Putting science
at the heart of development
Editorials
Nuclear power is safe and crucial in fighting climate change, but must be managed properly.
Flickr/zugaldia
The world still needs nuclear power — but it must be safer and more transparent.
Earlier this month, an explosion in the energy sector caused immense destruction, costing the lives of more than 40 people ... but most of us barely noticed it.
The deaths of the coal miners, up to 4,000 feet below ground in western Pakistan, were eclipsed by the international attention given to the crisis in another energy sector — nuclear power — as engineers working in the aftermath of a major earthquake in Japan lost control of the temperature of a series of reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
At Fukushima Daiichi no-one has died from radiation exposure, though two workers were taken to hospital yesterday.
Accidents at nuclear power plants are rare. In contrast, coal-mining disasters are too frequent to merit much attention — more than 6,000 coal miners died in 2004 in China alone. Uranium-mining also kills, but on a much smaller scale.
Indeed, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), if coal, hydroelectric, natural gas and nuclear energy are analysed from cradle to grave, nuclear power is the safest.
Impact on climate change
The balance between the risks posed by nuclear power and coal is even more skewed if the effects of burning fossil fuels on global warming are taken into account. Coal-fired energy will indirectly cause many more deaths than the IEA estimates, because the greenhouse gases emitted as it burns contribute to climate change.
The WHO says that climate change is already killing 150,000 people a year by increasing extreme weather conditions and the geographical range of infectious diseases, and by straining food production systems because of droughts, floods and temperature changes.
The Pakistan coal-mining accident has not led to calls for the world to reconsider its global addiction to coal-fired power stations. But the accident at Fukushima has triggered global introspection on the wisdom of pursuing nuclear power. So far, Germany has temporarily shut down seven reactors, and China has suspended approval for new reactors. Pressure groups opposed to nuclear power are at work on governments across the world.
The truth is that all energy choices carry risks. Handled properly, nuclear power remains a relatively safe option. And it is currently the key industrial-scale energy source that can help us in the fight against climate change.
Learning from Fukushima
The Fukushima plant was destroyed as a result of the 10-metre-high tsunami that washed onto the Japanese north-east coast after the magnitude 9 earthquake of 11 March.
The earthquake destroyed the plant's principal power supply and the wave took out its backup electricity sources, leaving four reactor buildings — including some ponds containing spent fuel rods — bereft of coolant.
Lessons are already being learnt from the incident. For example, reactors designed in the 1970s have weaknesses to which experts had already drawn attention, and should be upgraded or decommissioned. New technologies are much safer.
And there is a need for good governance, openness and transparency in operating nuclear facilities if public trust is to be maintained. One of the main reasons for the high level of public anxiety in Japan following the disaster is that the company responsible for operating the plant, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, has a long history of covering up embarrassing information about its operations.
As nuclear power spreads to less developed countries without deep repositories of expertise, we should consider a regulatory role for the International Atomic Energy Authority, instead of its current role of helping countries upgrade their safety and prepare for emergencies.
A need for nuclear
Those already opposed to nuclear power are drawing more far-reaching conclusions. Likening the accident to the meltdown at Chernobyl, they say that the Fukushima accident demonstrates that nuclear power is unacceptably dangerous and should be phased out in favour of other energy sources.
But a flight from nuclear power would risk a disastrous run on fossil fuels — pumping yet more greenhouse gases into a carbon-laden atmosphere. It may also lead to a prematurely high demand for biofuels, current versions of which could have a woeful effect on the global food supply and might even cause a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, according to some models.
Renewable energy is another alternative and great advances are being made in developing it. Middle Eastern and North African countries are considering how to turn their hot deserts into solar thermal power sources, and photovoltaics have an important role in servicing the 1.5 billion off-grid poor in the developing world.
Renewables certainly hold great promise and might one day be a major part of greener, cleaner energy systems. But they face major problems — most importantly, they cannot yet produce the vast quantities of centralised, guaranteed power of the kind that makes a nation's industry and infrastructure function. Time and investment may solve these problems. But it will take decades.
The world — and that includes developing countries — needs nuclear power. After Fukushima, efforts should be focused on making it modern and safe, with transparent operations embedded in well-governed societies. Apolitical commitment to transparency is vital.
Like any other source of energy, nuclear poses risks, and these need to be managed properly. But, ultimately, climate change is the bigger threat. Choosing to combat it without nuclear power carries a far greater risk.
