Nuclear power phase-out

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.135.157.96 (talk) at 06:38, 4 May 2006 (→‎Economy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A nuclear power plant at Grafenrheinfeld, Germany. All German nuclear plants are scheduled to be shut down by 2020.

A nuclear power phase-out is the discontinuation of usage of nuclear power for energy production. It includes the closing down of nuclear power plants. It was introduced in Sweden (1980), in Italy (1987), in Belgium (1999), and in Germany (2000) and has been discussed in several other European countries. Austria, the Netherlands, and Spain have enacted laws not to build new nuclear power stations.

Concerns about nuclear energy are about its safety, its possible environmental impact and the associated social and political consequences. Often connected with phase-outs is the idea to force a shift to alternative energy.

Overview

A popular movement against nuclear power also gained strength in the Western world, based on the fear of a possible nuclear accident and on fears of latent radiation. The 1979 accident at Three Mile Island and the 1986 Chernobyl accident also played a key role in stopping new plant construction in many countries.

Several countries, especially European countries, have abandoned the use of nuclear energy since 1987.[1] Austria (1978), Sweden (1980) and Italy (1987) voted in referendums to oppose or phase out nuclear power, while opposition in Ireland prevented a nuclear programme there. Countries that have no nuclear plants and have restricted new plant constructions comprise Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Norway.[2][3] Poland stopped the construction of a plant.[4][5] Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden decided not to build new plants or intend to phase out nuclear power, although still mostly relying on nuclear energy.[6][7] Switzerland has had a moratorium on the construction of nuclear power plants for ten years, but in a referendum 2003 it was decided not to renew it.

The parliamentary decision in 2002 in Finland to build a fifth nuclear power station was seen as very significant in that it was the first such decision to build a new nuclear power plant in Western Europe for more than a decade.[8]

If countries shut down nuclear power plants they have to find alternatives for energy generation if they don't want to become dependent on imports. Therefore, the discussion of a future for nuclear energy is intertwined with a discussion of renewable energy development. The most discussed alternatives to nuclear power include hydroelectricity, fossil energy, solar energy, and biomass. (see also alternative energy)

Countries that have initiated a phase out or have discussed it

(See also Nuclear energy policy)

Belgium

Belgium's nuclear phase-out legislation was agreed in July 1999 by the Liberals (VLD and MR), the Socialists (SP.A and PS) and the Greens party (Groen! and Ecolo). The phase-out law calls for each of Belgium's seven reactors to close after 40 years of operation with no new reactors built subsequently. When the law was being passed, it was speculated it would be overturned again as soon as an administration without the Greens was in power.[9]

In 2003, a new government was elected without the Greens. In September of 2005, the government decided to partially overturn the previous decision, extending the phase-out period for another 20 years, with possible further extensions. It remains unknown if additional new nuclear plants will be built. The reason given for revoking the decision to shut Belgium's reactors is that it is unrealistic to expect to replace the electricity being generated by nuclear plants by alternative means. The only practical alternatives being massive production of new oil- or coal-fueled electricity plants or purchase the electricity abroad. The first option is not feasible due to restrictions imposed by the Kyoto Agreement, while the second has higher associated costs than continued operation of Belgium's nuclear plants.

In July 2005, the National Planning Bureau published a new report, which states that oil and other fossil fuels generate 90% of Belgian energy use, while nuclear power accounts for 9% and renewable energy for 1%. Note the fact, however, that electricity only amounts to 16% of total energy use, and while nuclear-powered electricity amounts to 9% of use in Belgium, in many parts of Belgium, especially in Flanders, it makes up more then 50% of the electricity provided to households and businesses. This was one of the major reasons to revert the earlier phase-out, since it was totally impossible to provide more then 50% of the electricity by 'alternative' energy-production, and a revert to the classical coal-driven electricity would mean inability to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol.

It is projected that within 25 years renewable energy will increase to at most 5% of the energy use, because of high costs. The current plan of the Government arranges for all nuclear power stations to shut down by 2025. The report raises concerns about greenhouse gases and sustainability.[10]

In August 2005, French SUEZ offered to buy the Belgian Electrabel, which runs nuclear power stations.[11] End of 2005, Suez had some 98.5% of all Electrabel shares. Beginning 2006, Suez and Gaz de France annouced a merger.

