Mar 26, 2007 - Tim Flannery, a leading Australian environmentalist, would have no ... Flannery T 2006, âLet's talk about nuclear power and other energy ...
Evaluating Nuclear Energy in the Context of Global Sustainability - Graeme M. Taylor
Published in Social Alternatives, 2007, 26 (2): 12-17.
Abstract Advocates of nuclear power argue that it is a proven technology that can provide cheap and reliable energy without contributing to climate change. Opponents disagree and argue that it is better to invest in conservation and alternative energy sources given the pollution, risks and costs associated with the mining, storage, shipping and disposal of radioactive fuels and waste. Both positions should be examined carefully.
The need for environmental sustainability requires a paradigm shift from unsustainable quantitative growth to sustainable qualitative development. As a result the criteria for evaluating competing energy technologies should be widened to include not only economic and environmental costs and benefits, but also the extent to which various options support the transition to a sustainable economy. Factors supporting sustainability include: protecting ecosystems, reducing pollution, limiting consumption, conservation, using renewable energies and resources, recycling, decentralized and distributed production, smaller and smarter products, and improved networking.
Keywords Nuclear energy, global, sustainable, economy, evaluate, alternatives, renewables, paradigm shift, conservation, decentralized.
The coming paradigm shift Most of the debates over nuclear energy involve comparisons of the costs and benefits of competing technologies. Background research often assumes that the global economy will continue to expand and that political and economic policies will continue to support investments in existing technologies (International Energy Agency 2006). Debates then centre on different evaluations of various factors such as environmental risks and projected economic costs.
In the following article I will argue that the overriding issue in the coming decades will be the environmental sustainability of the planet. There is now general international agreement that greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced in order to prevent catastrophic climate change (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). There is also an emerging awareness that the biophysical limits of our finite planet may mean that the demand for fossil fuels, water and food may soon outstrip production (Brown 2003). In response to these growing constraints our economic model will have to change from one focused on quantitative growth to one focused on qualitative development. This new paradigm requires a completely different approach to economic and social planning: we now need to evaluate all long-term energy investments in terms of how well they support global sustainability.
The context of the current debates The International Energy Agency (IEA) states that, “The world is facing twin energy-related threats: that of not having adequate and secure supplies of energy at affordable prices and that of environmental harm caused by consuming too much of it (IEA 2006 p. 3).” In response to these growing pressures, on March 9, 2007, the 27 members of the European Union agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 1990 levels within 13 years while generating 20% of energy from renewable sources (Guardian 2007). While this historic pact represented a consensus on the need to take serious measures to both counter the threat of climate change and reduce dependence on imported oil and gas, it did not resolve the debate inside Europe over whether or not nuclear energy produces more environmental and economic benefits than costs. Some European countries view nuclear power as a safe, cheap and clean source of energy, while others oppose it as a dangerous
and expensive. In order to achieve a final agreement, the European Union chose to take an “agnostic” position on the opposing positions held by pro- and anti-nuclear groups (EurActiv 2007).
The need to produce more and cleaner energy is giving fresh impetus to advocates of nuclear power, since the production of electricity from nuclear fission does not produce greenhouse gases. This represents a real shift in the fortunes of the nuclear industry, which has had most of the power plants ordered since 1970 cancelled due to rising construction costs, increasing public fears regarding safety, and the falling costs of competing fossil fuels (Heppenheimer 2002).
Although nuclear power has been traditionally backed by large corporate and military interests, and opposed by major environmental organizations, nuclear power is now gaining support among a minority of environmentalists. They believe that the potential environmental risks of radioactive waste and nuclear accidents pale in comparison with the certain environmental destruction of global warming (Energy Bulletin 2004).
The stakes are high for advocates of nuclear power as well as their competitors and opponents, since the global energy problems are immense in scale and will only be solved through enormous investments. For example, industrialized countries will have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60-80% by the middle of the century in order to avoid permanent environmental and economic damage from climate change (BBC 2006). Major reductions in emissions will also have to be made by developing countries.
