Big Scrub Environment Centre

Foreword
by Professor Ian Lowe

The debate about nuclear energy is a welcome recognition of the urgent need to respond to climate change. I welcome that awareness and the resulting debate, but the nuclear option is not a wise response. It is too costly, too dangerous, too slow and makes too little impact on greenhouse pollution. That is why most of the developed world is rejecting the nuclear option in favour of renewable energy and improved efficiency.

There is no serious doubt that climate change is real; it is happening now and its effects are accelerating. It is already causing serious economic impact such as reduced agricultural production, increased costs of severe events such as fires and storms, and the need to consider radical water-supply measures such as desalination plants. So we should set a serious target for reducing our rate of releasing carbon dioxide, like Britain’s goal of 60 per cent by 2050. The Australian policy vacuum is a failure of moral leadership and also an uncertain investment framework.

The economics of nuclear power just don’t stack up. The real cost of nuclear electricity is certainly more than for wind power, energy from bio-wastes and some forms of solar energy. Geothermal energy from hot dry rocks also promises to be less costly than nuclear. That is without including the huge costs of decommissioning power reactors and storing the radioactive waste. So there is no economic case for nuclear power. As energy markets have liberalised around the world, investors have turned their backs on nuclear energy. The number of reactors in western Europe and the United States peaked 15 years ago and has been declining since. By contrast, the amount of wind power and solar energy is rising at rates of 20 to 30 per cent a year.

Reducing energy waste is the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse pollution. For instance, more than 10 per cent of household electricity is used by keeping appliances such as TVs and videos on standby.

Nuclear power is too dangerous – not just the risk of accidents such as Chernobyl, but the increased risk of nuclear weapons or nuclear terrorism. The recent United Nations conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ended in disarray. Most countries holding weapons and some others aspiring to join the nuclear "club" are in breach of the treaty.

It’s possible this debate will do little more than provide a smokescreen for proponents of increased uranium mining in Australia. Uranium mining should not be expanded. It remains the case, as the Ranger Inquiry found nearly 30 years ago, that increased export of Australian uranium would contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear power also inevitably produces radioactive waste that will have to be stored safely for hundreds of thousands of years. After nearly 50 years of the nuclear power experiment, nobody has yet demonstrated a solution to this problem. In the absence of a viable solution, expanding the rate of waste production is just irresponsible.

Nuclear power is too slow and too limited in its capacity to make a difference. Even if all government approvals were granted, it would still take about 10 more years and several billion dollars to construct a power station and deliver the first electricity.

Nuclear power won’t stop climate change. The argument that it would reduce greenhouse pollution presumes high-grade uranium ores are available. Even with such high-grade ores, there is a massive increase in greenhouse pollution from mining, processing and reactor construction before any electricity is generated. The known resources of high-grade uranium ores only amount to a few decades’ use at the present rate, so an expansion of nuclear power would see those resources rapidly depleted.

To avoid dangerous further changes to our climate, we need to act now. We should make a commitment to the sensible alternatives that produce sustainable cost-effective reductions in greenhouse pollution: wind power, solar water-heating, energy efficiency, gas and energy from organic matter such as sewage and waste.

Nuclear power is expensive, slow and dangerous, and it won’t stop climate change. If nuclear power is the answer, it must have been a pretty stupid question.

Ian Lowe is Emeritus Professor of Science, Technology and Society at Griffith University, Brisbane. One of Australia’s best-known environmental scientists, he is president of the Australian Conservation Foundation.

top of page

No Solution to Climate Change
Excerpts for a paper by Dr. Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner, Friends of the Earth.
Nuclear power is currently unlawful under the 1998 Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act, while Victoria and New South Wales also have legislation banning nuclear power and nuclear waste storage and disposal. Three other states – South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory – have legal prohibitions against various forms of radioactive waste transportation and dumping.

In Australia, nuclear interests are far more concerned to expand uranium mining rather than to promote the introduction of nuclear power reactors.

The hazards associated with nuclear power include the risk of potentially catastrophic accidents, routine releases of radioactive gases and liquids from nuclear plants, the intractible problem of nuclear waste, and the risks of terrorism and sabotage.