Germany

In 2000, the German government, consisting of the SPD and Alliance '90/The Greens officially announced its intention to phase out the use of nuclear energy. Jürgen Trittin (from the German Greens) as the Minister of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, reached an agreement with energy companies on the gradual shut down of the country's nineteen nuclear power plants and a cessation of civil usage of nuclear power by 2020. This was enacted as the Nuclear Exit Law. Based on the calculation of 32 years as the usual time of operation for a nuclear power plant, the agreement precisely tells how much energy a power plant is allowed to produce before being closed down.

The power plants in Stade and Obrigheim were turned off (November 14, 2003 and May 11, 2005) - their dismantling is scheduled to start in 2007.[12]

Anti-nuclear activists criticize the agreement: they think of it rather as a guarantee of operation than a nuclear power phase-out. They argued also the time limit for phase-out was too long and criticized the ban on building new commercially used nuclear power plants did not apply to scientifically used plants, which since had been put into operation (e.g. München II) and also not to stations for enrichment of uranium, hence the enrichment station in Gronau has received permission to extend operations. Further, nuclear fuel reprocessing was not immediately forbidden, but allowed instead until the middle of 2005.

Although, the reactors in Obrigheim had been shut down, the dismantling of the plant will only begin in 2007. Therefore, it remains possible for the newly elected Christian Democratic Union-headed government to restart the reactors.

A Renewable Energy Sources Act provided for a tax in support of renewable energy. The German government, declaring climate protection as a key policy issue, announced a carbon dioxide reduction target by the year 2005 compared to 1990 by 25%.[13]. In 1998, the use of renewables in Germany reached 284 PJ of primary energy demand, which corresponds to 5% of the total electricity demand. By 2010 the German Government wants to reach 10%.[14]

Anti-nuclear activists have argued the German government had been supportive of nuclear power by providing financial guarantees for energy providers. Also it has been pointed out, there were, as yet, no plans for the final storage of nuclear waste. By tightening safety regulations and increasing taxation, a faster end to nuclear power could have been forced. A gradual closing down of nuclear power plants had come along with concessions in questions of safety for the population with transport of nuclear waste throughout Germany.[15] This latter point has been disagreed with by the Minister of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.[16]

Critics of a phase-out in Germany argue that nuclear power stations could not be compensated for, and predict an energy crisis, or argue that only coal could possibly compensate for nuclear power and CO2 emissions will increase tremendously (with the use of oil and fossils) and/or in energy imports either ironically of nuclear power from France or of natural gas from Russia, which is still not perceived as a safe partner.[17]

Because of increasing prices for fossil fuels, arguments for a phase-out of the phase-out were again being discussed. In the federal election in 2002 the candidate for chancellor of the CDU/CSU, Edmund Stoiber, promised, in the event he wins, to cancel the phase-out.[18] His successor and current German chancellor Angela Merkel has announced plans to negotiate with energy companies the time limit for a shut down of nuclear power stations.[19] The battle over nuclear energy, that was set to be a key issue in coalition talks between CDU and SPD, was settled in favor of a phase-out.[20][21]

Italy

Nuclear power phase-out commenced in Italy in 1987, one year after the Chernobyl accident. Following a referendum in that year, Italy's four nuclear power plants were closed down, the last in 1990. A moratorium on the construction of new plants, originally in effect from 1987 until 1993, has since been extended indefinitely.[22]

As of 2006, Italy was an importer of nuclear-generated electricity, and its largest electricity utility Enel SPA was investing both in reactors in France and Slovakia to provide this electricity in the future, and also in the development of the EPR technology.

The phase-out remains a live issue in Italian politics. In October 2005 Italian Environment Minister Altero Matteoli announced interest in switching to nuclear power as the main source of energy within 10-15 years.

The Netherlands

In the Netherlands, in 1994, the Dutch parliament voted to phase out after a discussion of nuclear waste management. The power station at Dodewaard was shut down in 1997. In 1997 the government decided to end Borssele's operating license, at the end of 2003. In 2003 the shut-down was postponed by the conservative government to 2013.[23][24] In 2005 the decision was reversed and research in expanding nuclear power has been initiated. Reversal was preceded by the publication of the Christian Democratic Appeal's report on sustainable energy.[25] Other coalition parties then conceded. In 2006 the government decided that Borssele will remain open untill 2033, if it can comply with the highest safety standards. The owners, Essent and Delta will invest 500 million euro in sustainable energy, together with the government, money which the government claims otherwise should have been paid to the plants owners as compensation.