Aisling Irwin
News and features editor, SciDev.Net
Comments (14)
bawalther ( Germany )
28 March 2011
I do not agree with these conclusions, and I articulated why in these two editorials:
Nuclear is no answer (28 March 2011)
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/03/28/2003499288
http://blog.taiwan-guide.org/2011/03/sustainable-future/
Vision for a sustainable future
Dr. Bruno Walther
Research Fellow
Taiwan Endemic Species Research Institute (TESRI)
1 Ming-Shen East Road, Jiji, Nantou 552, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Abdoulie Jeng ( Project Food First | Gambia )
28 March 2011
It is sad that the world still relies too much on technologies that do destroy the environment than curing it. This has caused the continuous hazardous behaviors of the climate beyond control. We need to limit our use of advance technical practices that destroy man´s habitat on this planet
Aunty Isotope ( Australia )
28 March 2011
No way. The nuclear industry has a belching tailpipe and its wheels have fallen off. It survives by cover-ups, lies, leaks, spills and contamination and billions of dollars of government subsidies. Evil is as evil does.
And we know about Chernobyl don't we? The mortality head count from the west and the IAEA and the mortality head count published by radiation scientists in Belarus who collected data from 5,000 papers never before published in English. Thanks but no thanks.
John Daly ( United States of America )
28 March 2011
I am concerned not only that too many nuclear plants are old and in fact have exceeded their design lifetime, but that the dearth in new plants for decades has slowed the rate of improvement in plant design. Engineers can do a lot better now than the old plants now in operation.
Eduardo ( University of Puerto Rico | Puerto Rico )
28 March 2011
SciDev.net should be ashamed of publishing an editorial supporting nuclear energy! We should oppose ALL forms of environmental contamination, including coal, probably the worst also. REAL development must be sustainable and also decentralized. Continuous economic "growth" is dangerous concept followed by wrong economists and bad politicians.
Marjorie Mazel Hecht ( United States of America )
28 March 2011
I am glad to see this article! Without the energy flux dense power of fission (and later fusion), we will not be able to support a growing world population at a decent living standard. The so-called renewables cannot support an industrial society.
People opposed to nuclear, whether they know it or not, are joining the Malthusian ranks of Prince Philip, who wants to kill off three quarters of the world's population, starting of course in the developing sector.
On Chernobyl, this article, written by Zbigniew Jaworowski, the physician/nuclear scientist in charge of radiation protection at the time of the accident, puts radiation and radiophobia in perspective.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Summer_2010/Observations_Chernobyl.pdf
tchad49 ( Switzerland )
29 March 2011
Nuclear and fossil fuel advocates both dismiss renewables with equal vehemence. These are established industries, with strong lobbies, and both receive massive subsidies from "cradle to grave," from mining and drilling to waste storage and a failure to capture externalities in the cost. Most importantly, proponents of these dirty-tech energy sources fail to acknowledge (1) that wind is now competitive with coal and natural gas for electricity production at source; and (2) that solar is on the verge of reaching “grid parity” for consumers, and the trajectory of innovation in battery and solar technology puts us now on the very cusp of a revolution in solar energy production. Malthusians always assume current technology as fixed, and then project disasters based on current social and environmental trends. But they are always wrong (so far) because technology is never fixed. Finally: the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report several months ago that counted all the US state and federal subsidies for nuclear power, from "cradle-to-grave," from mining and extraction to waste storage. Total subsidies exceeded the cost of the electricity produced. In other words, the true cost of that electricity from nuclear power should be twice its apparent cost. If we threw subsidies of this magnitude at wind and solar, these industries would not just grow at 50% per year (as they do now) but even faster.
Aunty Isotope ( Australia )
30 March 2011
Marjorie Mazel Hecht
Can Zbigniew Jaworowski with any credibility, refute the statistics of radiation experts in Belarus who have estimated human mortalites of the Chernobyl disaster now exceed one million?:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html
MarkGoldes ( United States of America )
31 March 2011
Far safer alternatives to fossil fuels and Uranium fueled nuclear plants are being born.
For example, a compact, inexpensive, green, Low Energy Nuclear Reactor (LENR) invented by Andrea Rossi is now in production.
It is inherently much safer than existing nukes and uses non-radioactive Nickel, not radioactive Uranium, as fuel.