Although these targets seem impossible, the pressure to achieve them will only grow. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report, if we continue with business as usual, the average global temperature will probably rise by the end of the century between 1.8˚C and 4˚C, but possibly increase as little as 1.1˚C or as much as 6.4˚C (IPCC 2007). An increase of 2.4˚C will kill off almost all the coral reefs, melt glaciers and cause water shortages, increase the area of deserts and cause the extinction of one third of all species on earth. An increase of 3.4˚C will allow forest fires to sweep through the rainforests
that produce most of the oxygen on earth. An increase of 6.4˚C will exterminate most life on earth (Independent 2007).
At the same time, the demand for energy is rapidly rising. Since 1.6 billion people currently have no access to electricity, a new 1,000 megawatt power plant will have to be built every 48 hours for the next 50 years to bring global electrification up to the level of consumption Americans had in 1950 (Electric Power Research Institute 2007). While demand is increasing in both developing and developed countries, oil reserves are decreasing by 4-6% per year (EXXONMOBIL 2004). The International Energy Agency estimates that $20 trillion will have to be invested in all forms of energy production by 2030 to meet growing demand (IEA 2006 p. 6).
Major policy decisions regarding these energy investments need to be made in the near future because new technologies take years to develop, and major power installations and infrastructure take years to bring into production. As a result environmental organizations as well as advocates for all the major competing industries (nuclear, oil, gas, coal, and renewables) are now furiously lobbying for public support, regulatory approval, government contracts and subsidies.
Major arguments for nuclear energy Advocates argue that nuclear energy is a proven, reliable and cost-effective source of electrical power (Uranium Information Centre 2007). Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power plants do not produce greenhouse gases, and unlike wind and solar energy, they do not produce intermittent power and therefore do not require standby capacity. They also state that the production of nuclear energy requires fewer construction materials per kWh than solar or wind energy (Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy 2006).
Advocates also argue that nuclear plants are less dangerous than conventional power plants because they do not contribute to smog, and that they are becoming safer and more efficient all the time (McGregor 2001). Although they produce radioactive waste, this waste is almost completely confined and can be safely disposed of deep underground. While there are
security risks involved with nuclear power plants, they can also use and dispose of the weapons-grade uranium contained in atomic weapons. Although uranium is a nonrenewable energy source, there are large supplies available which can be used to support the transition to a sustainable global economy (Uranium Information Centre March 2007).
The reason why some leading environmentalists have (reluctantly) decided to support the expansion of nuclear power is their belief that renewables alone cannot meet future energy demand. More nuclear power is needed to avoid having to build more power plants that burn fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants can also be used to desalinate sea water in countries experiencing water scarcity and to produce hydrogen to replace gasoline and
diesel
fuels for use in transport.
Major arguments against nuclear energy Opponents of nuclear energy argue that nuclear power has never been cost competitive due to the huge hidden costs of waste disposal, decommissioning radioactive plants, and accident insurance (Harding 2007). Moreover, nuclear energy is currently uncompetitive with gas-fired cogeneration and trigeneration as well as windpower (Lovins 2005, p. 6). They also argue that the nuclear fuel cycle is not greenhouse friendly, since it releases large amounts of CO2 per kWh, particularly during uranium mining. And because nuclear power plants take an average of 10 years to build, they cannot quickly contribute to the reduction of global greenhouse gases.
A major issue is the safety of nuclear power. Opponents believe that it is inherently unsafe and that nuclear accidents can have catastrophic consequences (Greenpeace 2007). Nuclear power plants are security risks as they are obvious targets for terrorists and there is the constant danger of nuclear materials falling into the wrong hands. Radioactive waste will remain dangerous for thousands of years, thus saddling future generations with costs without benefits as there are no cheap or foolproof solutions for the long-term storage of nuclear waste. Because of the risks, no-one wants a nuclear power plant or waste storage facility in their neighbourhood.