Philippines

In the Philippines, in 2004, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo outlined her energy policy. She wants to increase indigenous oil and gas reserves through exploration, develop alternative energy resources, enforce the development of natural gas as a fuel and coco diesel as alternative fuel, and build partnerships with Saudi Arabia, Asian countries, China and Russia. She also made public plans to convert the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant into a gas powered facility.[26]

Sweden

After the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station (United States) in 1979, there was a referendum in Sweden. After that the Swedish parliament decided in 1980 that no further nuclear power plants should be built, and that a nuclear power phase-out should be completed by 2010. Some observers have condemned the referendum as flawed because people could only vote "NO to nuclear" although three options were basically harder or softer "NO".

After the 1986 Chernobyl accident in Ukraine, the question of security of nuclear energy was again called into question. In 1997 the Riksdag, the Swedish parliament, decided to shut down one of the reactors at Barsebäck by July 1, 1998 and the second before July 1, 2001, although under the condition that their energy production would be compensated. The next conservative government tried to cancel the phase-out, but, after protests, did not cancel it but instead decided to extend the time limit to 2010. At Barsebäck, block 1 was shut down on November 30, 1999 and block 2 on June 1, 2005.

The nuclear energy phase-out is controversial in Sweden. It is feared that Sweden will lose its international competititiveness. The energy production of the remaining nuclear power plants has been considerably increased in recent years to compensate for the turn off of Barsebäck. In 1998, the government decided to build no further hydropower plants in order to protect national water resources. In spite of extensive efforts to create alternatives to nuclear power, such as fossil fuels, it is not likely that Sweden can complete the nuclear power phase-out by 2010. It has been estimated that nuclear power plants in operation will stay in operation until 2050.

In March 2005, an opinion poll with 1027 persons asked, showed 83% support for maintaining or increasing nuclear power.[27] Another poll in May that polled residents that lived around Barsebäck found that 94% wanted it to stay. In June, 2005, radioactive water was leaking from the nuclear waste store in Forsmark, Sweden. The content of radioactive caesium in sampled water was ten times the normal value. wikinews:Radioactive leakage at Swedish nuclear waste store. This has, however, not led to a major change in public opinion.[28]

Sweden's largest powerplant with 4 reactors, Ringhals, located about 10 km south of Göteborg, delivers approximately 24 TWh a year, the equivalent of 21% of Swedish electricity consumption.[29]

Switzerland

In Switzerland there have been many referenda on the topic of nuclear energy, beginning in 1979 with a citizens' initiative for nuclear safety, which was rejected. In 1984, there was a vote on an initiative "for a future without further nuclear power stations" with the result being a 55 to 45% vote against. On September 23, 1990 Switzerland had two more referenda about nuclear power. The initiative "stop the construction of nuclear power stations," which proposed a ten-year moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants, was passed with 54.5% to 45.5%. The initiative for a phase-out was rejected with by 53% to 47.1%. In 2000 there was a vote on a Green Tax for support of solar energy. It was rejected by 67-31%. On May 18, 2003, there were two referenda: "Electricity without Nuclear," asking for a decision on a nuclear power phase-out, and "Moratorium Plus," for an extension of the earlier decided moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants. Both were turned down. The results were: Moratorium Plus: 41.6% Yes, 58.4% No; Electricity without Nuclear: 33.7% Yes, 66.3% No.[30]

The program of the "Electricity without Nuclear" petition was to shut down all nuclear power stations until 2033, starting with Unit 1 and 2 of Beznau nuclear power stations, Mühleberg in 2005, Gösgen in 2009, and Leibstadt in 2014. "Moratorium Plus" was for an extension of the moratorium for another 10 years, and additionally a condition to stop the present reactors after 40 years of operation. In order to extend the 40 years by 10 more years another referendum would have to be held (at high administrative costs). The rejection of the Moratorium Plus had come to surprise to many, as opinion polls before the referendum have showed acceptance. Reasons for the rejections in both cases were seen in the worsened economical situation.[31]