But there is another hazard which is unique to nuclear power and which is of such concern that alone it must lead to a clear rejection of a nuclear ‘solution’ to climate change ... even if such a solution were possible. This is the repeated pattern of ‘peaceful’ nuclear facilities being used for nuclear weapons research and production.

A nuclear weapon powerful enough to destroy a city requires a mere 10 kg of plutonium. The ‘peaceful’ nuclear power industry has produced 1,600 tonnes of plutonium (Institute for Science and International Security, 2004) – enough to build about 160,000 nuclear weapons. If 99% of this plutonium is indefinitely protected from military use, the remaining 1% would suffice for 1,600 nuclear weapons.

Australia’s uranium exports, once irradiated in nuclear power reactors, have produced about 80 tonnes of plutonium (ASNO, 2003-04) – enough for about 8,000 nuclear weapons.

Radioactive wastes arise across the nuclear fuel cycle. High-level waste – which includes spent nuclear fuel and the waste stream from reprocessing plants – is by far the most hazardous of the waste types. A typical power reactor produces 25-30 tonnes of spent fuel annually. Annually, about 12,000 to 14,000 tonnes of spent fuel are produced by power reactors worldwide.

Not a single repository exists anywhere in the world for the disposal of high-level waste from nuclear power. Only a few countries – such as Finland, Sweden, and the US – have identified potential sites for a high-level waste repository.

The legal limit for the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain in the US is less then the projected output of high-level waste from currently operating reactors in the US. If global nuclear output was increased three-fold, new repository storage capacity equal to the legal limit for Yucca Mountain would have to be created somewhere in the world every 3-4 years. (Ansolabehere et al., 2003.) With a ten-fold increase in nuclear power, new repository storage capacity equal to the legal limit for Yucca Mountain would have to be created somewhere in the world every single year.

Renewable Energy Sources
Renewable energy and energy efficiency can deliver the power we need – without the problems. Renewable energy, mostly hydroelectricity, already supplies 19% of world electricity, compared to nuclear’s 16%. The share of renewables is increasing, while nuclear’s share is decreasing.

Worldwide, there were only 26 nuclear reactors under construction at the end of 2004, with only one in Western Europe and none in the USA. Nuclear power capacity in Europe is falling and is expected to drop 25% over the next 15 years. The projected growth of nuclear power in a small number of countries, such as China and India, will not substantially change the global picture of stagnation and decline. (Schneider and Froggatt, 2004.)

By contrast, wind power and solar power are growing by 20-30% every year. (Sawin, 2004.) In 2004, renewable energy added nearly three times as much net generating capacity as nuclear power. (ACF, 2005.)

Europe is planning to get 22% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010, creating nearly a million additional jobs (MITRE, 2004):

o Germany is on track to supply 13% of its electricity from renewables by 2010, while nuclear power is being phased out.

o Spain expects to get 26% of electricity from renewable energy by 2010.

o Sweden already supplies 48% of its electricity from renewable sources (mostly hydroelectricity) and expects renewables to provide 60% by 2010 with increased use of wind and bioenergy sources. Sweden plans to phase out nuclear power and has shut two reactors since 1999.

o Denmark already supplies 13% of its electricity from wind, and will supply 29% of electricity from renewables by 2010.

Many other countries are setting ambitious renewable energy targets. However, in Australia, only 8% of electricity is from renewable energy – down from 10% in 1999. (ACF, 2005.) With the political commitment, we could achieve much greater usage of renewable energy, and also go a long way to solving energy and greenhouse problems through energy efficiency measures.

A clean energy future will include a range of technologies including wind, wave and tidal power, small scale hydro schemes, biomass and solar technologies (ACF, 2005):

o Wind power: Australia could get 10% of its electricity from wind without major modifications to the electricity grid. This would create about 37,000 job years in construction and manufacturing and up to 1,000 fulltime jobs in operation and maintenance.

o Bioenergy: Bioenergy (energy from organic matter, including non native forest wood, energy crops, sewage, or wastes) could provide 30% of our electricity in the long term – but only if we plan for it. This would need about 14,000 MW of bioenergy and would create up to 46,000 permanent rural jobs in operation and maintenance, and a further 140,000 short term construction jobs.

o Solar electricity (Photovoltaics): Solar electricity has a huge potential to provide electricity for Australia. According to the PV Industry Roadmap we could supply 6,700 MW capacity by 2020. This would be equivalent to building two 600 MW nuclear power stations. The solar electricity option would create 31,000 jobs.