Supporters of renewable energies argue that nuclear energy can only be a short term solution since uranium is not a renewable resource. They believe that nuclear power plants are poor investments: despite massive subsidies, the nuclear industry contributes only a small proportion of the world’s energy (Sherry 2000). Better returns would result from investing in reducing pollution from conventional power plants or from increasing the research and development of renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, biomass, and wave energies, as all of these new technologies are becoming cheaper and more efficient each year (Lovins 2005 p. 35). Some renewable technologies, for example windpower and solar water heating, are already cheaper than fossil fuels (Rocky Mountain Institute 2006).
Situating the debate in the context of global sustainability The search for new sources of energy is currently being driven by three factors: increasing demand, rising oil and gas prices, and climate change. Behind all these factors is the growing world population—projected to increase to 8.9 billion by 2050 (United Nations 2006)—and the continuous expansion of global consumption. The World Bank has estimated that global consumption will increase by 400% between 2000 and 2050—if current 3% per year rates of growth are maintained. This assumes that enormous new quantities of fresh water, wood, minerals, oil and gas, grains, fish and other essential inputs will be found to produce four times as many products. The problem is that these raw materials do not exist. Nicholas Stern, the bank’s former Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President, stated, “The $140 trillion world of five decades time simply cannot be sustained on current production and consumption patterns (World Bank 2002).”
Worse than that, the global economy cannot continue to produce and consume even at current levels with current technologies: the planet does not have the resources and cannot recycle the waste. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment concluded that 16 out of 25 services that ecosystems provide to humanity were being critically degraded (Bass S 2007, p. 2). Since the global economy has been running an environmental deficit since 1979, and it is only a matter of time before it goes bankrupt (World Wildlife Fund 2004, pp. 2-4). Bankruptcy will take the form of running out of critical resources—whether oil, water, food,
key metals, or other products—and the devastating collapse of major ecosystems (forests, fisheries, river systems, etc.).
Although increasing efficiencies and resource substitutions can extend our ability to product and consume products, the Earth’s biophysical carrying capacity places strict limits on sustainable growth. For example, no resource substitutes are available for the atmosphere, for fresh water, for the ecological services of rainforests, or for biodiversity. The finite resources of our planet make endless growth impossible.
The fact that the global economy is already unsustainable means that all growth-based economics are obsolete. In the coming decades, only two outcomes are possible: either the global economy will continue its unsustainable growth until ecological destruction and resource shortages cause catastrophic collapse, or the global economy will be transformed into a sustainable system. If we are to avoid disaster, we will have to change our economic model from increasing consumption to improving the quality of life.
Transforming the global system will involve a complete paradigm shift: from consumption to conservation, from exploitation to interdependence, from quantitative growth to qualitative development, and from a mechanistic to a holistic view of reality. (Taylor D & Taylor G 2007). This will necessitate congruent changes in our world-view, values, social institutions, technologies and economic processes. Although transforming the consumer society into a conserver society will be an enormous task, we have no choice since the only alternative is the environmental, economic and social collapse of civilization.
Planning for sustainability Although the term “sustainable development” is widely used, it refers more to sustaining growth than developing sustainability. Steve Bass, from the International Institute for Environment and Development, lists some of the factors blocking change: “Economic growth is considered an inviolable principle, rather than people’s rights and welfare, or environmental processes and thresholds; environmental benefits and costs are externalised; poor people are marginalised, and inequities entrenched; governance regimes
are not designed to internalize environmental factors, to iron out social inequities, or to develop better economic models; therefore unsustainable behaviour has not been substantially challenged (Bass 2007, p. 2).”
For example, the International Energy Agency (IEA) puts forward two future global energy scenarios: the Reference Scenario, which is business as usual; and the Alternative Policy Scenario, in which governments implement all their proposals for enhancing energy security and mitigating CO2 emissions. While energy demand and emissions are projected to rise more slowly in the Alternative Policy Scenario, it is expected that they will continue to rise in both scenarios with fossil fuels remaining the dominant source of energy in 2030 (IEA 2006, pp. 1-5).