As of 2005, Switzerland has five nuclear reactors at Beznau (Beznau 1 and 2), Gösgen, Leibstadt, and Mühleberg, and around 40% of its electricity is generated by nuclear power. Another 60% comes from hydroelectricity.[32]

Other countries

(See also Nuclear energy policy and List of nuclear reactors)

Europe

In Spain a moratorium was enacted by the socialist government in 1983[33][34] and plans for a phase-out are being discussed anew.[35]

In Ireland, a nuclear power plant was first proposed in 1968. It was to be built during the 1970s at Carnsore Point in County Wexford. The plan called for first one, then ultimately four plants to be built at the site, but it was dropped after strong opposition from environmental groups, and Ireland has remained without nuclear power since. Despite opposing nuclear power (and nuclear fuel reprocessing at Sellafield), Ireland is to open an interconnector to the mainland UK to buy electricity, which is, in some part, the product of nuclear power.

On July 9, 1997, the Austrian Parliament voted unanimously to maintain the country's anti-nuclear policy.[36]

Slovenia will close down its only nuclear plant in Krško by 2023 and decided not to build further nuclear plants.

Greece operates only a single small nuclear reactor in the Greek National Physics Research Laboratory in Demokritus Laboratories for research purposes.

Oceania

New Zealand enacted the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act of 1987 which prohibits the stationing of nuclear weapons on the territory of New Zealand and the entry into New Zealand waters of nuclear armed or propelled ships. This Act of Parliament, however, does not prevent the construction of nuclear power plants.

In Australia there are no nuclear power plants. Australia has very extensive, low-cost coal reserves and substantial natural gas and majority political opinion is still opposed to domestic nuclear power on both environmental and economic grounds. However, a number of prominent politicians have begun to advocate nuclear power as a means to affordably reduce greenhouse emissions and perhaps allow for large-scale de-salination plants.[37]

Asia

As of 2005, South Korea has 18 operational nuclear power reactors, with two more under construction and scheduled to go online by 2004. Renewable energy, mainly hydropower, is slowly gaining share.[38][39]

For North Korea, two PWRs at Kumho were under construction until that was suspended in November, 2003. On September 19, 2005 North Korea pledged to stop building nuclear weapons and agreed to international inspections in return for energy aid, which may include one or more light water reactors - the agreement said "The other parties expressed their respect and agreed to discuss at an appropriate time the subject of the provision of light-water reactor" [sic].[40]

In July 2000, the Turkish government decided not to build the controversial nuclear plant in Akkuyu.

Japan has 3 reactors under construction. [41]

China has 10 reactors under construction. [42]

North America

No new plants are under construction but 39 reactors have had their licences renewed, three Early Site Permits have been applied for, and three consortiums have applied for Combined Construction-Operating Licences under the Nuclear Power 2010 Program. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains incentives to further expand nuclear power. [43]

South America

In Brazil, nuclear energy, produced by two reactors at Angra, accounts for about 4% of the country's electricity - about 13,000 GWh per year.[44]

Africa

South Africa is the only country in Africa, with nuclear power plants. It has one station at Koeberg.[45]

Pros and cons of the phase-out

Arguments for the phase-out

Environment

Anti-nuclear politicians state environmental concerns with nuclear power as arguments for a phase-out. A main concern against the use of nuclear power for energy production is safety of the environment and people. Nuclear accidents in the past, including some at civilian power plants, have released radioactive contamination. The biggest, at Chernobyl, killed 41[46][47] and hurt many people and rendered large amounts of land unusable for the next few centuries. Some fear that more accidents will happen.[48][49]

Environmental groups criticize the environmental aspects of radiation. They criticize mining, enrichment and long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel and the disposal of nuclear waste. Groups warn of radioactive contamination and demand a strict adherence to the precautionary principle where technologies are rejected unless they can be proven to not cause significant harm to the health of living things or the biosphere.[50]

Plutonium, which is contained in the fuel rods, is extracted in COGEMA La Hague site (France) and Sellafield (Great Britain). In this process great amounts of radioactive waste have in the past been dumped in the sea. The practice of ocean floor disposal is now banned.[51]

Economy

Some scholars claim that nuclear energy is economically disadvantageous, and the enormous capital costs of building a plant cannot be compensated by the energy production. Paine[52] stated that Analysis [...] suggests that even under the most optimistic conditions (where costs are cut considerably and revenues climb substantially), the current generation of the nuclear option over its lifetime may at best be economically marginal.

