclear new-build are highly uncertain. There is little, if any, justification for public subsidy, but if estimated costs escalate, there’s a clear risk that the taxpayer will be have to pick up the tab.
3. Inflexibility – nuclear would lock the UK into a centralised distribution system for the next 50 years, at exactly the time when opportunities for microgeneration and local distribution network are stronger than ever.
4. Undermining energy efficiency – a new nuclear programme would give out the wrong signal to consumers and businesses, implying that a major technological fix is all that’s required, weakening the urgent action needed on energy efficiency.
5. International security – if the UK brings forward a new nuclear power programme, we cannot deny other countries the same technology*. With lower safety standards, they run higher risks of accidents, radiation exposure, proliferation and terrorist attacks.
On balance, the SDC finds that these problems outweigh the advantages of nuclear. However, the SDC does not rule out further research into new nuclear technologies and pursuing answers to the waste problem, as future technological developments may justify a re-examination of the issue.
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html
*The current BNG estimate the cost of Nuclear waste management at £70 billion
March 31st, 2006 at 3:28 am
I didn’t find the SDC’s headline conclusions persuasive (points 2 and 4 for example, ‘it costs too much but it’ll undermine energy efficiency’ - how does that work?).
Point 3 I just flat don’t understand. Why is a nuclear power plant more inflexible and less local than an offshore wind turbine? What exactly is in this whole concept of ‘locality’ and why do SDC prefer it?
Points 1 and 5 I understand but 5 I dismiss because I wouldn’t deny anybody civil nuclear energy. Point 1 I need to work on but I’m not as frightened of nuclear waste as I am of CO2 right now.
http://www.thepeakist.com/2006/03/06/no-quick-fix-from-nuclear-power/#comment-33
And they say “the research establishes that even if the UK’s existing nuclear capacity was doubled, it would only give an 8% cut on CO2 emissions by 2035″. First, nuclear is only a relatively small percentage of the power we generate at the moment so perhaps that’s not surprising; second, that simple figure will include a whole bunch of assumptions that frankly, I don’t trust that bunch to make; and third, if the figure is accurate, we’re going to have to do a whole lot more than double our capacity.
And exactly how will SDC power our cars? Part of my reason for erring towards nuclear is because it would enable a transition to a fully electric fleet within a few decades. Whether we use hydrogen fuel cells or plain old lead-acid batteries the power has to come from somewhere and renewables won’t cut it.
*The £70 billion figure is not indicative of future cleanup costs.
March 31st, 2006 at 5:53 am
Though I do think the article is very unfair to the environmental and anti-nuclear groups. If we’d listened to them in the first place we might not be in this pickle now. But here we are, smelling the Branston.
December 7th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Female viagra….
Viagra. Free sample of viagra. Viagra 6 free samples. Re viagra cello. Buy viagra uk….