The biggest gains are to be made in the field of energy efficiency. Government reports have shown that reductions in energy consumption of up to 70% are cost effective in some sectors of the economy. Energy experts have projected that adopting a national energy efficiency target could reduce the need for investment in new power stations by 2,500 – 5,000 MW by 2017 (equal to about 2-5 large nuclear power stations). The energy efficiency investments would pay for themselves in reduced bills before a nuclear power station could generate a single unit of electricity. (ACF, 2005.)

The Australian Ministerial Council on Energy (2003) has identified that energy consumption in the manufacturing, commercial and residential sectors could be reduced by 20-30% with the adoption of current commercially available technologies with an average payback of four years.

Many studies have detailed how major greenhouse gas emissions reductions can be achieved without reliance on nuclear power. A number of studies have considered the relative cost of various means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power does not fare well in these studies. Energy efficiency measures are shown in an American study to deliver almost seven times the greenhouse gas emissions reductions as nuclear power per dollar invested. (Keepin and Kats, 1988.)

The argument that nuclear power could be a "bridging" energy source while renewables are further developed is erroneous. Nuclear expansion would require such vast expenditure that renewables would fall by the wayside. Of the funds spent by 26 OECD member states between 1991 and 2001 on energy R&D, 50% was spent on nuclear power and only 8% on renewable energy. (Schneider and Froggatt, 2004.)

We need to make a clear choice for a clean energy future based on renewables and energy efficiency. As former US and UN environment advisor Professor Frank Muller (2005) notes: "Nuclear power and sustainable energy involve future paths for electricity systems that diverge. Nuclear power reinforces conventional grids dominated by central power stations and powerful supply-side institutions – a pattern that we have inherited from an era of more centralised economic decision making. The sustainable energy vision is for these grids to evolve into more decentralised consumer-oriented networks. Investment would be directed to the lowest cost options for meeting customer needs, on either the supply or demand sides, rather than into an inexorable expansion of supply."

The nuclear industry is not financially or environmentally sustainable. AMP Capital Investors (2004) notes in its Nuclear Fuel Cycle Position Paper: "Nuclear power and the uranium industry are neither financially or environmentally sustainable. ... The positive greenhouse impacts could be equally, and arguably better, obtained from investment in, or support of, the renewable energy sector. It is critical that the nuclear industry does not manipulate the climate change threat to divert government policy and finance away from the intrinsically safe renewable sources of electricity."

Greenhouse Gase Emissions:
Electricity is responsible for less than a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The contribution of the electricity sector to total greenhouse gas emissions varies considerably:

o In Australia, the figure is 37% (Australian Greenhouse Office, 2000).

o Of the total emissions from the fifteen European Union Countries in 1999, electricity accounted for under 21% of the total. (Roberts, 2005.)

o Figures from the World Resources Institute
(n.d.), drawing on data from the International Energy Agency, show ‘Public Electricity and Heat’ accounted for 39% of global emissions in 1999, but electricity is not separated from heat and the total 1999 emissions figure does not include agriculture or ‘Commercial and Public Sectors’. With the figures for advanced industrial countries ranging from 20-40%, and taking into account the comparatively low usage on electricity in developing countries, the global contribution of electricity is certain to be considerably less than 39%.

The Uranium Institute (n.d.) states that electricity generation accounts for "about 30%" of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and that would appear to be a reasonable estimate.

This is not to belittle the importance of electricity as a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Worldwide electricity consumption increased at an average rate of 3.0% per year between 1980-2001, resulting in an overall increase of 88%. Strong future growth is predicted. (Energy Information Administration, 2004.)