The main points in his argument are:

  • Construction cost are unlikely to be recovered by operating the plant, with expected lifetime and revenue;
  • Costs of competing sources of energy, as oil, natural gas and coal should increase unrealistically for nuclear power to be competitive;
  • The plant fleet seldom operates at full power capacity, but only at a fraction (Paine reports 58% as typical), since some plants must periodically stop for safety controls. Increasing this percentage would therefore pose an inherent risk.
  • Summing up the numbers, nuclear power would be a marginally successful investment only in the most optimistic scenarios (maximum lifetime, technology improvement, uptime and energy prices).

Paine does not discuss environmental issues as waste disposal. He also laments that precise data on the economic viability of nuclear power is not made available to the public.

It is important to note that the high construction costs are largely due to government restrictions and mandates. Also, the cost of competing sources of energy are in fact rising "unrealistically" due to international strife and exponential growth in energy demand from rising markets such as India and China, which in all probability will not only continue at present levels but grow substantially more.

On the other hand, nuclear power offers extremely low average cost due to the relatively low operating costs and fuel costs. For example, a nuclear reactor can operate for 9-12 months on a few million dollars worth of fuel and maintenance while a coal-fired plant consumes tens of thousands of dollars of fuel a day. The only other form of long-run energy production that can match nuclear power's costs are coal and hydro-electric power. Coal plants produce large amounts of pollution that contains harmful substances such as mercury, hydro-electric dams are very expensive and can have ecological externalities, and nuclear power creates nuclear reactive waste. Other sources such as oil and natural gas plants are prohibitively expensive to run as main-power long-run stations; instead, they are "short-run" stations that produce only during peak energy demand times for hours, at most days at a time. This is due to several causes, namely the difficulty and cost of the fuel they use and the maintenance-intensive nature of the energy production.

Insurance

Nuclear power plants are not insured solely by private insurers. As of 2005, the maximum amount of purchaseable insurance available was believed to be US$ 300 million by the US government. The risks of a severe nuclear accident could be much greater (although Three Mile Island was not). Therefore, some governments provide support for insurance (see for example the US's Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, discussed below). This practice is similar to that for banks, which are also backed with government guarantees.

The Price-Anderson Act, the world's first comprehensive nuclear liability law, has been central to addressing the question of liability for nuclear accidents since 1957. It is renewed every ten years or so, with strong bipartisan support, and requires individual operators to be responsible for two layers of insurance cover:

  1. The first layer is where each nuclear site is required to purchase US$ 300 million coverage from private insurers.
  2. The second layer, if required, is jointly provided by all US reactor operators: this layer is funded through retrospective payments of up to US$ 96 million per reactor, collected in annual instalments of US$ 15 million and adjusted for inflation.

Combined, the total provision comes to over US$ 10 billion paid for by the utilities (the United States Department of Energy provides US$ 9.5 billion for its own nuclear activities). Beyond this coverage, and irrespective of fault, the United States Congress, as insurer of last resort, must decide how compensation is provided in the event claims exceed the covered US$ 10 billion. In 2005, the Act was renewed again by the US Congress as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

A criticism occasionally made is that over 40 years of research has failed to produce an industry which is safe enough to afford the costs of its own insurance. Supporters of nuclear power claim, however, that inherently-safe designs such as the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor should address this.

Security

Nuclear power plants have also frequently been speculated to be possible targets for terrorist attacks (e.g. in Germany.[53])

Waste management

The long-term radioactive waste storage problems of nuclear power have not been fully solved. Several countries have considered using underground repositories. Nuclear waste, in countries with nuclear reactors, is a small percentage of all industrial waste that remains toxic indefinitely.[54] Spent fuel rods are now stored in concrete casks close to the nuclear reactors.[55] The amounts of waste can be reduced in several ways. Both nuclear reprocessing and fast breeder reactors can reduce the amounts of waste. Subcritical reactors or fusion reactors could greatly reduce the time the waste has to be stored.[56] Subcritical reactors may also be able to do the same to already existing waste.

