Nuclear is not climate solution: report

[nabraxas]

June 28, 2007 - 6:34AM

The world must start building nuclear power plants at the unprecedented rate of four a month from now on if nuclear energy is to play a serious part in fighting global warming, a leading think-tank says.

Not only is this impossible for logistical reasons, but it has major implications for world security because of nuclear weapons proliferation, the Oxford Research Group said in its report "Too Hot To Handle - The future of civil nuclear power".

The report fired a series of broadsides against the growing momentum for more nuclear-generated electricity to help cut climate-warming carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels.

"A world-wide nuclear renaissance is beyond the capacity of the nuclear industry to deliver and would stretch to breaking point the capacity of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to monitor and safeguard civil nuclear power," it said.

The report comes less than a week after the World Energy Council - the global organisation of electricity generators - said nuclear power had to be a significant part of the new energy mix both to beat global warming and guarantee security.

Nuclear power now provides about 16 per cent of a world electricity demand that is set to at least keep pace with the growth in population - predicted to rise by more than half to 10 billion people by 2075.

The report said that if it was to play a significant part in curbing carbon emissions, nuclear power would have to provide one-third of electricity by 2075.

That, it said, meant building four new nuclear plants a month, every month, globally for the next 70 years.

Not only had top civil nuclear power France, which gets 78 per cent of its electricity from 59 nuclear reactors, never got remotely near that rate of construction, but the implications for wholesale weapons proliferation were overwhelming, it said.

"Unless it can be demonstrated with certainty that nuclear power can make a major contribution to global CO2 mitigation, nuclear power should be taken out of the mix," the report said.

Proponents say nuclear power emits little of the carbon dioxide that scientists say is the major cause of global warming, while opponents point to the lethal toxicity that lingers for thousands of years.

The report said there were 429 reactors in operation, ranging from 103 in the United States to one in Armenia, with 25 more under construction, 76 planned and 162 proposed.

It noted not only major nuclear expansion plans in boom economy China - which is already building two coal-fired plants a week - but nascent interest across the oil-rich Middle East and the likelihood of demand from across Africa and Asia.

Surging demand would place great strains on supplies of uranium ore - probably leading to exploitation of poorer grades and therefore more carbon expended on extraction and refining.

This would push development of fast breeder reactors which produce more radioactive fuel than they consume, solving the fuel problem but creating a security nightmare, the report said.

The report said if the 2075 scenario came about then 4,000 tonnes of plutonium would be being processed into reactor fuel each year - twenty times the current military stockpile.

The probabilities were large that some of this plutonium would end up in the wrong hands and be used as a "dirty" bomb even if it was not used to make a sophisticated nuclear device.

© 2007 Reuters

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Nuclea...2624023540.html

[komodo]

what i think these nuclear lobbies are really alarmed about is that, yes, nuclear power is vital if we are to continue the centralised, single bottom line approach to power generation, controlled by a bunch of oligarchs who profit immensely from it.

the alternative is to scrap the model of the big single power source which feeds everyone according to the pricing of it's controllers, and move to a decentralised power grid. nationalistic governments and profit-based power corporations are scared of this model and are digging in around nuclear as a means to continue business-as-usual, rather than face up to a revolution in the way we produce and consume energy.

if china and india boom on fossil fuels, the greenhouse effect will be stupendous. the best option would be to pull back on global industrialisation (ie. for first world countries to demand less cheap disposable goods with high embodied energy costs) and seek out economic stability, if not contraction, with redistribution and intelligent consumption the key rather that continued "growth" (as per cancer).

however, this is not going to happen as human beings are generally too self absorbed to think beyond their own interests. so ok, build nuclear plants in china and india, its a damn sight better than fossil fuels (ie. possibility of catastrophic environmental consequence rather than certainty).

first world countries have NO NEED for nuclear power, it's purely a strategic issue about who controls power. we can massively increase our efficiency, clean up the fossil fuel stations we're running as much as possible as an interim measure while we invest heavily in renewables and most important superconductors. with a global energy superconductor network, large scale solar installations in the deserts of the world can produce easily enough power around the clock to run the entire built environment of global industry/transport/habitat. there are international study groups in place looking at these future options.

proliferation of nuclear energy in australia would be a crime, to prop up centralised profiteers.

[komodo]

Edited June 30, 2007 by komodo