On the other hand, acknowledging that electricity counts for only about 30% of greenhouse gas emissions puts pay to the simplistic view that nuclear power alone can ‘solve’ the climate change problem. According to senior IAEA energy analyst Alan McDonald (2004): "Saying that nuclear power can solve global warming by itself is way over the top".

Even the replacement of all fossil fuel fired electricity plants with nuclear power would lead to only modest reductions of global greenhouse gas emissions – not even close to the 60% reductions required to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Greenpeace (n.d.) has considered a scenario whereby the contribution of nuclear power to overall electricity generation would double in the space of 25 years. Taking into account growth in demand for energy/electricity, doubling nuclear power’s share would require 1,320 new nuclear reactors – an average of one new reactor each week for 25 years.

Friends of the Earth (2004) has calculated that doubling nuclear power in the UK – which currently has 23 power reactors in operation – would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by no more than 8% given that electricity accounts for less than one third of total UK emissions.

Feiveson (2001) calculates that if global nuclear power grew at just over 2% per year until 2050 to an installed capacity in that year of 1000 GWe (about three times greater than current output), total cumulative carbon emissions projected during this period would be reduced by about 8%.

Feiveson (2001) further calculates that if nuclear output was steadily increased such that it reached approximately 20 times the current output by 2100, about 25% of the projected cumulative carbon emissions to 2100 would be avoided. That is of course a significant reduction, but it would require the construction of about 9,000 power reactors!

According to the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (n.d.), if nuclear power were to account for 70% of electricity by 2100, 115 reactors (1000 MWe) would have to be built each year – over 10,000 by the end of the century – and still the reduction in total emissions would be just 16%.

Strong growth of nuclear power would lead to strong growth in the production of plutonium. Fieveson (2001) calculates that with a ten-fold increase in nuclear output, to 3500 GWe, and assuming a once-through fuel cycle using light water reactors, about 700 tonnes of plutonium would be produced annually – sufficient for about 70,000 nuclear weapons (or 3.5 million weapons over a 50-year reactor lifespan).

Basing its calculations on a scenario developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which involves a ten-fold increase in nuclear output by 2100, Greenpeace (n.d.) calculates that the plutonium inventory would reach approximately 100,000 tonnes – sufficient for 10 million nuclear weapons.

Claims that nuclear power is ‘greenhouse free’ are false. Substantial greenhouse gas generation occurs across the nuclear fuel cycle – uranium mining, milling, conversion, and enrichment; reactor construction, refurbishment and decommissioning; and waste management (e.g. reprocessing, and/or encasement in glass or cement). In addition, transportation is extensive – for example, Australian uranium may be converted to uranium hexafluoride in Canada, then enriched in France, then fabricated into fuel rods in Japan, and the spent fuel may be reprocessed in the UK or France resulting in plutonium, uranium and waste streams which may be subject to further international transportation.

Lifecycle estimates of greenhouse gas emissions per kilowatt-hour of nuclear electricity vary dramatically – from 2-60 grams of carbon dioxide (equivalent) per kilowatt-hour of electricity. A detailed study by the Oko-Institute calculates the figure at 34 grams (Fritsche and Lim, 1997). Other studies calculate the figure at 30-60 grams (WISE/NIRS, 2005).

At the moment, using comparatively rich uranium ores, nuclear power generally emits far less greenhouse gases compared to fossil fuels – about 12 times less than gas power stations and about 30 times less than coal stations (WISE/NIRS, 2005). Again, the figures vary. Nuclear emits just three times less emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity than large, modern natural gas stations according to van Leeuwen & Smith (2004).

Further, if comparing natural gas cogeneration (electricity plus useful heat) with nuclear (for electricity) plus oil (for heat), gas cogeneration is more greenhouse ‘friendly’ than nuclear-plus-oil, and biogas cogeneration plants even more so (Fritsche and Lim, 1997).

Greenhouse gas emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity from nuclear are generally greater than for most renewable energy sources, especially wind and hydroelectricity, though the differences are not great and the emissions from all three sources are far less than most fossil fuel sources. The Oko-Institut study calculates emissions for nuclear at 34 grams/kWh, wind power 20 grams, and hydroelectricity 33 grams (Fritsche and Lim, 1997).

top of page