It has also not been decided in some countries who should pay for the supervision of areas where nuclear waste is stored. At the moment it seems likely, at least in Germany, that the state will pay for the costs caused by direct waste (burned rods), contaminated materials from power plants and from the extraction of plutonium and uranium, as well as other nuclear waste, and costs for storage of contaminated waste, because the industry has insufficient resources.[57] In the US, utility companies pay a fixed fee per kilowatt-hour into a disposal fund administered by the Department of Energy.

In Great Britain, this topic has led in April 2005 to the creation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

Nuclear proliferation

Main article: Nuclear proliferation

Another argument against nuclear energy is the potential for close connection of civil and military usage (which in most countries are kept strictly separate). In manufacturing nuclear fuel rods, the fraction of the fissile uranium isotope 235 has to be (except in CANDU reactors) increased from the natural fraction from 0.7 to 5% in order to be able to create a chain reaction. A station for the enrichment of uranium (e.g. the German station at Gronau) could—with extreme difficulty—increase the amount of U-235 to above 80% so it could be used in a weapon. Therefore, some of the techniques of uranium enrichment are kept secret (e.g. gaseous diffusion, gas centrifuge, AVLIS and nuclear reprocessing).

Opponents of nuclear power argue that it is not possible to discriminate between civil and military usage, and therefore that nuclear power contributes to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. While it is possible to operate a nuclear power plant with non-weaponized materials, having a reactor brings with it access to materials and facilities which can be used in special low burn military reactors and reprocessed into Plutonium which is the required ingredient for building a high yield nuclear weapon. Israel, India, North Korea, and South Africa (which later gave up its nuclear weapons) all started "peaceful" nuclear power programs with research reactors that were later used to make weapons-grade plutonium, and there is great concern that Iran's program has a similar goal, to enrich uranium to weapons-grade. Israel, Iran and North Korea[58][59] do not have nuclear power plants at present, while South Africa started up its power plant long after acquiring nuclear weapons.

Design and construction of nuclear explosives based on normal reactor-grade plutonium would be difficult and unreliable, and has not so far been done.[60][61]

Much popular concern about possible weapons proliferation arises from considering the fissile materials themselves. For instance, in relation to the plutonium contained in spent fuel discharged each year from the world's commercial nuclear power reactors, it is correctly but misleadingly asserted that "only a few kilograms of plutonium are required to make a bomb". Furthermore, no nation is without enough indigenous uranium to construct a few weapons (however, that uranium would have to be enriched).

Plutonium is a substance of varying properties depending on its source. It consists of several different isotopes, including Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-240, and Pu-241. All of these are plutonium but not all are fissile - only Pu-239 and Pu-241 can undergo fission in a normal reactor. Plutonium-239 by itself is an excellent nuclear fuel. It has also been used extensively for nuclear weapons because it has a relatively low spontaneous fission rate and a low critical mass. Consequently plutonium-239, with only a few percent of the other isotopes present, is often called "weapons-grade" plutonium. This was used in the Nagasaki bomb in 1945 and in many other nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, "reactor-grade" plutonium as routinely produced in all commercial nuclear power reactors, and which may be separated by reprocessing the spent fuel from them, is not the same thing at all. It contains a large proportion - up to 40% - of the heavier plutonium isotopes, especially Pu-240, due to it having remained in the reactor for a relatively long time. This is not a particular problem for re-use of the plutonium in mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for reactors, but it seriously affects the suitability of the material for nuclear weapons. Due to spontaneous fission of Pu-240, only a very low level of it is tolerable in material for making weapons. Design and construction of nuclear explosives based on normal (i.e. routinely discharged) reactor-grade plutonium would be difficult and unreliable, and has not so far been done. A nuclear device has been made however from low-burned plutonium from a Magnox nuclear reactor. It was tested in 1962. Its composition was never officially released but was evidently around 90% of fissile Pu-239. This method of production was very expensive, unreliable and easily detectable (fuel has to stay in the reactor for relatively short period (few weeks) as opposed to normal use (few years)), and with a relatively small yield. All these factors contributed to the fact that apart from the test device used in 1962 no new ones were created.[62],[63]

Arguments against the phase-out

Greenhouse gases and environmental protection

There has recently been a renewed interest in nuclear energy as a solution to dwindling oil reserves and global warming because electricity demand is increasing and nuclear power generates virtually no greenhouse gases, in contrast to common alternatives such as coal. It has been argued for nuclear power as a solution to the greenhouse effect (e.g. "nukes are green."[64][65][66]) This has been disputed by several environmentalist organizations.[67]

