ACF Sustainable Cities and Industries Campaign Coordinator
| Nuclear power has long been touted by the nuclear industry as a sustainable solution to the world's energy requirements. Despite the fact that nuclear energy production supplies less than 4 per cent of total world energy consumption, a figure virtually unchanged during the last 15 years despite major subsidies, the industry continues to make confident predictions about its future prospects.
|
A concrete sarcophagus encloses the crippled Reactor No. 4 at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in an attempt to prevent any further release of radioactivity. Significant structural flaws have become evident and further radiation release remains high. |
| However, there are a number of reasons why nuclear power will never be a solution to the world's demand for clean and green energy. The radioactive wastes generated in nuclear power production must be isolated from the biosphere for in some cases hundreds of thousands of years before they cease to be dangerous. Despite enormous research efforts and expenditure, an effective long-term waste storage scheme is yet to be developed. | |
| Nuclear reactor accidents have undermined arguments for the safety of nuclear power. The Chernobyl nuclear accident contaminated 160,000 square kilometres of land, displaced at least 400,000 people and led to the premature deaths of incalculable numbers of people. In addition, ground water contamination, a potentially massive problem, is only just becoming evident. Claims by the nuclear industry that the 'safer' western-style reactors are not prone to Chernobyl-like disasters are dubious, given the near disasters at Windscale-Sellafield in the UK, Three Mile Island in the US and at the Monju reactor in Japan. | 
A young patient at the cancer clinic in the National Centre for Radiation Medicine in Ukraine. Many thousands of people have died or had their life shortened by the release of radioactivity following the Chernobyl disaster. |
The Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and other multilateral and bilateral safeguards are unable to prevent 'peaceful' nuclear power programs being linked to the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear power programs involve nuclear scientists and technicians, research facilities and enriched uranium. In addition, spent fuel from reactors contains large quantities of plutonium. Most of this requires reprocessing to bring it to weapons-grade but safeguards provide only a partial barrier to this.
The potential for a power-weapons link has been greatly increased by the introduction of fast-breeder reactors that produce weapons-grade plutonium. The French superphoenix reactor alone is estimated to produce about 330 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium each year, enough to produce about 60 bombs. Some of the plutonium fuel for the superphoenix has almost certainly been produced from Australian uranium.
Spiralling costs and concerns about reactor safety and waste disposal have caused the nuclear power industry to stall in industrialised countries. The industry has now shifted its attention to rapidly developing countries such as Indonesia. In those countries, generally poor environmental and safety standards can only exacerbate the environmental risks associated with nuclear power. Furthermore, there is little doubt that a key motivation of many governments for acquiring nuclear power is to position themselves to develop nuclear weapons capability.
Nuclear power is not the answer to the world's need for a long-term supply of 'clean' and safe energy. But what are the alternatives, given the problematic nature of fossil-fuel energy sources such as coal, oil and gas?
In the short to medium term, major energy-efficiency programs and selective use of less greenhouse-intensive fossil fuel-based systems, such as natural gas and co-generation, can provide a transitional phase to sustainable energy systems. The recently released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report has estimated that energy-efficiency measures alone could cost-effectively reduce energy consumption in most industrialised countries by 20-30 per cent.
In the longer term, sustainable energy systems will have to be nuclear free and largely fossil-fuel free. Renewable systems, in particular solar energy, offer the best hope of providing the world with a safe, clean and sustainable energy supply. Solar radiation striking the earth each year is equal to about 178,000 terrawatts or about 15,000 times current global energy consumption.
Opponents of renewable energy – usually proponents of nuclear power, fossil fuels or both – frequently claim that it is either impossible, impractical or untried. But most renewable technologies are now well proven. In fact, renewable energy – solar, wind, micro-hydro, tidal and sustainably harvested biomass – already meets about 13 per cent of the world's commercial energy needs.
The Expert Group on Renewable Energy Technologies (EGRET) in Australia recently concluded that wide-scale application of solar technologies will be capable of producing electricity for around 5 cents/kWh within a few years. This would put solar power close to the costs of coal-fired electricity in Australia and 40-60 per cent below the cost of nuclear power in industrialised countries.
The application of these systems will continue to be held back while successive Australian governments continue to encourage the domestic uptake of fossil-fuel-based energy and the growth abroad of nuclear and coal-fired power.
Article from "Unclean, Unsafe & Unwanted - The Nuclear Industry Nightmare",
a special insert prepared for the June 1996 issue of Habitat,
magazine of the Australian Conservation Foundation.
Chernobyl photos - Greenpeace/Shirley.
Back to the SEA-US Front Page