Neither of these scenarios is sustainable, since both assume that economic expansion will continue—i.e. that the environment will continue to degrade. As the IEA also points out: “Keeping global CO2 emissions at current levels would require much stronger policies. In practice, technological breakthroughs that change profoundly the way we produce and consume energy will almost certainly be needed as well. The difficulties in making this happen in the timeframe of our analysis do not justify inaction or delay, which would raise the long-term economic, security and environmental cost. The sooner a start is made, the quicker a new generation of more efficient and low- or zero-carbon energy systems can be put in place (IEA 2006, p. 12).”
In view of the disastrous consequences of unsustainable economic development, all new energy investments need to support the transition to a sustainable global system. Planning for sustainability involves first of all redefining development as improving the quality of life rather than increasing the quantity of goods. This will have to be supported by regulatory requirements to live within ecological limits and preserve ecosystems.
Achieving sustainability will require policies that support conserving (rather than consuming), recycling, and the use of renewable energies and resources. In addition, policies will need to support the development of smaller, cleaner “sunrise” industries rather than
large, polluting “sunset” industries. This can be done through taxing polluters, subsidizing sustainable technologies and regulations that favour sustainable best practices.
The shift from an unsustainable economy to a sustainable economy is in part the shift from industrial age technologies to information age technologies: moving from big and bureaucratic to smaller and smarter. As a result planning policies should prioritize the development of small, smart, flexible, and efficient organizations and products. Conservation can also be supported through maximizing local production and consumption—for example the decentralized and distributed production of energy. As well, for local production to function efficiently, it will have to be integrated into a larger networked, self-regulating system.
Nuclear power plants do not meet these criteria very well. However, all options need to be evaluated as the transition to a sustainable society will involve “greening” existing technologies and utilizing differing technologies for different purposes. For example nuclear energy might be an efficient way to desalinate saltwater or to produce hydrogen fuel for use in hydrogen-electric transport.
More work has been done to determine the relative costs and benefits of large-scale investments in the research and development of different energy technologies. Governments should also not commit to large, long-term energy investments without first considering new technological developments, since many new technologies are on the horizon with the potential to be cheaper and cleaner alternatives to nuclear energy—for example the anaerobic production of hydrogen gas from coal using plasma converters (Startech Environmental 2006).
Proper evaluations will need to analyse competing options in terms of Genuine Progress Indicators in order to take into account social impacts on health and happiness as well as environmental and economic impacts (Redefining Progress). Variations in costs and benefits over short, medium and long term time-frames also have to be taken into account. For
example the costs of global warming are forecast to rise sharply over time, as will the costs of oil and gas when demand begins to exceed supply.
What we already know While much work remains to be done on evaluating different technologies, some things are already clear. A scientific consensus has been reached on the dangers of global warming. By itself, this is enough to tell us that our survival depends on developing a sustainable global system.
We also know that conservation is the cheapest and fastest way to increase energy supply and reduce pollution. The International Energy Agency estimates that every additional dollar invested in more efficient electrical equipment, appliances and buildings reduces the need for more than two dollars in investment in electricity supply—with payback in only one to eight years (IEA 2006, p. 9). Following this approach, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District has redesigned their services around energy efficiency and photovoltaics and closed their nuclear plant (Rocky Mountain Institute 2006).
We also know that venture capital in Silicon Valley is investing in renewables because they are the fastest growing sectors of the energy market with annual growth rates of 25%+ (Earth Policy Institute 2006). It makes economic sense to invest in sunrise industries with high growth potentials, especially in a country like Australia, which is awash in renewable sources of wind, solar and tidal power.
