Nexus - 0109 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

POWER NUCLEAR PROOF ALTERNATIVE . VIVIVUR MununwyYy TO BE HEARD MORE OFTEN is that the only economic and environmentally safe ‘ response to acid rain and the greenhouse THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY HAS effect is nuclear power. Unfortunately this STARTED TO WAKE UP to the potential of argument cannot be rejected out of hand. the situation, To take advantage of it nuclear Solutions to environmental decay are be- power needs to be made safer and cheaper, so coming more urgent and nuclear power is, at planners are working on changes to existing present, the only alternative to coal as the designs that do both. Small 250 megawatt source of large amounts of electricity. Of plants can now be totally enclosed for rela- course, large amounts of electricity are only uve safety. In one Swedish design the reactor necessary because we use energy incredibly is immersed in radiation-absorbing borated inefficiently. water. Smaller reactor units are cheaper and The amount of waste produced by coal can have higher production standards. fired power stations is staggering and has Simpler plants, unlike the complex and been identified as one of the major causes of unreliable plants of today, can run cooler and the greenhouse, along with cars and defores- last for up to 60 instead of 30 years. Today’s tation. Each year about 4.5 billion tonnes of plants are also labour intensive but robots carbon dioxide (CO,) and millions of tonnes and computers are under development for of the oxides of nitrogen and sulphur are maintenance and safety monitoring. released into the atmosphere by coal-fired To counter the nuclear industry as it goes power stations - that accounts for half of the for its second chance requires well thought- greenhouse effect. Cars produce about 500 out alternative proposals. New reactor de- million tonnes of CO, a year. Even if in- signs will be promoted as environmentally creased production of CO, weretobesome- sound solutions to the greenhouse. Many how stopped, the concentration of it in the people will be convinced that small, efficient atmosphere - and the temperature - will keep nuclear power plants are much better than rising. Only by decreasing our use of fossil coal fired plants for the planet. It may be that fuels can the concentration be kept steady, let nuclear power can be made to appear a alone be made to fall - but we now know that responsible and even inevitable replacement nuclear power can provide no alternative —_—_for fossil fuels. (see below). Another line w this argumentis thetwe = My Nuclear Possibility are depriving future generations not only of fuel but also the feedstock for chemicals, plastics and pharmaceuticals. For govern- BUT A CLEAR READING OF THE ments in Western Europe (which has one FACTS CAN DISPEL ANY SUCH NO- third of the world’s civilian reactors) and TIONS ENTIRELY. According to a scien- America and Japan (which together have lific report circulated within the Labour another third yet still consume 30% of OPEC Party, even a forty year, world-wide nu- output) independence from the Middle East clear power program would not solve is an attractive prospect. greenhouse warming problems. In Greenhouse Warning: Comparative Analysis of Two Abatement Strategies, Bill Keepin of the Rocky Mountains Institute in the US and Frenchman Gregory Kats con- clude that energy efficiency is our best re- sponse. In their report, Keepin and Kats consider two scenarios involving high and medium co, emissions to analyse the effectiveness STARTED TO WAKE UP tothe potential of the situation. To take advantage of it nuclear power needs to be made safer and cheaper, so planners are working on changes to existing designs that do both. Small 250 megawatt plants can now be totally enclosed for rela- uve safety. In one Swedish design the reactor is immersed in radiation-absorbing borated water. Smaller reactor units are cheaper and can have higher production standards. Simpler plants, unlike the complex and unreliable plants of today, can run cooler and last for up to 60 instead of 30 years. Today’s plants are also labour intensive but robots and computers are under development for maintenance and safety monitoring. To counter the nuclear industry as it goes for its second chance requires well thought- out alternative proposals. New reactor de- signs will be promoted as environmentally sound solutions to the greenhouse. Many people will be convinced that small, efficient nuclear power plants are much better than coal fired plants for the planet. It may be that nuclear power can be made to appear a responsible and even inevitable replacement for fossil fuels. LAST ing a 1983 US Academy of Sciences study which assumes primary global energy con- sumption will reach 35.7 billion watts by the year 2025, their high-level CO, emission scenario takes the position that only half the energy required for the world would be nu- clear-fuelled. This would require 8,000 large nuclear power stations. “This represents a 29-fold increase in world nuclear capacity, requiring that nuclear power plants be built at an aver- age rate of one new 1,000 megawatt plant every 1.61 days for the next 37 years,” says the report, at a total capital cost of USS$8.39 trillion and annual electricity generation costs of US$787 billion. Yet even these vast costs would not stop the expansion of oil and natural gas emis- sions, which would grow from today’s 5.3 billion tonnes per year to 8.29 billion tonnes by 2025. “Thus, in this scenario, even bringing a new nuclear plant on line every day and a half for nearly four decades does not prevent the annual carbon dioxide emis- sions from steadily increasing to a value of 65% greater than they are today,” say the authors. Data for their medium-CO, emission scenario came from a recent study published by the US Department of Energy, which projects a rise on global energy demand to 21.3 billion watts by 2025 - an 18-fold in- crease over today. Keepin and Kats use this base to assume a transition from coal to nuclear power by the target year. “This requires that the world build nu- clear capacity at the equivalent average rate of one 1,000 megawatt reactor every 2.5 days until 2025. “This comprises one plantevery 4.5 days in the developed countries, and onc every 5.7 days in the less developed countries,” at a capital cost of about $US5.3 trillion - about $144 billion a year. Annual CO, emissions would grow to 6.48 billion tonnes by the year 2000, then decline to 5.27 billion. “Thus, even in this scenario of moderate energy growth, coupled with a massive nu- clear program, future carbon dioxide emis- sions remain constantly above today's val- ues. AN ARGUMENT THAT’S STARTING Unclear Advantage THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY HAS No Nuclear Possibility BUT A CLEAR READING OF THE FACTS CAN DISPEL ANY SUCH NO-