Germany has combined the phase-out with an initiative for renewable energy and wants to increase the efficiency of fossil power plants in an effort to reduce the reliance on coal. According to the German Minister Jürgen Trittin, in 2020, this will cut carbon dioxide emissions by 40% compared with 1990 levels. Germany has become one of the leaders in the efforts to fulfil the Kyoto protocol. Critics of the German policy have called it a contradiction to abandon nuclear power and build up renewable energy as both have very low CO2 emissions.[68]

Nuclear reactors do not emit greenhouse gases or ash during normal operation; however the mining and processing of uranium involves emissions. Emissions that arise from whole life cycle are comparable to wind energy.[69] However, an issue of debate [70] is that greenhouse emissions from mining, milling and enrichment may be substantially greater in the future as the world's reserves of high grade uranium are depleted, and low grade uranium is increasingly used. [71] This view is not supported by the nuclear power industry.

In a semi-technical paper Storm van Leeuwen & Smith named “Is Nuclear Power Sustainable? and its May 2002 successor: Can Nuclear Power Provide Energy for the Future; would it solve the CO2-emission problem?”. In these they alleged that nuclear power would eventually surpass fossil fuels in green house gases emission as high grade ore becomes scarce, thus putting in doubt it’s substantiality and part of environmental protection. However this paper has been dismissed as false by industry. Published results on ore extraction are showing 99% advantage for nuclear based generation on the bases of CO2 emissions over fossil fuels. Thus authors greatly reduced its paper and republished it in 2005, omitting most of numerical values they used in previous paper. Even these are proved wrong by life cycle studies (e.g. Vattenfal). All this heavily disputes article which forecasts are alleged wrong for basis for them, current data, is proven wrong even 3:1 in some cases. For greater details please review [[72]] [73]

Nuclear reactors and other types of power plants raise the temperature of the rivers used to cool them, which can pose a health hazard for fish in certain eco systems. This can include species of fish already near extinction as a consequence of hydropower and other human activities. This can be greatly reduced by using cooling towers, which are deployed in places where excessive warming is deemed unacceptable. All waste products are contained and stored. This is distinct from other energy sources such as coal or oil where pollution is pumped directly into the surrounding environment. Without [Nuclear Power Plants] the United States would release nearly 700 million metric tons more carbon dioxide annually. That's approximately the same amount of carbon dioxide now produced annually by automobiles in the United States. [74]

Nuclear waste becomes less radioactive over time. After 50 years 99.1% of radiation will have been emitted.[75] This is in sharp contrast with arsenic and other chemicals that are stable and will exist forever and are released burning coal. Despite being most controversial, proponents of nuclear energy contend that the underground solution for permanent disposal of waste is well tested and proven. They point out the natural example of Oklo, nature’s own nuclear waste repository, where waste has been stored for approximately 2 billion years with minimal contamination of the surrounding ecosystem.[76] Nuclear waste is also small in volume and accounts for less than 1% (by volume) of heavily toxic waste in industrial countries.[77] 96% of high nuclear waste could be recycled and reused, were the additional risks of proliferation deemed acceptable.[78]

According to antinuclear activists, leakages of radioactive contamination put the safety of NPPs in general into question. It is also feared, nuclear power plants with their contamination are a health hazard. To counter these concerns all nuclear operators are obliged to measure radiation on and around their sites as well to report all particles and radiation they emit. This has to be attested by an independent audit office. This practice is more less the same in all countries that are members of IAEA. In case there is significant release, i.e. above prescribed limits defined by NCRP and obligatory for all IAEA members, it has to be reported to IAEA and be given INES mark 5 or higher, which is very rare.[79] INES events in last 6 months can be reviewed here.[80] All equipment is regulary checked. In addition all operators are obliged to release full lists of measurements into the public domain.[81] An average individual living near a nuclear plant will on average get from it around 1% of natural radiation levels.[82][83] That is well within safety limits. In Great Britain, detailed studies carried out by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) in 2003 found no evidence of raised childhood cancer around nuclear power plants. They did find an excess of leukaemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) near other nuclear installations including AWE Burghfield, UKAEA Dounreay and BNFL's Sellafield plant although COMARE said that a link with nuclear material is unlikely. COMARE's opinion is that "the excesses around Sellafield and Dounreay are unlikely to be due to chance, although there is not at present a convincing explanation for them".[84][85]