But this doesn’t mean that we should automatically rule out any role for nuclear power plants. Tim Flannery, a leading Australian environmentalist, would have no objections to building nuclear power plants in Australia if they replaced coal-fired plants and helped to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, he says “This, I fear, is not what is intended. Instead, many will want Australia to have its cake and eat it too, which will mean keeping the coal-fired power plants and supplementing them with a bit of nuclear. And exports of both coal and uranium would, of course, be pursued as vigorously as possible. Where
would such a policy lead us? Within a few decades, we could be living a world undergoing substantial destabilization of its environmental and political structures. And that world would be awash with Australian uranium capable of making the most destructive weapons ever devised (Flannery 2006).”
It is clear that will not be able to change from consumption to conservation, and from fossil fuels to renewables, without changing our cultural and technological paradigms. Widespread public discussions are needed to raise awareness of the seriousness of the environmental problems facing the planet and their potential solutions. An important component of these discussions should be how we can redesign energy production and consumption to support sustainable outcomes.
References Bass S 2007, “A new era in sustainable development”, viewed March 29, 2007 . BBC News, Oct. 31, 2006, ‘Greenhouse gas emissions rising’, viewed October 31, 2006 . Brown L 2003, Plan B: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, NY. Earth Policy Institute 2006, ‘Data for Wind energy booming’ viewed March 26, 2007 < http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update52_data.htm#graph1>. Electric Power Research Institute 2007, ‘Electricity, the economy and environmental sustainability’, viewed March 26, 2007 . Energy Bulletin 2004, ‘Only nuclear power can now halt global warming’, viewed March 28, 2007 . Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy 2006, ‘Introduction’, viewed March 27, 2007 .
EurActiv.com, ‘Energy and climate change package’ viewed March 26, 2007 EXXONMOBIL 2004, A Report on Energy Trends, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Alternative Energy, viewed March 25, 2007 . Flannery T 2006, “Let’s talk about nuclear power and other energy sources”, viewed on May 7, 2007 < http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/lets-talk-about-nuclear-poweremandem-other-energy-sources/2006/05/29/1148754933159.html>. Greenpeace International 2007, ‘End the nuclear age’, viewed March 28, 2007, . Guardian Unlimited Mar. 10, 2007 ‘Europe sets benchmark for tackling climate change’, viewed March 26, 2007 Harding J 2007, Seven myths of the nuclear renaissance, viewed March 28, 2007, . Heppenheimer T 2002, “Nuclear power: what went wrong?”, viewed May 7, 2007, . Independent, Feb. 3, 2007, ‘Global warming: the final warning’, viewed February 3, 2007 . International Energy Agency 2006, ‘World energy outlook summary 2006’, viewed March 26, 2007 . Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, ‘Climate change 2007: the physical science basis’, viewed February 3, 2007 < http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf >. Lovins A 2005, Nuclear power: economic fundamentals and potential role in climate change mitigation, viewed March 31, 2007 . McGregor D 2001, ‘Rethinking Nuclear Power’, The New American April 23, 2001, viewed March 31, 2007 . Redefining Progress, .
Rocky Mountain Institute 2006, “Renewables to the Rescue/The Nuclear Write-off”, viewed May 7, 2007 < http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid319.php>. Sherry C 2000, ‘Throwing good money after bad: nuclear energy as a clean air solution’, viewed March 31, 2007 . Startech Environmental Corporation 2006, ‘Startech Environmental successfully completes first phase of ‘hydrogen from coal program for Department of Energy’, Press Release May 1, 2006 viewed March 31, 2007 . Taylor, D & Taylor, G 2007, ‘Collapse and Transformation’, Journal of Future Studies, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 29-46. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2006, World Population Prospects: the 2004 Revision Population Database, viewed December 19, 2006 . Uranium Information Centre February 2007, ‘The economics of nuclear power’, viewed March 27, 2007, . Uranium Information Centre March 2007, ‘The supply of uranium’, viewed March 27, 2007, . World Bank Aug. 21, 2002, ‘News release’, viewed May 30, 2005 . World Wildlife Fund 2004, Living Planet Report 2004, viewed May 30, 2005 .