Power cost is projected at one penny per kilowatt hour.
No nuclear waste is produced.
Other new technology might employ used nuclear fuel rods to run large diesel engines to generate electricity and reduce the dangerous waste from existing nukes on-site.
See Cold Fusion and Black Swans at www.aesopinstitute.org to learn more.
Black Swans are highly improbable developments with huge potential impact.
A one Megawatt heating plant has been approved to open in Greece, in October. A similar plant is under negotiation for construction in the USA.
A nuclear scientist has said when these small modular units, which can be linked like solar panels to produce any desired power level, begin producing inexpensive electricity it will start a "stampede".
Several competitive designs are being developed. Early regulatory approval has been received in Greece and may prove possible here.
These technologies will cost-competitively undercut any need for new Uranium fueled nuclear plant production and allow the replacement of existing installations as rapidly as mass manufacturing and concerned parties will permit.
Revolutionary Black Swan designs have no possible chance of a meltdown!
They can become a building block for decentralized energy generation.
Big is fragile, dangerous and ugly. Small is still beautiful.
Marjorie Mazel Hecht ( United States of America )
31 March 2011
Dear Aunty Isotope:
If you read Dr. Jaworowski's article, you will see that he explains those "statistics," which are ESTIMATIONS, not actual deaths (pp. 35-36). The estimations are based on the erroneous linear no-threshold assumption, that radiation is dangerous down to zero, where harm is extrapolated from the known harm from high level doses, all the way down to zero.
The link you cite is not scientifically credible--it's Greenpeace.
You may also be interested in the update on Belarus:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Summer_2010/Belarus_Repopulation.pdf
In addition, here is a primer on the fear of radiation which covers the science:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Summer-2009/Fear_radiation.pdf
Scimeca ( Ireland )
31 March 2011
Its very difficult to put a price, in terms of lives or cost or hardship, on a whole area being evacuated for years due to a radiation leak. Suggesting developing countries need nuclear when you have already demonstrated in the article that they struggle with a relatively easy to control situation such as a coalmine is a little crazy, in my opinion - if the Fukushima accident had occurred in a less technologically advanced country than Japan it would have been much worse, hence the fear it has created in the developed world: we thought they, if anyone, could keep it under control. At least the part on photovoltaics is on the right track.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh ( Nayudamma Centre for Development Alternatives | India )
4 April 2011
Nuclear power has its own role in the Energy Mix.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
Reinhard George ( Germany )
8 April 2011
A very disappointing editorial, I must say. Nuclear will not help against climate-change, for lack of economic soundness, long-term radioactive pollution, and safety hazards. That was the conclusion of a recent study by international experts commissioned by the German government, see:
http://www.bmu.de/english/nuclear_safety/downloads/doc/44832.php
The most important fact that was discovered by the experts was this: contrary to all the lobby-noise about a "renaissance", nuclear as an industry is well on the way out already - and fast ! It simply is irrelevant for the future, and unnecessary.
Besides - and Fukushima proves it again: nuclear power-technology is "unforgiving" (Hannes Alfven) and too complex to afford a manageable interface for human operators - both in the quality-assurance of the construction and licensing processes and in the eventual plant operation. I agree with the editorial on one point: all this is well known since the 1970s, and has been confirmed again and again.
Fukushima could have been avoided. That is tragic and unforgiveable.
Dave Elliott ( United Kingdom )
31 July 2011
Nuclear is not a good option for responding to climate change - since energy has to be used in mining and processing its fuel, it's not carbon free and as uranium reserves deplete more energy will have to be used to produce useful fuel- so more emissions. What nuclear does do is soak up money that ought to be spent on safer and in many cases cheaper sustainable energy options like renewables - well suited to the developing world.
There are now several scenarios indicating that renewables could supply up to 100% of world power by 2050. Even the IEA says 75% is possible. Why bother with all the costs and risks of nuclear? That 's now the conclusion that has been reached by Germany and Japan- two very technically advanced countries.
See www.natta-renew.org for more
Add your comment
Please wait
All comments are subject to approval and we reserve the right to edit comments containing inappropriate/unsuitable language. SciDev.Net holds copyright for all material posted on the website. Please see terms of use for further details.
All SciDev.Net material is free to reproduce providing that the source and author are appropriately credited. For further details see Creative Commons.
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=spacer}
24 May 2013