Energy independence

In some nations there may be no viable alternatives. In the words of the French, "We have no coal, we have no oil, we have no gas, we have no choice." Critics of a phase-out everywhere argue that nuclear power stations could not be compensated for and predict an energy crisis or argue that only coal could possibly compensate for nuclear power and CO2 emissions will increase tremendously or an increase in energy imports either of nuclear power or of natural oil. Nuclear power has been relatively unaffected by embargoes, as uranium is mined in reliable countries such as Australia and Canada unlike, for example, some large natural gas suppliers, which include states of the former Soviet Union.[86][87]

Also, nuclear power has a high energy return on energy investment (EROI). Using life cycle analysis, it takes 4 to 5 months of energy production from the nuclear plant to fully pay back the initial energy investment.[88] Advocates also claim that it is possible to relatively rapidly increase the number of plants. Typical new reactor designs have a construction time of three to four years.[89]

Economics

An argument for proponents of nuclear power is energy economics. They state that nuclear energy is the only power source which explicitly factors the estimated costs for waste containment and plant decommissioning into its overall cost, and that the quoted cost of fossil fuel plants is deceptively low for this reason. Advocates of nuclear power argue that nuclear power is a cost-competitive and environmentally friendly way to produce energy versus fossil fuels when taking into account externalities associated with both forms of energy production.[90]

In some places, especially where the coal mines are far away from the plants, nuclear is cheaper, and in others it is roughly the same price or more expensive. The same comparisons can be made with gas and oil. However the Kyoto protocol requires all polluters to pay for the right to pollute and that could make nuclear even more competitive. Also nuclear power has one of the lowest external costs, i.e. cost to the environment and people.[91] These are not factored into price but are paid by society and will partly be included by the Kyoto protocol. In the UK for example nuclear external costs are 0.25 euro cents per kWh. That is a bit more than for wind which is rated at 0.15 euro cents per kWh, but considerably less than for coal which is at 4 to 7 euro cents per kWh, oil which is 3 to 5 euro cents per kWh, gas which is 1 to 2 euro cents per kWh and biomass which is at 1 euro cents per kWh. In other European countries it is more or less the same.[92]

Also, the cost of many renewables would be increased if they included necessary back-up power sources due to their intermittent nature. It has been calculated that wind power, one of the major hopes for proponents of the phase-out, costs three times as much as average electricity in Germany.[93]

While in many countries nuclear power is unpopular, in times of rising prices for fossil fuels, arguments for nuclear power come up again (compare [94]).

Safety standards

Proponents of nuclear energy state nuclear plants are safe and protected against attacks. Containment buildings are strongly reinforced and highly guarded (see [95] and [96]). George W. Bush, the President of the USA, called nuclear power one of America's safest energy sources in his speech about energy policy.[97]

Proponents of nuclear power also believe that the Chernobyl accident was unique and occurred only because of a combination of poor design and unauthorized tests - also, the Chernobyl reactors did not have full containment buildings. They point out that no such accidents have occurred in Western reactors, which are now by far the most common design. A commonly cited example is the Three Mile Island accident, which did not release significant amounts of radioactive particles despite a nuclear meltdown comparable in magnitude to Chernobyl; this is attributed to better design and containment at Three Mile Island. These are the only major accidents in civilian nuclear power plant accidents.[98]

Proponents of nuclear energy also point out the great safety level for workers in the industry. Nuclear power resulted in 8 immediate deaths per TWy of electricity. That is significantly lower than the figure for Coal 342, Natural Gas 85, and Hydro 883. Data is gathered in period 1970-1992.[99]

See also

References

External links

Germany

Further readings

  • William D. Nordhaus, The Swedish Nuclear Dilemma - Energy and the Environment. 1997. Hardcover, ISBN 0-915707-84-5.
  • Bernard Leonard Cohen, The Nuclear Energy Option: An Alternative for the 90's. 1990. Hardcover. ISBN 0306435675. Bernard Cohen's homepage contains the full text of the book.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_power_phase-out&oldid=51489560"