Sorry, no Nukes please

Europe does not need nuclear power which can be dangerous and is not a solution to climate change

Mehru Jaffer Vienna

According to anti-nuclear Europeans, nuclear power is the most dirty and dangerous form of energy. It is an expensive technology that poses a problem and is not the solution to climate change.  At 'Science or fiction: Is there a future for nuclear?' an international conference on fusion energy and new nuclear reactor models hosted in Vienna by Global 2000 and Friends of the Earth — Austria, participants focused on climate change and the fair distribution of resources and energy.

Indeed, once again, the conclusion is that Europe must stop wasting the taxpayer's money to pursue a dangerous and expensive technology like nuclear power. The anti-nuclear groups feel that Europe does not need nuclear power. Instead, it needs investment in renewable energies as well as in cutting back energy waste.

Energy policy stands at a crossroad today waiting for the world to decide whether going nuclear is a sustainable option. Since global warming is already upon the world, it is said that there is no time to test costly and time-consuming technologies. The Friends of the Earth suggest safer technologies that are cheaper and need refinement to improve efficiency.

Antony Frogatt, an independent consultant on nuclear issues who held a workshop on the impact of public spending and political support for nuclear energy on energy saving, efficiency and renewable energies, feels that minimising the energy demand is a condition for a sustainable energy supply by renewables. Instead of importing oil, gas or biomass, a sustainable energy system has to rely on regional energy resources.

Nuclear power remains the least desired energy option within the European Union (EU). Yet, the EU funding for fission and fusion energy research for the period 2007 to 2011is 2.75 billion euros, a huge increase from 1.35 billion euros for the previous seven years.

In Austria, a campaign was launched in January 2007 to leave the 'Euratom' and save 40 million euros annually for investment in alternative sources of energy. The widespread consensus is that nuclear power is too risky a technology and its use will burden future generations with nuclear waste. Austria remains one of the staunchest anti-nuclear members of the EU with public opinion as low as five per cent in favour of nuclear energy.

The EU supports the expensive nuclear industry through the Euratom Treaty signed in 1957. All EU member states are automatically members of Euratom, including nations like Austria that do not have nuclear power. An opinion poll in March 2007 showed that 63 per cent of Austrians favour withdrawal from Euratom. 

Thomas Lackner, Project Coordinator, Friends of the Earth, regretted that none of the pro-nuclear experts who were invited made it to the conference that ended with an open discussion with the public on nuclear fusion. “What we would like to see are more debates on the nuclear issue so that the public can decide for itself,” Lackner told Hardnews.

The perception here is that the public is often excluded from essential political decisions like the use of nuclear energy. Technocratic paternalism and political preferences often overlook elements that are essentially social. The demand is to identify the social in the technical, to allow discussions on technical issues and social consequences in a culture of transparency and openness. “Technical aspects have to be discussed and understood before social choices are made by ordinary people who don't know enough about nuclear issues,” Lackner said.

Seven countries including China, India, Japan, the US, Korea, Russia, the European Union and Switzerland agreed in November 2006 to contribute to the financing of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) located in the south of France on an existing nuclear site near Cadarache. A colossal project like ITER is lucrative for a wide range of companies from the construction industry to nuclear suppliers.

It is the big players in the electricity business who love big nuclear power plants that assure their monopoly over the electricity market. Since electricity is traded at the stock exchange, high prices are maintained by shutting down plants to create shortages. The big players are not interested in modernising and improving power grids. They are not interested in giving municipalities control over regional grids. “Many small grids with regional input from renewable sources could give control to consumers and could be part of a bigger national grid where surplus can be exchanged when needed,” recommend David Reinberger from the Viennese Office for Environment Protection. His views were shared by Antonia Wenisch and Richard Kromp from the Austrian Institute of Ecology in Science or Fiction in a booklet distributed at the conference.

Foratom, the European trade agency for the nuclear industry, talks of a nuclear renaissance that will minimise CO2 emissions. Forecasts indicate a slow growth of nuclear power by 2030. Besides, nuclear energy is not CO2 free if the whole uranium fuel cycle is taken into consideration. The advantage of nuclear power plants from a climate perspective is that they do not emit CO2 directly. However, the complex process dealing with highly dangerous radioactive material and the use of fossil fuels is what causes greenhouse gas emissions.

With numerous studies behind her, Professor Helga Kromp-Kolb, Meteorology Department, Vienna University, said that the earth's uranium is limited, making the technology unsustainable in the long run. Uranium is the sole source of nuclear power and within a few years these reserves of highly enriched uranium will run out and all uranium will have to be mined.

Experts say that uranium mining destroys the landscape and contaminates soil, air and water in the mining regions. A dangerous legacy is nuclear waste or spent nuclear fuel at the so called back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. This can devastate the environment and humans for millions of years.

Uranium maybe the buzz word today but as high grade uranium stocks decrease, the CO2 related to mining uranium will increase. After 2070, uranium will fall from the energy cliff and the nuclear system will consume more energy than it is able to produce. According to the latest report of the Austrian Nuclear Advisory Board, nuclear installations can only be marginally protected against terrorist attacks. The Friends of the Earth point to the real possibility of radioactive material being used to build nuclear weapons with global terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear material posing serious security threats to nuclear power stations. 

In 1995, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) established an illicit trafficking database to facilitate the exchange of authoritative information related to trafficking in radioactive materials. In a 2006 report, 85 incidents of theft or loss of nuclear and other radioactive materials were mentioned. In about 75 per cent of the cases, the material lost or stolen is never recovered.

Frogatt adds that reactors cannot be sufficiently protected against terrorist threats, including the crash of an airliner into reactor buildings. Talking to the press at 'Global Development: Science and Policies for the Future' — another conference held here on the 35th anniversary of the Austria based- International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) — Professor Kirit S Parikh, member of the Planning Commission of India in-charge of energy, water and perspective planning said that the nuclear option is real for the country. India's nuclear industry is largely without IAEA safeguards. However, thus far, it is seen as scrupulous in ensuring that its weapons material and technology are guarded against commercial or illicit export.